Not a good sign

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I do sometimes have common sense.

My common sense tells me that the it is likely that as the Baltimore DA was looking at prosecuting the police officers involved in the Gray case he would have wanted to try the strongest case first.   It seems that given the chance of riots if "justice" is not done that they would have wanted to first trial to be their best shot at a conviction.  

The fact that the first trial ended in a hung jury seems to indicate that there was not an overwhelming amount of evidence of the officers guilt.   Or, it is all one big conspiracy designed to encourage other police officers to brutally murder unarmed innocent African American youths for doing nothing.

Anyway, if this continues I suspect that there will be increasing unrest from the pro-Freddie side of things.  Up to and possibly inevitably more riots if "justice" doesn't happen.

The problems with this are twofold.

1.  This is what is going to happen when prosecutions are driven by political considerations and not by evidence of guilt.

2.  There are two many folks out there who define "justice" as seeing these cops get convicted with lengthy prison terms  no matter what the evidence actually demonstrates.


I could be wrong, it is perfectly possible that they will find enough of these officers guilty to satisfy the mobs.   It's perfectly possible that some of these cops are actually guilty and deserve to be punished.   It's also perfectly possible that the mobs will realize that actual justice has nothing to do with their demands and that they will accept whatever verdicts are rendered.

Common Denominator

Has anyone ever encountered someone who manages to alienate virtually everyone they come into contact with?   I think we all probably have.

The guy who was my direct supervisor at work a couple of years ago comes to mind.  Every time he came around all he did was point out all of the things that I hadn't done the way he thought they should be.  To be fair, he did point out some legitimate things I needed to do better, all of which I acknowledged and improved.   At first I really gave a lot of serious though to his criticism, I wanted to as honestly as possible asses my performance and try to figure out if he was right in all of his criticisms.   Then I had the opportunity to see how he interacted with one of the other people he supervised for an extended period of time, who was treated much worse than I was.   At that point, I realized that we were dealing with someone who just sucked at the supervisory part of his job.   He just didn't get it.

I think there are plenty of these types of people around.   They manage to offend or alienate the people they work with and even their friends without necessarily trying.    The thing I wonder is, do they even realize that this is happening.   I tend to see people like this blame others pretty frequently for the broken relationships.    It's almost like they are unaware of how they affect the people around them.

As someone who tries to be as realistic as possible with myself, about myself.  As well as someone who has some people who I can rely on for honest feedback.   What I'd like to ask one of these folks is; "At some point, don't you have to look around, and honestly assess your broken relationships?".   It seems like you have to see the common denominator, which is you.

Honestly, I have a great deal of compassion for people like this, it must be painful to go through life with a trail of co-workers or employees who you've alienated and lots of ex friends.    I'd be interested to see how people deal with this, and I'd love to know how I can be a person who is a positive influence.  

Sometimes I honestly (in the case of my supervisor) just don't care that much and am happy to avoid them as much as possible and be as pleasant as I can when I'm around them.   But in other cases I see the pain, anger, frustration, and discord these folks leave behind and I'm just filled with sadness at all of the carnage.

I know that the first, best answer is to pray both for these people and for those they hurt.  I wish I was better at it.

Hate

Recently, I've seen a lot of people on various media and social media outlets addressing the issue of how to handle the Syrian refugees.   Most of the responses from those who would identify as progressive christians tend to go something like this.

"We need to show love for the least of these because Jesus was once a homeless refugee"

Well, that sounds very loving and pious, but what about specifics?   How specifically do these folks suggest that we show love to these people?

The most common response I've heard is that we need to bring tens of thousands of these refugees to the US, with out screening them to much because they're refugees.  

OK, what then?

What happens after we bring X number of refugees into the US?  

I suspect that a number of these people will end up on some sort of public assistance for  some undefined period of time.  Which, of course, has to be paid for by someone.

So now, this solution looks more like, "We need to borrow billions of dollars to bring X number of refugees into the US and support them indefinitely because Jesus was once a homeless refugee."

Lest anyone think that I am heartless, I realize that there will be situations where it is necessary to do exactly the above.  Is this one of those situations?   I don't know.

Here's where I have a problem with the progressive christian "solution".

1.  It sounds like one more instance of the christian left wanting to make US federal government policy based on what they think Jesus would do.   To me that sounds like a call to at least a limited theocracy.    

2.   While the Bible talks about believers and charity, I'm not sure it ever suggests that the believers obligation to help the less fortunate can be transferred to the federal government and away from the believer.

3.   Does it address the why question?   Why are their all these refugees and what can be done to solve the problem?


Ultimately it's the why that really get's me.    The reason why we have this refugee crisis is that a bunch of radical Muslims want to establish a caliphate and don't appear to care what harm that goal causes for anyone in their way.    Or, put another way, "Why do we have this crisis?  ISIS.".

So, why don't we invest in actually solving the problem?   What would the christian left have to say about the best way to do that?

I haven't actually heard anyone from that side come up with anything that we should do, but I've heard enough about what we shouldn't.

In short, their answer is pacifistic and nonviolent in nature.   Don't fight them.   Don't drop bombs.   Don't make them angry.  Turn the other cheek, because Jesus said so.

I guess my questions is what are these folks actually doing about the root problem?   Is it enough to simply advocate that the US government address the symptom of the problem (refugees) because Jesus, who was a homeless refugee, wants us to?  Or should there be more?

Where are the teams of trained NVDA folks on the ground in the caliphate?    Where are the hospitals and feeding centers in the caliphate opened by the American christian left?  Where are the American progressive christians standing in front of the armed columns of ISIS fighters showing them love in the name of Jesus?    Why is it considered enough to advocate for governmental charity from the safety of suburban America, while not being willing to risk anything by going to where the problem is?   Is it really what Jesus called us to to simply advocate for the spending of other peoples money to succor those in need?

Now, I'm not saying that I have any answers.   But, I'm also not advocating for any specific governmental policy.

Does the government have a role?  Sure it does.
Does the Church have a role?  Sure it does.

I'd just like to see and hear some substantive solutions from the christian left, beyond "Let them in because Jesus was a homeless refugee.".

Any chance of getting any specifics?

???

"President Obama is right. ISIS will be destroyed with an international coalition in which Muslim troops on the ground are supported by the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia and other leading powers. We must learn the lesson of Iraq. American troops should not be engaged in perpetual warfare in the Middle East. Further, as we destroy ISIS, it is essential that we do not allow fear and division to undermine the constitutional rights that make us a free people."

I actually agree with Bernie Sanders on this.  I do think that ISIS needs to be "destroyed".  I don think that the "moderate" Muslim nations need to take the lions share of the role of actually doing the destruction.  I think that the failure of the "moderate" Muslim nations to deal with this tends to undermine their credibility and keep the door open the those who think that they secretly support ISIS.   I think that we don't want US troops to be engaged in perpetual war anywhere, but that we can't unilaterally withdraw from confronting evil in the world either.   Finally, I agree that we must not undermine or limit our constitutional rights in the process.


There's no way in the world I'd vote for him, but when he's right he's right.

Even a blind pig...

Authority

"Many of the people I know who reject God or who have crafted a God that makes no demands on them have a fundamental problem with authority.  They don’t want anybody telling them what to do.
For a person who wants complete autonomy, who chafes at the thought of anyone having authority over them, a creator God who makes demands is way inconvenient.
Many people who believe in God, but also have this authority hang-up, create their own version of God.  This God gives them what they want when they want it.  He approves of everything they do, as long as they are just trying to be happy.  He encourages them to follow their desires, wherever they lead.  C. S. Lewis compared this God to a senile, old grandfather who never says “no” to his grandchildren.  You want chocolate for breakfast, lunch, and dinner?  No problem!
Is this the Christian God?  Philosopher Paul Moser answers the question:
It would be a strange, defective God who didn’t pose a serious cosmic authority problem for humans.  Part of the status of being God, after all, is that God has a unique authority, or lordship, over humans.  Since we humans aren’t God, the true God would have authority over us and would seek to correct our profoundly selfish ways.
If you are “worshiping” a God who makes no demands on you, you’re worshiping no God at all.  You’re just trying to find a deity to make you feel good about your selfish choices.  What’s the point?"

Thanks Wintery Knight

Evil

^"7 The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil."

I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like Jesus is telling His audience that He was going to be killed for testifying that the "works" of "the world" are "evil".

No evidence that there are some things that are "minor", no evidence that there is an in between, just "evil".

I know it's not always wise to build a theology on one verse, and I'm not.   But it also doesn't seem wise to ignore one verse (especially one so clear and direct) either.

 

 

Let's wait...

I heard P-BO on the radio telling the nation that we should wait until all the facts are in before we determine what motivated the 2/3 peaceful Muslims to get all loaded up in their "Tommy Tactical" gear and go on a shooting rampage.   I guess we're fortunate the bombs didn't explode as well.


To be honest, I agree, we should wait until all of the facts are available before we render a judgement.

Unfortunately, this is one more area where the left tends toward hypocrisy.

A few examples.

1.  The rush to put forward ANY alternate theory that suggests that the motivation of the S.B shooters was ANYTHING but terrorism.

2.   The lack of ANYONE in the media or the P-BO administration making any sort of similar statements about the CO shooter.

3.   The rush to label anyone who engages in a "mass" shooting as a white conservative.

4.   The "Don't blame all Muslim's for the actions of a few."  Contrasted with the willingness to apply exactly the opposite standard when it comes to gun owners.

5.   The protests (complete with Molotov cocktails) in Minneapolis demanding "justice" before the investigations even start.

I could go on, but that seems sufficient.   So please, you all on the left.  Heed P-BO's words.   Show a little maturity and patience.   Let's all wait for people to do their jobs before we jump to any conclusions.

Or, if you must jump to conclusions, at least keep them to yourself.

Narrative 2.0

Of course the narrative coming from those in the media and on the left is that we just need more "common sense" or "reasonable" or whatever new gun restrictions.

This narrative ignores several facts.
1.  CA already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US.
2.  The very restrictions that are advocated are virtually identical to those in place in France
3.  Virtually all of these attacks take place in "gun free zones".

Given those facts, one wonders what additional restrictions could be implemented that would have prevented either of these two recent incidents?    Why do we just get vague platitudes instead of specific proposals?


Our state auditor took to Twitter to advocate for some vague new something, but when pressed for specifics was able to provide nothing.   Oh, but she did delete Tweets from people who asked for specifics.

Media Narrative

Many years ago when I was a young naive college student, unaware that university was supposed to provide a "safe" place where I would be free from even the merest hint of offense, I blindly accepted it when my communications professors told me that the job of the media was to report the facts of any given situation while removing as much bias of the reporter as possible.

Now we live in the age of the media narrative, in a rush to produce something original so many media outlets will run with any out of context tidbit and craft a story that fits their view of what should be without reference to context or truth.

We see this with the CO shootings.   There has been a rush to spin one out of context, essentially unverified comment (something about baby parts) into a narrative that blames pro life supporters for expressing disgust about the practices of PP.

This raises questions.

Isn't it possible that the fact that PP was selling human body parts, intentionally harvested to maximize their value would disgust any human being with an ounce of compassion?

Given his external similarities to left wing eco-terrorist the unabomber, wouldn't it be just as reasonable to assume that he was a left wing nut?

 Why isn't the same standard of responsibility applied to the guy who shot up the Family Research Council based on the SPLC labeling them a hate group?

Why minimize the role of the most authentically pro life actor in the whole thing?

If there is so much hate filled vitriol out there, then why have there been so few incidents where abortion providers are attacked/shot/killed?   (Hint 8 over the last 40 years)

Isn't the real story the incredible level of restraint shown by the pro life movement?

Why do we not assign the same types of blame to those who perpetrate terror attacks in the name of saving the planet?

Of course this applies to the various incidents that drive the BLM agenda.

"Hands up don't shoot", demonstrated to be false which doesn't stop the narrative being propagated.

What is the single common denominator to the vast majority of the cities where these police shootings take place?


Why isn't the media who is supposed to be accurately reporting events asking some of these questions?  

Why aren't more people questioning the accuracy of the narrative, before they leap into action?

Why is there such a low value on Truth?