Vacation

Given some people past history of being impatient and drawing unwarranted inferences from me not responding in a manner they think is timely enough, I am making this announcement.

Starting at midnight tonight I am on vacation for the next few days.   I don't mean to shut anything down, just to point out that I am choosing not to involve myself in any of what passes for adult conversation and witty repartee on the part of others until I get back.

So please do not read any motives (nefarious or otherwise) into my lack of response, I will respond when I get back.   Specifically, I will continue to answer any and all questions directed at me at the point of my return.

Thank you.

Private

I've noticed a trend from Progressive christian pastors in the years since I've been reading blogs.   I think of this as the "Members Only" trend.   These folks happily blog away or post their sermons on their blog, saying all sorts of strange and provocative things, then all of a sudden decide that they need to make access to their wisdom for "Members Only".   One wonders why this sudden need to hide (in a recent case) ones sermons from the world.  Why would someone post their sermons for years then suddenly hide them?  I think that most of us would conclude that they are afraid of something.  What, I'm not sure.  Criticism? Fear that the folks at the next church they apply at will read their sermons?   Shame?  Repentance?  I don't know, but I also don't trust people who are ashamed of what they say publicly and feel the need to hide it.

Words mean things

Words mean things, definitions are important.  So when someone declaims  "We need to choose...", specifically using the word "need", it seems reasonable that one would use the primary English language definition of the word need when interpreting this sentence.   What, you may ask, is the primary definition of the word need?   

Here it is    need  noun 1. a requirement, necessary duty, or obligation: 

I could be wrong, but if one were to word the sentence, "We are required to choose..." or "We have an obligation to choose...", the meaning is clear.  It is perfectly logical and reasonable to  interpret the sentence using the primary standard definition of the word need.     Unless, of course, you want to make this (honestly) bizarre claim, "... it never occurred to me that you were interpreting "We need" in a non-standard English way.",  under what circumstances is it possible that the primary standard English definition of a word is (objectively) "non-standard"?

Or this.  Not once, but twice the below claim is made

 

 "... there is a time for everything."   "There is a time for everything."

Once again, let's consult the dictionary.

 

 

everything  pronoun  1.every, thing or particular of an aggregate or total; all. 

 

So we have a claim being made that there is a time for "everything", except then things change.  We find out that there is not (contrary to the plain claim) a time for everything.    It would appear that the word everything is being used in a "general and poetically phrased" way.  In other words it is being explicitly used in a "non-standard" way.

I have to wonder why one would in the first case make the unfounded assumption that the word need was not being interpreted in accordance with the primary standard English language definition, then  using this assumption as a way to avoid the implication of the initial claim.   I also have to wonder how someone could use the term everything is a clearly "non-standard" way then become offended it's pointed out that his stated position ( "There is a time for everything.") is a philosophy with which the author does not agree.

It must be nice to think that this convenient manipulation of "standard" and "non-standard" definitions is a reasonable and normal way to engage in discussion.    Seems intellectually inconsistent to me.

 

To rant, or not to rant. I choose (mostly) to abstain

"Now, a question for you: Since you agree with me that ranting is okay, what do you consider ranting?"

It seems like a good place to start is with the dictionary.   The "simple" definition of rant is:

 ": to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable"

We also see:

  :  "to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" "to scold vehemently"
"to talk loudly and wildly "

Synonyms diatribe, harangue, jeremiad, philippic, tirade


Related Words assault, attack, broadside, invective, lambasting, lashing, tongue-lashing, vituperation; berating, chewing out, rebuke, abuse, castigation, censure, condemnation, criticism, denunciation; belittlement, deprecation, depreciation, disparagement, dissing; excoriation, execration, revilement; 

The first thread I note is that most of the definitions of rant imply that it is spoken and at a high volume.   Obviously, if one sticks strictly with the literal definition it is incredibly difficult to rant using the printed word.    Now, I realize that's nitpicking.   Just as obviously one could type ones rant using ALL CAPS AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!    This certainly achieves the same goal.

The second thread I note is that if one looks at the definition as well as the synonyms there is a sense in which a rant is out of control or "unreasonable".   One of the examples used on the dictionary is that of a patron who berates a service provider for bad service.   Clearly anyone who raises their voice to a waiter, for example, about bad service is not engaging in reasoned thoughtful helpful criticism.   If one looks at the synonyms one can't help but notice that so many of them involve lack of respect, demeaning, or what amounts to a verbal assault.   Again, these kinds of things don't lead one to conclude that a rant is particularly edifying, nor is it something that involves controlling ones self.

I also find it interesting that the word rant is very often paired with the word rave (rant and rave), if one looks at the word rave one finds that it adds elements of "delirium" "irrationality" "wildness" and "violence".    As we look at this context, it seems as if the term rant is moving further and further from anything positive.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it is impossible to have a rant that does not incorporate the negative characteristics of the definition, the synonyms, and it's connection with the term rave, but it sure sounds like it would be difficult to engage in a positive rant.

One question that comes to mind is "Given the negative baggage associated with the term rant, what positive result does one hope to achieve with a rant?".

Sure, ranting at a waiter might get you a free meal, but will it really help the waiter be a better waiter?  Aren't there more constructive positive ways to express dissatisfaction?  Does ranting at a waiter make you a better human being?

What about on a bigger scale?   Does ranting about policy help?  Does "angrily" and "loudly" complaining in a way that is "unreasonable" really help bring about social change?

Does anyone really think that Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement would have been better served had she stood on the bus and "Loudly, angrily, and unreasonably" ranted about giving up her seat?

How about John Perkins?   Here is one of those little knows figures of the civil rights movement who among other things had a fork tine stuck up his nose by a policeman causing permanent damage.  Surely he had plenty of reason to rant, but did he?

I've heard ranting compared to the imprecatory Psalms, but I'm not sure that those Psalms quite reach the level of loss of control that the term rant seems to suggest.   Given that, without some intensive study of specifics including the historical context I wouldn't dream of making any sort of definitive statement.

Again, granting that it is theoretically possible for a "positive" rant, one wonders why anyone would choose to engage in this type of outburst beyond the simple desire to vent.    I understand that, I understand that sometimes it just helps to let all the frustration and anger and fear and uncertainty out, I've done it.   But I've always seen this as something done in private in order to get things out and then to try to deal with them in a more rational manner.  (That's just me, maybe you think subjecting others to your explosions is healthy and good, I don't.  Excepting maybe counseling or therapy where the intent is to have someone help you to understand and deal with whatever spews out during the rant)

In closing, I can see that there is a time and a place for a rant.  I can even grant that it could be done in a "positive" way.  But what I can't understand is why one would commit ones rant to paper (or a blog, or Facebook, or Twitter) and expect it to lead to a positive outcome.   I can't understand how a "wild" "unreasonable" "angry" screed posted to social media accomplishes anything beyond providing the ranter the ability to share their "unreasonable" "wild" stream of consciousness verbal vomit with a bunch of people who will probably not be particularly affirming.   So, by all means, rant away.   If you think that a "wild" unreasonable" "loud" "angry" outburst is more appropriate than a calm more reasoned approach, be my guest.  If you think that calling those you disagree with names is a helpful appropriate way to persuade, then by all means, do so.  If you think that a graceless rant is more productive that extending grace to those you disagree with, go for it.

Just don't be surprised when you fail to win friends and influence people.
 

Provocation

Had an incident last night at work that I found interesting.

I had a customer come up to me and complain that he had encountered a couple of guys more than once in the store who were engaging in exaggerated kissing (his phrase was "Sticking their tongues down each others throat."), in addition they more than once made rude and sexual gestures toward this customer.   After assuring him that this behavior was not normal for this part of the world, and pointing toward what he needed, and away from the couple who had upset him. I thought things were done.   I was wrong.   I guess there was at least one more encounter in which the customer asked the couple to tone things down, suggesting that this wasn't appropriate behavior for a public place where children are present.   The couples response was to continue to make gestures and comments of a sexual nature ( at one point they suggested that he perform oral sex on them), to this customer.   At this point the customer went to the store manager and complained.   The manager confronted the couple who admitted that their behavior had been wrong and apologized, don't miss this part, they admitted that they were wrong.   At this point they were asked to leave and escorted out.  Their response was to threaten a complaint to our GO about the manager.

This brought up a couple of thoughts/discussions between those of us involved.

1.  At some point PDA becomes inappropriate no matter what the orientation of the couple/group involved.   
2.  I suspect that when/if there is a complaint filed that it will indicate that the manager escorted them out because they were gay.  Not because of their behavior.
3.  I'd be shocked if there isn't some sort of "XYZ company is homophobic" social media commentary floating out there already.  
4.  What ever happened to people actually acting like adults.

But the one thing that struck me is the fact that these guys apparently presumed that they could be provocative with no consequences.   Seriously, if you engage in behavior designed to provoke, don;t be surprised when it actually provokes someone and that there are negative consequences for those doing the provoking.

I remember years ago, when the refrain from those who supported "gay rights" was "Why do you care about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.".    The answer was then and still is, what people do in private is between them and God, I really don't care that much.   Where I have a problem is when it goes from the bedroom into the "pride" parade or into a home improvement store.  At that point it ceases to be private and you have involved everyone who sees you.   Again, much of this behavior is intended to be provocative, yet they always seem surprised when their provocative behavior provokes and results in negative consequences.

Personally, my thought is that more respect, and less intentional provocation is a good thing.   But that's just me.

A booming economy?

Since the State of the Union show the other night I've seen a fair amount of action from the SML, Social Media Lemmings (or Liberals) , about P-BO's claims about the economy and how great it is.

Tip O'Neill once said "All politics is local", my corollary to that is "All economics is personal".  In other words no matter how the indicators are spun or manipulated to make the economy appear good or bad, I think most people see the economy through the lens of their own personal situation.   With that in mind, here's the view from my personal situation.

Almost 9 years ago I made the choice to use my skills developed over 25 years in the construction industry to be a part of something larger than my self.  So I started working for a ministry which is involved in providing affordable housing to those who need it.   I did this knowing that I was deciding to take a job in which I would not be compensated at the level I could be elsewhere.   However, it soon became clear that I was going to need to earn more than I was getting, which led me to the two part time jobs I currently hold in addition to my full time job.   It's one of those part time jobs that I want to focus on.

My first part time job was with a medium sized and growing building materials retail store.    When I started the pay was decent, the hours worked with my schedule and it was a good fit.   Over the years I've gotten all the possible raises, move from a position which required less knowledge and responsibility to one which requires a greater degree of both.  Every time I get reviewed, they ask me if I will make this my full time job, and I say know because I like what I do.     One thing I've learned over the 8 years I've been there is that this business is cyclical.   Every year around the end of January things slow down, which makes sense.    One consequence of this slow down is that there is a general reduction in hours for employees.   

One clarification for any of y'all on the left who may not understand how these things work.   Our company lives and dies by PTS (payroll to sales), in other words we need to sell X dollars worth of product in order to afford to pay for employees time.   

That brings us to this winter.   Sales dropped enough in December that management started cutting hours in order to stay positive on the PTS numbers for the year (this has not happened this early in the 8 years I've been there which includes the recent economic downturn).  We all assumed that one we got into the new year things would loosen up, but instead they've gotten worse.   My personal paycheck is down about 25% on average.   (Thank goodness this isn't my primary income source) with no end in sight.    There are two reasons for this.

1.   We just aren't seeing customers walking in the door.   It's not a lack of ability on us as sales staff, it's a lack of people to sell to.

2.   Last year, in anticipation of a minimum wage hike, everyone one in the company received a significant raise.   I believe that this was intended to make it less of a shock if minimum wage went up, or to get at or above an anticipated raise.   (FYI, this company has always started even the lowest entry level positions at above minimum wage and has also paid a significant premium for mandatory weekend hours and offered quarterly raises for the first 2-3 years.   Basically they've always paid pretty well for retail.)

Now, #1 almost certainly is due to the bigger picture economic situation.  We've had a mild winter so people have been able to build more later in the year than previously.  Although we also aren't getting the big $$$ snow blower sales we would if the winter was more normal.    The truth is we are just seeing the result of a soft home building market and people not able to afford much in terms of renovations.    

As for #2 as much as the raise was appreciated, we still have to maintain the PTS.   So of the P goes up then we need more S to cover it.  Conversely bad S can be offset by lowering P (# of hours).    This is the kind of thing that too many on the left wish away in the minimum wage discussion.   They just assume that there is an unlimited pool of money available to pay employees without anything else in the system having to change.

So, back to the Craig corollary,  despite the rosy picture painted by P-BO and the SML's, the personal checking account view of the economy is that things aren't nearly as good as some people would have us believe.

As a final note,  There are plenty of big picture economic indicators that suggest that the rosy impression that all the memes give you is not quite accurate.   Certainly workforce participation rate is a big one,  it's easy to show a 5% unemployment rate if you remove enough people from the workforce.   Even the unemployment rate doesn't look so good if you happen to be in a lower income bracket, live in the urban core, or are a minority.     Also, schools who's minority graduation rates of  roughly 50% for minorities certainly don't help either.   I already mentioned the house construction numbers being down (at least locally).  

So, from the viewpoint of at least this one person, I'd say that P-BO and the SML's need to perhaps be a bit more realistic about the actual state of the economy.

5 pillars

I heard someone on the radio suggest that the following are the 5 pillars of society, specifically US society.   I thought it was an interesting thought.

1. Family
2. Work
3. Neighborhood
4. Peace
5. Freedom

Personally,  I'd have put Faith in there somewhere, but I can see why he didn't.   I'd also suggest that Freedom could be construed to include Faith.

"You can answer these questions directly or move on, please, if you are not wanting to engage in rational, civil, respectful and gracious dialog. Thank you."

"You can answer these questions directly or move on, please, if you are not wanting to engage in rational, civil, respectful and gracious dialog. Thank you."

Why is it that when Dan makes this request is  a a completely appropriate and rational thing to do, but when I ask the same courtesy of him, he always manages to come up with excuses for not answering?


Oh, I'm sure it's completely different.  I'm even sure Dan can rationalize and justify his double standard.   

I think I'll just keep this quote around, that way I'll be able to deal with Dan the right way in the future.

Not again

It would seem that once again a racist white policeman shot an innocent African American gentleman in Philadelphia.   

What can be done to stop this slaughter?

Remember?

Anyone remember back before the "Affordable Care Act" was passed, you know the "You have to pass it before you can read it" legislation.   Anyone remember the kinds of things P-BO said when he was shilling for the "ACA"?

Stuff like.

"If you like your doctor, you get to keep your doctor."


"If you like your health insurance, you will get to keep it."

"It (the "ACA") will save the average family $2,500.00 per year."


Now that the "ACA" is law, how many of those statements actually came true?  

In how many of those cases did the Truth turn out to be exactly the opposite of what was promised?

The fact that P-BO was so horribly wrong about the outcome of his signature legislation, suggests a couple of options.

1.   His promises were the victims of unintended consequences.
2.   He had absolutely zero idea what was in the "ACA", nor what the outcomes would be, but was simply pandering to his base.
3.   He was simply mistaken.
4.   He lied about the whole thing.
5.  He was/is stupid.


I personally suspect #4 or #5, but be that as it may.


Given this abysmal track record of being able to predict the outcomes of his own legislation and what appears to be a tendency to say anything expedient regardless of the truth, why should anyone believe anything he says about his recent executive orders designed to fix "mass shootings"?

Is there really anyone out there gullible enough to think that these executive orders will have any actual noticeable effect on "mass shootings"?

How could anyone with the tiniest bit of intellectual honesty not see this for what it is?   A symbolic gesture that will make a bunch of gullible lemmings on the left think that P-BO has actually done something and that will fix everything.   But, no one could be that gullible, right?   No one except the Facebook/Twitter lemming who cut and paste or share whatever bit of P-BO propaganda they come across without giving it the tiniest bit of critical thought or examination.  

Just you wait.   If one of these tragedies happens during the next year, no one will blame P-BO for the failure of his executive orders.   No one will even remember this brave bit of theater.    They'll just continue to blame the same old straw men.

So, why exactly should be believe P-BO about this?

It's strange

Is it me, or does anyone else find it strange that small group of people peacefully  occupying an abandoned building in the middle of the Oregon wilderness is a harbinger of the overthrow of our society by radical anarchists and the end of all that is good as we know it.

But....


Mobs of armed thugs looting and burning the property of innocent citizens while the police look on or surrounding and firebombing a police station is simply an understandable reaction to something.


Somehow, I can't help but find a fair degree of hypocrisy in the reactions to the two protests.


NOTE:

I do not support or condone the occupying of federal government property in any way shape or form.   Having said that the behavior of the federal government that led up to this occupation is clearly worthy of examination and potentially of some sort of protest.

We fund Planned Parenthood for this ?

"nternational Planned Parenthood Federation, of which Planned Parenthood Federation of America is an official affiliate, maintains it is a person’s “human right” not to tell their sexual partners they are HIV positive if they don’t want to.

It’s all laid out in International Planned Parenthood Federation’s booklet for HIV-positive youth entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” It says, “Young people living with HIV have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose their HIV status.” It continues: “Sharing your HIV status is called disclosure. Your decision about whether to disclose may change with different people and situations. You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status.”"

"In other words, Planned Parenthood thinks it’s your human right to risk exposing other people to a potentially deadly disease without telling them.
[…]“Healthy, Happy and Hot” explains, “Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else. These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”"

"The pamphlet then gives tips to protect oneself from criminalization, and does say that the best way to protect yourself (which is apparently more important than protecting your partner) is to tell your partner that you are infected before you have sex. This section ends with the statement, “Get involved in advocacy to change laws that violate your rights.”"

Given the fact that failure to disclose that one has HIV to ones sexual partners will increase the spread of AIDS, and given the fact that the US government provides $500 million of taxpayer funds to the "non abortion" activities, and given that this is clearly a "non abortion" activity of Planned Parenthood, then it seems reasonable to suggest that the increased spread of HIV is literally being funded by the US taxpayer.

But, it's vital that we continue funding this organization because of all the mammograms they provide.


Oh, wait........


They don't actually provide mammograms.

Why do they get $500 million per year again?     

How can anyone who rails against "corporate welfare" support this massive waste of taxpayer funds?

http://thefederalist.com/2015/12/22/planned-parenthood-says-hiding-hiv-from-sex-partners-is-a-right/