Oppression

 I referred to a couple of questions about oppression in another thread, and I wanted to develop those further before risking the possibility of Dan running off on a tangent.   I’ll take time to flesh this out over the next couple of days.  But until then I’ll use this a a place for any comments from Dan that don’t fit in the other thread.  

 

 No, the more important question, as I’m learning from listening to black voices, is whether of not past “oppression” is the only or primary cause of current disparities. The other seemingly important question is the outcomes when the oppression is factored in, compared between different societies.

 

Still haven't had the time or the motivation to flesh this out, and with Dan's obsessive desire to jump right in and comment based on assumptions, I may realize that fleshing this out is a waste of time.   Yet, I do want to throw out one other thought.

If these discussions are to be fruitful, the one things that needs to be agreed on is what measure will define success.    The most common measure I see used is economic.   The other is political.   While I'm fine with either,  I think that looking at the economic condition is probably the best broad measurement of group success.   It's also the one that can be best applied across societies and cultures, which seems like the only way to accurately measure the results of oppression among groups that also cross national boundaries and cultures. 

Stimulus

 I’ll probably go into detail regarding the idea of the stimulus later, but I wanted to throw this out there.   

I’ve been thinking about what to do with this potential windfall, and I’ve come to a couple of tentative conclusions.   

1.  Although 2K would put a big dent in my car loan, I don’t plan to pay that off.

2.  Whatever I spend it on will be something tangible/manufactured, and made in the USA.   

3.  Wherever I purchase, whatever it is, will not be from  a national chain or from Amazon.    I’ll be shopping local or ordering directly from the manufacturer.

4.  If we were free, I’d consider expensive dinners out at local restaurants, with large tips.  Depending on the amount, I may save some for exactly this   

If I’m going to get the check, I’m going to spend it in a way that’ll hopefully drive a little domestic business.

What will y’all do if you get a stimulus check?

How exciting

 Mayor Pete, will be the first openly gay cabinet secretary in the history of the US.   What big, exciting news.  

"Common Ground"

Dan's been prating on about finding "common ground" and although it usually seems like "common ground" means "agree with Dan", I thought I'd take a shot.  Dan has a list of things that he thinks should be grounds for compromise, so let's see.

 

" 1. We are in the midst of this pandemic. We have a vaccine now starting to come out. Let's find effective ways to distribute that vaccine. That goal should be something we can all agree upon."

 Sure.  

"2. The spread of covid is skyrocketing. We don't have to like the measures suggested by medical experts, but we need to cooperate to stop the spread from getting worse. We should be able to agree to this. If you truly don't want to follow the guidelines, that's fine, but then stay home. If you can't wear a mask in a store, stay home. It's your right to not wear a mask if you don't want to, but it's not your right to insist upon going wherever you please without a mask and put other people at risk."

 

Interesting take that seems to downplay the lack of evidence that masks make a significant difference, that what is portrayed as "wearing  a mask", is really closing down significant sectors of the economy and inflicting varying degrees of harm on people beyond COVID.  

"For a short time, we can do this. We should be able to agree upon this goal."

 

If by "short time" you mean "months on end"...

"3. Our economy has taken a big hit this last year. We need to find ways that are safe to get us working again and we can do it. Social isolation and masks are a convenience, but it's also an opportunity to find new ways of doing things. Groceries need to be delivered more. Restaurant food can be delivered. We can be smart about this and create jobs and help one another in the process."

 

Yes it has.  Unfortunately much of the damage is because we've closed down businesses without regard to actual risk.  Unfortunately, restaurants can't survive for months on carry out business, small retail can't compete with Amazon,  people/businesses who own rental property can't pay their mortgages, taxes, and utilities without rental income.  Mental health issues and suicides are increasing.   The notion that we can take millions of people and tell them to work for Insta Cart as a way to rebuild the economy is absurd.   While, I'm not a fan of excessive government spending in general.  The notion that the state or federal government can unilaterally shut down someone's business or take a way their ability to earn a living without compensating them for their loss is incredibly disturbing. 

"4. While we're figuring it out, many people are hurting. We need financial aid package and we need it now. This should be an area of common ground. We can disagree upon the exact numbers, but we have to work together to get something out."

 

Especially now that Biden is POTUS elect, now it's time for Pelosi to negotiate a deal that provides LESS help that various options she's rejected in the past months.  In all seriousness, as I said above, the notion that the government can unilaterally take away someone's livelihood  without compensation is disturbing. 

"5. In Trump's four years, we never really got our infrastructure moving. Experts will tell you that our infrastructure is crumbling. We HAVE to invest in infrastructure and we can find common ground on that."

 

While I agree that Trump dropped the ball on this, after promising big things, it's disingenuous to make it sound like this is something that just happened in the Trump administration.  It's actually one of the few things that government is supposed to spend money on, yet it's been ignored.  

"6. Whatever you may feel about the police, the vast majority of the nation would like to see some systemic reform. It's going to HELP police to not to have to be social workers and mental health workers on top of being police. And we have to recognize that we don't want to see our black citizens killed because the police "feared for their lives..." Again, the majority of the nation agrees we need to do something about this. Let's find some common ground."

 

Yes, let's look to Minneapolis to see the effects of this "reform".  Violent crime up significantly, the city telling people to just give criminals what they want, and a complete abandonment of investigating property crimes.    Again, on a serious note, there should be some ways to make improvements.  Unfortunately, those in power in the cities with the biggest problems, just keep making promises they don't keep so they continue to stay in power.     However, when we see cities that are refusing to prosecute certain crimes, and allowing mayhem, it doesn't bode well.    FYI, the biggest problem with these experiments is that ultimately people have the freedom to leave the cities where things are bad.  This means that things will likely spiral downward as the cities see a loss of population and revenue, and businesses close because people won't patronize them anymore. 

"7. Likewise for our drug and prison policies. There are systemic problems with how we've handled this. We need to find some common ground. Conservatives: You all are supposed to be about fiscal responsibility. Providing education and rehabilitation to prisoners results in LOWERING the prison population and increasing their odds of making it on the outside. It is a money saver. We can find common ground there."

 

I do think that there are some options here that would make sense.    

I agree that these things are areas where some "common ground" is possible, I'm just not sure what it would look like.    It's especially hard to think that after 4 years of being referred to as a NAZI, racist, fascist,  and the like that we should just pretend that none of that happened, and hold hands around the campfire singing Friends are Friends forever.  

Commenting ground rules.   If you want to dig deeper into any of these specifically, please keep it to one topic per comment.

Thanks

I want to keep this beauty for the record.

"IF Biden develops a pattern of making false claims, every day for the first month in the office, then it's time (past time) to start talking about removing him as unfit. "

"Such behavior can not be tolerated, not as a pattern, not with no repentance when caught in a false claim."

I'll note that this statement ignores Biden's history of lies, false claims, and plagiarism.  I'll also note that "every day for the first month" caveat, as if every other day for the first two moths is perfectly fine.  

 I have absolutely no doubt that Biden will continue his pattern of lies, false claims, and plagiarism, after he's sworn in, and I think it will be interesting to catalogue them and see if they ever reach a point where Dan will make good on his pledge.  

I will NOT be publishing any comments on this thread, or related to this thread.  The intent is to preserve this quote, and related material for as long as possible. 

Time to re think things

https://winteryknight.com/2020/12/10/why-should-a-conservative-christian-have-an-alias-when-posting-online/

I've been mildly critical, at times, of people who hide behind a pen name when they blog or comment.  I've always thought that it showed a certain cowardice and unwillingness to take risks for the positions they espoused.   After reading the above, I'm thinking that hiding one's identity might not be as bad an idea as I originally thought. 

Curious

 Under what circumstances is it appropriate to refer to a black woman as a “nappy ass hoe”?

Obviously if the woman in question is literally a “nappy ass hoe”, it might be accurate, although I can’t see when it would be appropriate.   I further assume that the genius in question meant “ho”, not the garden implement.

Just curious.  

Voter Fraud

 I just saw a headline saying that Barr didn’t think there was enough voter fraud to have changed the outcome of the election.

Personally, I suspect that this will be the final conclusion.

However the implication seems to be that some level of voter fraud is acceptable as long as it doesn’t change the results.  I find this motion strange.  That we’d accept some level of fraud in our elections as long as it doesn’t change the results, seems unacceptable.  

I know it’s strange to some, but I value the integrity of the voting process, more than the outcome of a single election.   I’ve seen enough claims from people who don’t seem to gain anything by lying, to make me think that there need to be investigations and that the guilty parties (including political parties) should be dealt with harshly.   If not now, it’ll likely get worse going forward.   

Thanksgiving

 As we approach the Thanksgiving holiday,  I want to start by saying that I am incredibly thankful for all of the things God has blessed my with, and to acknowledge that I all too often fail to thank Him, instead of taking credit for myself.

Due to the fact that I want to prioritize my time over the next few days, I will be checking in here intermittently.   I'll try to at least post comments, and might interact some if time allows.

Because Dan has nothing better to do than ask off topic questions about fringe movements

 "Here's a reality based question that I'd like to see you address some time"

I guess you've been too busy not answering my questions or proving your claims to be true to ask it.
": Qanon... Do you agree that they are insane,"

I'll start by saying that QAnon, is something that I consider to be such a nothingburger that I've invested no time in researching it. If you are going to claim they are "insane", please show me the specific evidence of insanity. I've seen nothing that would lead me to that conclusion, but I also haven't looked. I'm sure you've done extensive research on them and have lots of evidence.


"perhaps cultic"

Given the qualifications above, perhaps. Of course, I'd argue that many quasi mainstream movements are cultic.

"conspiracy theorists"

Again, given the above, probably. But so are the Holocaust deniers.

"who should not be trusted"

Again, I can't speak to the trustworthiness of each individual follower, nor am I willing to make this reckless sort of broad brushing of an entire group of people I know very little about.

"and that they should not be supported by white evangelicals the way they are?"

I have absolutely no idea what you consider to be "evangelicals", so have no way to asses your question. I personally am unaware of any "evangelicals" who are "supporters", but it's not something that's on my radar.

I'll say that there has been a gradual trend among some evangelicals to move away from things like discernment, apologetics, and studies of that nature. Given that, I doesn't surprise me when "evangelicals" are misled by all sorts of false gospels.

Since, I suspect this is an attempt to further divert this thread from it's topic and from your glaring failure to answer questions or prove your claims. I will transfer this to it's own post and will move and comments there as well.

Election results.

 I've been pretty silent on the results of the election, because I've chosen to follow my usual practice of waiting for more information rather than jumping to conclusions.    Given that, I'll hit some high points.

1.  It seems likely that there was some degree of voting irregularity and the fact that most of it is concentrated in heavily DFL districts in heavily DFL cities,  in swing states seems suspicious to me.

2.  Having said that, I don't believe that we will see enough irregularity to put Trump over the top.

3.   This notion that the media or other parties call elections in any sort of official sense seems problematic.

4.  While I believe that the Trump campaign should avail themselves of whatever legal avenues are open to them, I also believe that Trump and his surrogates are hurting themselves with their idiotic social media outbursts and with their refusal to work with the Biden transition team.  

5.  Hearing people who believe that Stacey Abrams won the GA governors election, who have been insisting for 4 years that Clinton won in 2016, and who've been shouting about election interference, all of a sudden change their tunes, is amusing.

6.  While I think that Biden is a hack, I fail to see how two years of gridlock is a particularly bad thing at this point.  The likelihood of any SCOTUS members leaving is slim, and I have no problem with a GOP led senate engaging in the same tactics that the DFL led house has been engaging on for the last 4 years.

7.  I firmly believe that it is long past time for a complete overhaul of how we vote in national elections, and in how the results of national elections are reported by the news media.  I thin that the single most important aspect of national elections should be the integrity of the process and of the results.  It seems like this notion shouldn't be a partisan issue, but I suspect it will be.    

8.  Some thoughts on reforms.

    a.  Establish a national holiday (or a two day national holiday) for voting.

    b.  Require paper ballots.

    c.  Eliminate the random mail in ballots, encourage people to vote in person.

    d.  Adopt a system to pre-count absentee, military, and other ballots, segregate them securely until election day, then feed them through the counting machines on election day.

    e.  Adopt some means to eliminate the various networks  from "calling" states until a set period of time after the polls close.   In a perfect world, the secretary of state of each state would "call" the election instead of the media.

    f.  Acknowledge the fact that certain people who live in the US are ineligible to vote, and that if those people vote that their ballots should not be counted.   

 

I'm sure that there are some other things that I've missed, and that could be tweaked, but this election was a cluster #$%& and anyone who is honest should be able to acknowledge that.   

 The bottom line is that I'm not someone who puts my faith in governments or presidents.  I'm generally convinced that our founders set up a system that can stand 4 or 8 years of just about anything, so I just don't get that invested in the outcome of any one election.  

I suspect that the next 4 years are going to move between shit show and gridlock, and that the Biden lovers are going to spend a lot of time trying to explain away the shit show aspects of his administration.   While patting themselves on the back for the first POC VP, and hoping that the fact that they are the same people who didn't support her for POTUS doesn't get brought up. 

BVMLTT

A huge problem with 'progressives' is they are always 100% certain that they are moving society in a positive direction.

And they lack the humility, tolerance, and self-awareness to consider that they might be collectively running us off a cliff.

Shocking

 Anti Trump/Pro Biden leftists violently attack peaceful protesters after DC rally for Trump.   

Patrisse, I would like to offer you words of affirmation and encouragemnet in your quest to extract a quid pro quo from the Biden administration irregardless of your skin color or gender.

 It's refreshing to hear Patrice Cullors and BLM be so upfront about the quid pro quo they expect from the Biden administration for turning out black voters.  The fact that she is so open about the fact that those black votes come with demands (or expectations), is refreshing.  Given the failure of Biden and P-BO to address these grievances during the 8 year P-BO administration,  and Kamala's history of throwing blacks in prison, I'm not sure what they expect.  It'll also be interesting to see what the explicit or implicit threat is.   

All in all, I say bravo to Patrisse and her brave followers for getting in early and publicly and demanding their quid pro quo so vocally. 

Equity

 Back when I was in the world of non-profit affordable housing, I came to a realization that the most important thing we were providing our home buyers was not the shelter of a roof and walls, but access to equity.   The ability to access the accumulated value of the house for other purposes.   

One other thing struck me that is related.  At one point, our leadership decided that those of us tasked with actually building the houses, also needed to double as propagandists.  We were given a series of modules designed to impart information that would hopefully inspire our volunteers to even higher levels of commitment to the cause.    Despite that, there was a module that discussed the topic of secure tenure and it's effects on the poor.   Because of my involvement with some blancs trying to buy property in Haiti, the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake, and a conversation about why vast areas of the NW zone were vacant,  this topic interested me.   

Yesterday as I was doing some reading, I came across a phenomenal stat.   The estimated equity in the real estate that is held, but not owned, worldwide is in excess of 9 billion dollars.   That's right, we have people who have lived on a piece of property for years, built a home, tilled the soil, and potentially started a business, but do not own the property.   There are three reasons for this that I've encountered in my experience, although there are probably more.  1.  The government owns the land and refuses to sell it.  2.  The land was purchased or gifted to an absentee owner who has no interest in selling it, even though the land isn't necessarily productive.  3.  Government corruption in the process of buying and gaining title to real estate.

What struck me was that we have people sitting on 9 billion dollars of "equity" worldwide, but who can't access that equity.   If it was possible to grant those people clear title to the property the live on, one wonders what level of economic activity could be unleashed.   The most obvious example can be stated in both a positive and negative fashion.   1. Negative.  Why would anyone invest their limited resources in improving or using land that they don't own?  2. Positive.  If these people were given title to this land, what would they do to increase it's value and productivity or would they use the equity for education to start a business, or for better farm equipment/seed?   

I'm not a mathematician, but it seems like the simple act of confirming people in the secure title to the land they already live and work on, could be a significant path to additional reductions in global poverty.  

This also ties into a lot of conversations that we've been having around the lack of generational wealth in the black community in our cities.   I took a CE course last year on the topic, and am even more convinced that the FDR policy of redlining to prevent minority home ownership is one of the significant causes of the lack of wealth in the black community.  I'd suggest that it's possible that if you look at certain parts of the country, that this policy to deprive black families of this means to accumulate generational wealth and equity could be (arguably) the most significant contributor to the current economic situation in the black community today.  

On the global stage, we can certainly advocate for the confirmation of clear title (and the legal systems to protect it) for those who don't have it.   It seems like a worthwhile goal and one that can benefit millions of people.   Here in the US, it's a much tougher solution and I'm not sure how I'd approach it on a macro scale.    On a micro scale, there are some things I'm doing to help black families purchase homes, but I'm sure there's more.  I'm just not sure what that looks like. 

Predictions

 1.  For some reason, I think that Trump is going to win tomorrow.

2.  I think that the % of black voters that vote for Trump, as well as the pro-life democrats who either stay home or vote Trump will play a significant role.

3.  If Trump wins, I won't be surprised to see rioting and destruction.

4.  If Trump loses, and there is any rioting or destruction, I predict that it will be quelled relatively quickly and condemned by Trump.  

Obviously these are predictions, and there is no reason to attack them or me.   If you have additional predictions, they'll get posted in the comments.

The Sconnies probably weren't confused at all.

I'm so relieved that Biden is so on top of the "Trunalimunumaprzure" crisis.

I'm also surprised that there are polls showing Trump with 31% approval among African Americans, while I suspect that the number is high, it does raise the question of what percentage of the black vote signals a loss for Biden.     What happens if Trump gets 15% of the black vote?   

https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/132178428888338841

 

 An unrelated, but interesting piece on white liberals and black success.   In this era of lived experience being the be all and end all of everything, I'm not sure how anyone can argue against his points.

 https://www.outkick.com/lil-waynes-endorsement-of-president-trump-another-kick-in-the-nuts-to-white-liberals/

If any conservatives did anything nearly destructive as the BLM riots, all media would be savagely ripping them apart limb from limb and buying freezers to save the meat for the next year. It would be wall to wall highest-urgency coverage.

 

Alex Gaynor

 

 

I think that one thing that supports this hunch is the fact that 13 rednecks who got arrested for plotting to kidnap the MI governor are made to sound like hordes of raging white supremacist maniacs ready to overthrow the government.  While thousands of rioters in multiple cities are portrayed as peaceful.   I'm not suggesting that the idiots in MI shouldn't be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law or that I somehow support their alleged scheme, I'm pointing out the obvious difference in how the narratives are portrayed.

 

Am I the only one bothered?

Recently, we've seen video of police targeting gatherings of observant Jews that take place in their homes, and that are targeted based on their religion.   This is on top of authorities seeming to target Jewish places of worship and gathering months ago.   I know a lot of people throw around comparisons with Germany in the 30's and 40's with abandon, but the similarities can't be ignored, can they?

 

We've also seen various regulations limiting the size of Thanksgiving gatherings this year.   There's just something about the government telling people that they can't gather with their families to celebrate a holiday that doesn't seem right to me.

 

I'm sure there will be folx who'll tell me that I'm overreacting or that I should just shut up and submit, I guess these are probably the same folx who advocate tolerance.

Voting

 I saw a couple of different news stories recently about the large numbers of early ballots cast for this election and the difficulties that go with early voting.   This raised a couple of thoughts about how we vote and how to improve the process.

Let me start by saying that I think that election day on Tuesday is not optimum.   I've argued for a while that election day should be moved to Friday and/or Saturday and made a holiday.   While I understand that there will always be a need for early voting, I also understand that it's problematic and probably shouldn't be encouraged unless necessary.

1.  I keep seeing stories that indicate that there are counties and states with more registered voters than the population.   It seems obvious that this is or at least could be problematic, especially with states just sending out large amounts of mail in ballots fairly randomly.

2.  Like it or not, the USPS and their ability to deliver mail in a timely fashion have been the butt of jokes for years, and like most jokes contain a bit of truth.   I suspect that very few of us, if given the choice, would simply drop a $10,000 check in the mailbox and trust that it would get delivered.   As I'm doing regular marketing mailings through USPS, I'm seeing that different PO's handle the same mailings differently.    Further, my mail has recently been getting delivered to other addresses on a regular basis.   I realize that it's inevitable that the USPS will have some small percentage of problems with delivery, just because of the volume.  I'm suggesting that adding more ballots will increase the number that fall victim to that percentage.

3.  When people vote while the campaign is still going on, they are casting their vote based on incomplete information.  It seems likely that incontrovertible evidence of Biden agreeing to sell his influence to one of his son's business partners, would convince some percentage of those who've already voted to regret their vote or to want to change it.

4.  There is quite a concern over those voters who are unable to correctly complete their mail in ballot, or unable to submit their ballot in a timely manner.   I guess I'm not particularly sympathetic to someone who is unable or unmotivated enough to correctly fill out their ballot, and get it mailed or dropped off by the deadline.   There is a reason why we stop accepting votes at a specific time and this notion that there should be a flexible deadline, to accommodate those who aren't willing to vote in the generous amount of time allotted.

Random thoughts

 If Biden does transition to the elimination of fossil fuels, how will the rich environmentalists get to Europe to hobnob with the elites?

How will goods be transported over long distances and across oceans?

Is it reasonable or even possible for a president to protect or defend the entire country from every possible attack?

It seems like those folks who rip Trump for lying, should probably at least acknowledge that Biden has been telling a few big ones himself.    If honesty is important, then shouldn't it be important on both sides?

I’m amused at all the people who’ve ripped John Piper to shreds for years for his theology, who’ve all of a sudden become his biggest fans.

For all of the progressive Christians who were adamant that Clinton’s character didn’t matter because his failings were in his personal life, I’m glad you’ve decided that character matters again after all these years.    

News update

 The 4 ex cops had a hearing the other day and the judge did drop the 3rd degree murder charge, and not much else.    Still waiting on change of venue and a few other things.   Chauvin made bail and people got pushed, although no damage was done.   Heaven forbid that he be given the same opportunity as everyone else. Finally, they’ve charged one “right wing” person regarding the riot damage.    Given that the news kept telling us that there were thousands of “right wing agitators “, the fact that they’ve only charge the one seems anticlimactic and ignores the fake narrative.   One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot.     Of course, those of us on the right will condemn his actions and hope for his conviction.   Unlike the left, we’re consistent in condemning those who caused the destruction we’ve seen.   

Covid

 From Greg Boyd.

"Shelly and I have meticulously followed CDC guidelines from the start of this pandemic.  Yet, somehow I contracted the COVID virus!  Come on!  I feel like I got hit with a bus, but otherwise I'm doing fine.  It just goes to show that, when dealing with COVID, you can't be to careful."

While I know this is anecdotal, it almost seems like the message being sent is that COVID doesn't really respect the boundaries and barriers that are claimed to prevent it.   It's almost like some people are going to get it no matter how hard they try to protect themselves.   

I genuinely hope that Greg recovers and that the symptoms are on the mild side, and that his family doesn't get it from him.   I also hope that this provides an example to show people that the precautions may not be as effective as some politicians would like you to think.

FYI, I'm not some sort of conspiracy theory guy like some, nor do I deny the reality of COVID, I'm just a pretty normal person who doesn't think that it's necessary to shut down an economy, put people out of work, and ruin the livelihoods of business owners, because of a virus with a 99% plus survival rate.  

Stupid

 For all of the hullabaloo unleashed on social media last night, you have to wonder about the intelligence of the anti-Trump crowd.   The fact that so many are unaware of the fact the coyote is a term for the fine upstanding folx who graciously and generously escort refugees across that US southern border out of the goodness of their hearts, raises serous questions about their intelligence.  It certainly confirms the desire to believe anything negative about Trump (regardless of truth or accuracy) and to follow lemminglike others who bash Trump. 

"Imagine callling the immigrant parents that bring their children to the United States for a better life "Coyotes".   The level of xenophobia is sickening."

David Hogg

Social Media "influencer".

 

 

No, David.  I'd say that the level of ignorance and partisanship is more sickening.

Another one

 https://www.outkick.com/nfls-instagram-page-honors-wisconsin-social-justice-hero-after-feds-announce-no-crime-occurred/

 

 

I've alluded to this phenomenon in the past, but here's another example of a situation where people, who claim to  be interested in hings like truth, have bought into something and stick with it even when it's proven to be false.

I understand the power of a narrative, but the fact that it seems more commonplace that the narrative trumps the truth, call into question the motives of many vocal people.  

Perhaps if we were more focused on what's true, less on what moves our favorite narrative forward,  and less inclined to jump to conclusions, our national discourse might be more profitable. 

You asked.

"I'm sorry to depart from the topic, but I hope you'll indulge me, as I believe it goes to the point regarding Dan's dishonesty about proving one's point.

His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms, doesn't do much to indicate integrity on the part of his sources. From what I've seen thus far...and I intend to further scrutinize the survey of historians from his first link...had not provided much at all in the way of policies enacted and their effect versus the policies of other presidents enacted and the effects of those. Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's, particularly when Obama insisted his crap was to be accepted as the new normal and that a magic wand would be necessary to do better. But we see no reference to anything like that, be it economics or any other issue.

Then, of course, we have William Henry Harrison. How could any honest, objective historian not rank Trump at least higher than a guy who lasted only 32 days in office before dying? Some of his surveyed historians rank Trump 44th out of 44 total presidents. How does this indicate integrity on the part of the historians?

What this and other problems with Dan's "evidence" against Trump PROVE is that Dan isn't interested in truth. He isn't interested in truly reviewing anything he offers as "proof" when there is clearly so many problems with his sources and their info. All he cares about is the conclusion to which they come...regardless of how they come to it...which he can then use as "evidence" to support his prejudices and hateful attitude toward whatever the point being discussed may be.

And when I offered examples of historians that find Trump to be among the better...if not best...presidents, and they actually use the very examples of his policies and their effects that people like Dan and those he favors purposely and deceitfully ignore, he counters with hit pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with their arguments in support of Trump as president. His offering of that extremist conservative periodical, "The Atlantic", does just that. It was an article wherein the author makes all manner of negative connotations regarding things Newt Gingrich has said and done, while never offering any response of clarification by Newt himself. The reader is left to wade through such biased editorializing of Newt's words and actions or just believe without reason that the author is still somehow objective in his reporting. No where in all the article does the author suggest he is giving his own impressions of what Newt's words and actions mean. He's asserting meaning and pasting it over Newt's words and actions.

But it wouldn't matter to Dan, anyway. The point is that the article speaks negatively about Gingrich, and thus it is true that Gingrich is evil and therefore his ranking of Trump, based on Trump's actual policies and their effects, is not to be considered. All the while, Dan does nothing to prove the integrity or character of his historians merits believing their assessment of Trump. This is Dan's modus operandi. This is Dan revering Judeo-Christian values. This is Dan's constant duplicity. And he dares speak of Trump being a liar."

 

Art

 

" "While there MAY be some validity to the notion of not assessing a presidency until after it's complete, but that assumes a normal presidency that isn't an active and ongoing series of train wrecks. Trump's presidency is a disaster and this obvious to all rational people, experts, scholars and otherwise."

While this notion provides you with a fig leaf to hide behind, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to assess something with a potential long term impact in either real time or in the short term. While not a fan of Trump, it's absurd to ignore the fact that the economy was in good shape pre Covid and that it's bouncing back faster than most thought. He's had some success in moving the ball down the field towards more peace in the middle ease, and has been disengaging us from overseas military commitments. He's also does some positive things in terms of criminal justice reform and in other areas. I'm not suggesting perfection, but any reasonably objective observer can't rationally conclude total failure either. One of the benefits to assessing these things in the future is the ability to assess more objectively. I'd suggest that looking at history through a subjective, biased lens is probably not the best practice.


"One can't make false claims and be so utterly dishonest and corrupt as Trump has factually been and still be a good president. One can't be as thoroughly inept and just stupid as Trump is and still be counted as a good president."

Yet, there's quite a chasm between "good president" and abject failure. I know that you frequently skip to extremes, but most of us live in the middle ground.

"In the middle of Hitler's reign, historians could tell that Hitler was a world-level disaster. Trump is no Hitler (for two things, he's just so much more stupid and inept than Hitler), but it is similarly clear to all rational people that Trump is just amongst the worst."

Interesting double standard there. Judging Trump in real time and the rest of "the worst" in hindsight.

"What's interesting is why some 30-40% of the population are blind to this? Are some part of that 40% acknowledging his ineptitude, but are just so partisan that they welcome historic corruption and ineptitude over the Democratic party?"

In much the same way as people like you have said that they'd vote for ANY democrat over Trump, many in the other side see Biden as a worse option. I'd argue that blindness isn't the problem, but seeing and judging the positives and negatives of both candidates is. You may not agree with those who don't share your visceral hatred of Trump, I'd further argue that if Trump wins, that the problem lies with the DFL's inability to put forth a candidate that's more appealing to a broader swath of the electorate than Biden. You frequently (rightly) criticize Trump for his lying. Yet, Biden is a decades long history of lying and plagiarism that is undeniable. You'll likely respond that Biden's trail of lies isn't as bad as Trump's, but that's subjective. It's also the exact same rationale a Trump voter has for voting against Biden. Make no mistake, the majority of Trump voters are voting against Biden, not for Trump. Unfortunately, the fact that the DFL is in a race to the extreme left, and couldn't find a good candidate twice says more about y'all that about Trump.

"Historians are rightly united on Trump's deserved place near the bottom of the list. What will take some time for historians is studying Trump's supporters and defenders to figure them out."

These are both simply hunches, and worth about as much because of your hatred for Trump.

And, that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask nicely and I'll open up a tread for this new topic. I'm giving you each one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal."

 

Dan, with my responses.

 

Here y'all go.  Have at it.  

Book Review

https://www.challies.com/book-reviews/why-social-justice-is-not-biblical-justice/ 

Sounds like it might end up on my post surgery reading list.

BVMLTT

https://www.outkick.com/twitter-the-master-of-illusion-turns-dwayne-haskins-into-example-of-black-qb-injustice/ 

I've listened to and read Whitlock since he was a young columnist for The Star and trying to pimp his street cred on AM Sports Talk radio.  Of late, he's been a refreshing voice on matters beyond sports.    He doesn't seem to be afraid of people taking shots at him, and seems to be speaking his mind.   

But, lets assume that his recent persona is just a schtick to get clicks, I'm not sure that it's any worse than the folx he talks about in the piece. 

Trendy

I'm noticing a trend recently that might be amusing if it wasn't serious.  As we learned from the postmodern worldview, there is no truth,

 So, it's strange when someone who is free with the term "your truth" and who denies the existence of truth, gets bent out of shape when they decide that someone else is lying.   There's not truth, but lying is bad doesn't seem to make sense.

 This phenomenon is being supplanted by people who always demand proof of everything, they want research.  Yet, they seem to believe in things that not only haven't been proven true, but that have actually been proven false.   It's almost like there are certain subjects that must be protected from research, from looking at the data, from being falsified.   

One of the hallmarks of the Scientific Method was that something be falsifiable, yet now it's out of bounds to even suggest that some things could be falsified, let alone actually trying to.  

What a strange time we live in. 

Is this really what it takes to get people to vote for Biden?

https://www.outkick.com/tana-mongeau-booty-for-biden-votes/ 

While this is a kind of silly thing and something to share a laugh about, the reality is that it certainly looks as though this little joke was or could be against election laws, as well as potentially encouraging folx to break the laws against ballot selfies.  

We all know if this was for Trump what the reaction would be, but since it's not we'll probably see it just go away.

Supernatural

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name;
thy kingdom come;
thy will be done;
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation;
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
the power and the glory,
for ever and ever.
Amen.

 

There has been a lot of back and forth over the notion of God acting in a supernatural way recently.  Given that the God described in scripture is a supernatural being, who's described as "Spirit and Truth", it seems like any time He interacts with humanity, the encounter is supernatural.  One question I asked is, "If God doesn't act supernaturally, then why pray?".   Yesterday, in the installation service for our senior pastor there was a lot of talk about God; calling, leading,  comforting, inspiring, blessing, etc.  To me it seems obvious that any of those requires a supernatural interaction between a God who is Spirit and humans who are flesh.  

It's often hard to look at scripture in these cases because so many people have adopted a mindset that things said by Jesus carry more weight than things said by others.  This makes it difficult to use scripture from the OT and from Paul's epistles.   Fortunately many of these folks are particularly attentive to the Sermon on the Mount, and give great credence and worth to those passages.  So, let's look at the part of the SOTM where Jesus talks about prayer.

The first and most obvious point is that Jesus is exhorting us to pray and to pray to "Our Father who art in heaven".   It seems safe to conclude that Jesus is telling us to pray to a supernatural being.    This being is to be "hallowed" which means "holy, consecrated, greatly revered, or honored",  which is a lot to unpack here.

Then we move to "thy kingdom come; thy will be done; on earth as it is in heaven."

I believe that the only reasonable conclusion that we can draw from this phrase is that we should expect God to bring about His will on earth the same way He would in heaven.   That His will for what happens in our natural world is aimed at the same thing as in His supernatural world.  That when we pray, that we should expect some of the supernatural to invade and influence the natural.   I can see no possible way to reasonably conclude that Jesus is not telling His followers to expect some degree of supernatural response.

"Give us this day our daily bread."    In our 21st century, first world, lives, we probably take this phrase a little figuratively.  After all we go to work, we earn our paycheck, and we go the the grocery store to put food on the table.  Yet, anyone who's spent time with believers in the third world realizes that they literally depend on God to provide them with the ability to eat.  No one is talking manna from heaven or anything, but we are talking a sincere belief that God will help them find what they need to sustain life.  Compared to even the poorest in the US, this sort of life seems brutally hard and discouraging, yet many worldwide live this line of scripture daily with an immense amount of faith.  

"And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."

There's probably several books worth of stuff to unpack here, so I'll be brief.   It's reasonable to conclude (especially in light of Jesus other teachings) that the first forgiveness is from God to us, which by definition would seem to invoke some level of supernatural activity.  If we sin against a supernatural God, and he forgives us, then it seems foolish to deny that some supernatural activity is taking place.  Further, it seems that that supernatural forgiveness is something that we model in the natural world.   

"And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

 The terms "lead' and "deliver" suggest that God takes an active role in directing our actions.  It seems unlikely that a supernatural God would lead or deliver us without some level of supernatural intervention.  Even if that intervention is leading someone else to help us.

 "For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory, for ever and ever."

Starting with the obvious, any being with the ability to do anything "for ever and ever", would necessarily be supernatural.  Again, if one looks more broadly at the teachings of Jesus, it's likely that He is referring to this kingdom as being supernatural in that it expands beyond time and space.

This isn't supposed to be a deep theological treatise digging into every nook and cranny of Jesus prayer.  It's simply meant to point out that it's incredibly difficult to escape that Jesus most clear teaching on prayer was filled with language that points to a supernatural God intervening in our natural world in response to the prayers of His people.

Maybe the problem is that we misunderstand what is supernatural and fail to see the supernatural in the small things.   Obviously we can look at Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead, making the blind see and the lame walk.   We can look at the fate that befell Ananias and Sapphira in Acts.  We can look at Jesus feeding thousands with little.  We can look at His death and resurrection,  There are all sorts of those kinds of things that can be dissected, I'm sure that many who say that follow Christ will argue against any or all of these things actually happening, and even more who'll insist that absolutely none of these kinds of things happen today, and if that's how you want to limit God that's your choice.   Yet, we do see things that can't adequately be explained in 100% natural terms.  Am I saying that all of those are supernatural acts of God?  No.  Am I saying that they're absolutely not?  Also no.   

I think that worshiping a God that doesn't care enough to intervene in the lives of His people, or who's too impotent to, is a god that's probably not worth our worship.

After, is it fair?

 There are several options for what happens to us after we die, I’ll list a few and go from there.

1.   We cease to exist.

2.   Reincarnation/Karma/Nirvana 

3.   Eternal reward for believers  (heaven)

4.    Eternal punishment (hell)

5.    Eternal separation from God

6.     Eternal reward for everyone (Universalism)

I’m sure there are more, but these should be sufficient to make the point.   In terms of what most people would consider "fair" #'s 1&2 are probably the most fair.  1. We're all equally gone.  2.  We're all equally trying to achieve something that really doesn't seem well defined.  

#'s 3 & 4 seem like they need to be connected if we're talking about fairness.  It seems reasonable that if reward is eternal, then punishment should be also.  (For purposes of this example, I'm choosing to set aside the Calvinist perspective)

#5 seems pointless to me, although some would argue that it is preferable to #4.

6.  Honestly, this seems to be the least fair of all of the options.  The thought that Hitler and Mother Theresa will both be rewarded seems grotesquely unfair.

I suspect that part of the problem is that most humans tend to define fair, as what benefits me more, which means that it's possible that we're using the wrong measurement.

Credible

 Is Jim Acosta a credible media source?

Trump's taxes

 This recent brouhaha over Trump's taxes makes me laugh.

Despite that NYT article stating that Trump paid over a million dollars of income taxes in the "$750.00" years, the narrative persists apparently impervious to truth.

But what's even more amusing is that a veritable horde of people who' vast experience with taxation is their W2 income job, with government mandated withholding, and filling out their 1040EZ, (maybe the regular 1040 if they're lucky), who get giddy on the feds are benevolent enough to give them a $500.00 refund, are all of a sudden experts in taxation.   People who wouldn't know what a schedule C is because they jealously guard their standard deduction, are all of a sudden experts on deductible depreciation and the rest.   Not to mention that all of this is based on a newspaper story by people who haven't seen the returns.

I get that, taken out of context, many of the specific legal deductions sound absurd.  Yet, like so much, the problem doesn't lie with the people who take advantage of every possible legal tax deduction, the problem lies with the people who actually have the power to change the tax code, but don't.   

I'm going to guess that every one of these "experts" behaves exactly the same way that Trump does when it comes to taxes.  They try to squeeze out every single legal deduction that they possibly can, and they probably take the risk of a few that aren't so legal in the hopes that they don't get audited.   

I feel confident in saying that the problem isn't the Trumps of the world (y'all are lying if you think that the lefty 1% ers don't do the same things), it's the tax code.

I'm not sure I've ever done this before

"May we be a people that seeks God's justice."

On the surface, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't agree with this sentiment, I certainly do.  I rely on the surety of God's justice for any number of reasons.

I do think that there is a problem with agreeing with the principle above however.

What if a commitment to seek God's Justice, requires that we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about Justice ?

What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?

What if we see God's Justice, but don't like it?

What if God's Justice is less about specific legal outcomes, and more about bringing Glory to Him?

What if God's Justice includes some level of eternal punishment?

I am 100% for seeking God's Justice.  I wholeheartedly believe that even when I earnestly seek God's Justice, that I will fall short.  I also believe that if I'm not willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, prejudices, preconceptions, and assumptions about God's justice, then it's likely that I will make an idol from them and become angry when my idolatry doesn't bring me peace and comfort. 

 

 

This is the text of a post from the other day.  Something about it has gotten Dan's panties in a twist and he's been quite prolific in his reaction to it.

What he hasn't done is answer the questions above.  He's answered some other questions, bitched, asked a bunch of questions (some stupid), and made multiple false claims without even pretending to provide proof that any of them are true.

That makes me wonder, what is it about these questions that has him engaging in so much effort to avoid answering them.   I have some suspicions, but will refrain from sharing them for now.  

Since the first attempt at this has been dragged into a completely different direction, the ONLY comments that I will approve for this thread will be comments that specifically and directly answer the questions.   These comments will be formatted by copy/pasting the question and answering it directly beneath the question.     If there are legitimate questions, I will consider them AFTER there has been a good faith attempt to answer the questions as posed.   They are very broad and are asked with the understanding that the answers will contain some degree of opinion.  

Unlike the other posts with specific restrictions, comments that fail to meet the criteria will be DELETED, not saved for a later date or moved to the other thread.  If anyone is too lazy, comprehension challenged, or stupid, to follow these simple instructions then the deletion of those comments is 100% your responsibility.

 

Some reading options

https://www.challies.com/articles/no-one-believes-in-social-injustice/ 

Three links to what look lie interesting takes on the topic of justice.

I couldn’t

 I wanted to watch the debate, but couldn’t.  The fact that Joe Biden is unaware that the term of preside doesn’t end on Election Day was too much.  

God's Justice, or ours?

 I saw this yesterday all over social media, and have seen other similar posts as well.

"May we be a people that seeks God's justice."

On the surface, I can't think of anyone who wouldn't agree with this sentiment, I certainly do.  I rely on the surety of God's justice for any number of reasons.

I do think that there is a problem with agreeing with the principle above however.

What if a commitment to seek God's Justice, requires that we sacrifice the idol of our ideas about Justice ?

What if we stopped putting our faith in humans and human institutions to dispense God's Justice?

What if we see God's Justice, but don't like it?

What if God's Justice is less about specific legal outcomes, and more about bringing Glory to Him?

What if God's Justice includes some level or eternal punishment?

I am 100% for seeking God's Justice.  I wholeheartedly believe that even when I earnestly seek God's Justice, that I will fall short.  I also believe that if I'm not willing to sacrifice my own beliefs, prejudices, preconceptions, and assumptions about God's justice, then it's likely that I will make an idol from them and become angry when my idolatry doesn't bring me peace and comfort.

Chicago

 It seems that the mayor of Chicago appointed a “census cowboy” who felt it appropriate to mistreat a horse so badly that it needed to be put down.

1.  It’ll be interesting to see if the mainstream/progressive folks can shut the animal rights folks up.

2.  This’ll likely generate more outrage (among some) than the black humans shot or aborted this week.

3.  Lightfoot is clearly an idiot who needs to go.

4.  WTH is a “census cowboy” anyway?

Smoke

 There's been a lot of smoke recently about Trump's "peaceful transfer of power" comment recently, but is it really justified.

For example, if we look back at 2020, which side of the political aisle has been more vocal about threatening violence of they don't get the results they want, or more involved in engaging on violence?

Today, Walz announced that he was calling out the National Guard to preserve "the safety" on Minnesotans while Mike Pence is in the state on a campaign stop.   Why would he don this?  Safety for whom? Safety from whom?

For example, has there ever been an instance of the crowds at a Pence rally ever engaging on behavior that would imperil the "safety" of random people?  

Is Walz worried about the possibility that there might be an "anti-Pence" crowd that might imperil the safety of random citizens?

Did the recent Trump visits to the state result in behaviors that imperiled the safety of random citizens? 

Did hordes of raving Trump supporters riot and loot at the recent Biden visit to the state?

IMO it's one of two things.

There is a credible threat from folx who are opposed to Trump/Pence who will engage in activities that imperil the safety of random citizens.    It's possible that Walz is being proactive and trying to (for a change) stop violence and rioting before it starts.

Or.

It's an attempt to use the power of the state government to pressure those attending the Pence event to stay away.

Or.

It's the first one, but the second is simply a fortuitous byproduct. 

 

EDIT

I sounds like it's a minimal National Guard presence, so there's that.

 

Prediction.  Absolutely no matter what actually happens, any rioting/looting/arson/damage/harm will be blamed on Trump/Pence supporters, and/or on Mike Pence himself.

https://kstp.com/news/walz-activates-national-guard-for-pence-visit-september-24-2020/5873200/

Just saw photos of Pence with one of the black small businesses owners whose business was destroyed by rioters, haven’t seen Biden or Harris, doing the same.  

I'm curious

 If Roe v. Wade was decided because of a "concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.", then how is the narrative about choice and freedom accurate?

More importantly, which populations do we not want "too many of"?

Condolences

 Wishing the family and friends of Justice Ginsberg all of the best in this difficult time of grief.    

Data

 Recently LeBrom James has been very outspoken about his views on racism in the US.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with him doing so.  But, if we look at some broader data, it might give up more information about LeBron's goals and motives.

Let's start with LeBron's ties to China.  Both the NBA and Nike have significant ties to China and yet both (plus LeBron) have stayed silent.  Further LeBron has continued to make millions from his relationship with Nike, while ignoring their use of slave labor (or what's virtually the same as slave labor).   

Recently two LA deputies were attacked in cold blood and shot in their vehicle.   The LA county sherrif challenged Lebron to contribute a tiny fraction of his immense wealth toward the reward fund.   LeBron's reaction has been silence.

I think that if we look at the data, we can see that a lot of the people who are up in arms about slavery in the US 150 years ago, say very little about slavery in 2020.  They use their Apple products to post all sorts of content on social media, wait in line for the next $1,000 iPhone, yet ignore Apple's labor practices.   Of course, many of these folx, wield their iPhones etc, while wearing products from Nike, another company with problematic labor practices.

Strangely, they don't see the contradiction they demonstrate.

Maybe looking beyond what people say, and looking at the data of their lives can be helpful.

Don't for a minute think that I'm exempting myself.  All I can say is that as I move forward, I will be looking at which companies are the least tied in with slave labor and making my buying decisions accordingly.  

BVMLTT

The Five points of CRT

1.  Total partiality

2.  Unconditional rejection (of white people)

3.  Limited Contentment

4. Irresistible race 

5.  Perseverance of the complaints

Darrell B Harrison

----

"I was hungry and you burned down the resteraunt.

I was thirsty and you threw a cement milkshake at me.

I was a stranger and you said I was a racist NAZI.

I was naked and you set me on fire.

I was sick and you rioted."

Micah Burke

FULL DISCLOSURE.

I can't verify Micah's ethnicity, but I believe he's black.   I don't necessarily agree with everything, but it's interesting to see this sort of tactic used by someone who's not an SJW.  Finally, I'd add to the first line "and the grocery stores, and the drug stores, after looting them of the food and medications."

Horrified and Enraged

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54160638 

This article showed up on my FB feed with a threat that anyone who calls themselves "Pro Life" should be horrified and enraged.

Let's start with the obvious, it's still an unverified/unproven allegation about one ICE detention center.

So, IF this proves to be true, I'll be horrified and enraged and support those responsible being punished to the fullest extent of the law.   If not, I guess it'll be one more instance where somebody raised a big stink before all the information was available.

"In statements released on Monday, ICE said it was taking the allegations seriously and was "firmly committed to the safety and welfare of all those in its custody"."

 

Again, actions speak louder than words, and we'll see, but at least ICE is saying the right things.

 If we dig a little deeper in the article, it sounds like it's literally ONE Dr, doing more hysterectomies that  someone thinks are appropriate.  

So, yes if this turns out to be true, I'll be appalled and fully supportive of whatever corrective measures are taken.   Of course, I'm not sure what it has to do with being "Pro Life".  Especially since, in some locales,  abortion providers aren't required to meet the same health and safety standards that other outpatient medical facilities are.    Yet, I don't see the Pro Choice folks too horrified or enraged about that.

Sexualizing Children??

 I see quite a few people defending and promoting the notion of “child sexuality” of late.   I guess I’m just a bit too old fashioned to think it’s a good thing for 10-12 year old children to be publicly explored their sexuality.    Especially not publicly.    I can’t imagine that it’ll bode well for them as they get older.  

I'm going to ignore (mostly) the irony of this

Dan posted this in the thread where's been ignoring and diverting attention away from multiple questions and clarifications regarding some comments he made.  He's also been gracious enough to share his condescending and insulting thoughts on my inability to understand his"wisdom".   This will take a bit of both correction before I answer.

 

 "I'm left wondering if you all see any irony in suggesting that progressive types are somehow devaluing life and yet conservative evangelicals are the ones who insist that every human who has ever lived is utterly disgusting and, in their natural state, deserving of an eternal punishment of eternal torture... That these humans are disgustingly sinful and wholly unworthy of being in God's presence... do you see any irony in that? Why are humans to be valued if they are out early sinful and entirely depraved?

I get why we Progressive types value people, because we believe humanity is to be valued by nature of being part of this creation. We don't tend to think of humanity is utterly depraved like you all do. But given your worldview, why is a depraved Humanity worthwhile and to be valued?"

 

"I'm left wondering if you all see any irony in suggesting that progressive types are somehow devaluing life..."

 

I'm wondering if you actually read my comment and understood it.   To start with, I never even one time used the term "progressive" in any way shape or form.  If you can't understand that incredibly simple fact, this might get a little deep for you.

 What I did refer to is those who have a Naturalistic or Materialistic worldview.   While I'm not going to go into detail as to what those worldviews entail, let's just say that referring to humans as a "computer made of meat", doesn't exactly demonstrate a high value of human life.   My suggestion is that you do some research into those who hold these worldviews, before you comment more.    

"...conservative evangelicals are the ones who insist that every human who has ever lived is utterly disgusting and,..."

 

We'll start with the imprecise broad brush.  The position you misstate so poorly is not necessarily attached to "conservative evangelicals".    Perhaps either research or precision would be helpful before you take to your keyboard.

The position you mischaracterize is the Calvinist position of Total Depravity.    Nowhere in any honest characterization of this position is there ever a sense that humans are "utterly disgusting".     The heart of this theology is that humans were created in the very image of God, and that all of creation was affected by man's fall into sin.   This fall doesn't diminish the inherent value in man.

"...in their natural state, deserving of an eternal punishment of eternal torture... That these humans are disgustingly sinful and wholly unworthy of being in God's presence... do you see any irony in that?"

Do I see irony in acknowledging that sin has consequences? No.   Yet, humanity's sinful nature doesn't negate the intrinsic value of being created in the image of God.

"Why are humans to be valued if they are out early sinful and entirely depraved?"

Because humans are created in the image and likeness of God.

 

I'll stop here and point out that you've done what many people do, in singling out one aspect of Reformed theology and divorcing it from the entirety of the theological construct.  

If, the picture you paint is accurate, then why would God have sent His son to redeem both fallen, sinful humanity and all of His creation.

 

"I get why we Progressive types value people, because we believe humanity is to be valued by nature of being part of this creation."

 

Great example of combining misstating what I said, with an appeal to numbers, and misleading language.

The first, and most obvious fail is your goal post move of substituting "progressives' for the actual terms I used. 

The second is your attempt to speak for all "progressive types".

The third is that I guarantee you there are plenty of "progressive types" who will vehemently disagree with your notion of "creation". 

The fourth is that, if my memory serves, your version of creation might not be the same as others.  So, some questions to answer before anything else.

1.  When you use the term "creation" are you referring to a singular event?

2.  Are you referring from "creation" ex nihilo?

3.  Is there a creator? If so who?

4.  Describe what "creation" means to you?  Details, mechanism, who, etc.

5.  What is it about "creation" that gives humans intrinsic value?

6.  Can you explain why Buddhists, Shintoists, Pantheists, Panentheists, Atheists,  Agnostics, or Animists would agree with your hunch?

Let's move the goal posts back for just a second, and how about if you respond to what I actually said?

 

"We don't tend to think of humanity is utterly depraved like you all do. "

Again, an argument from numbers and a mischaracterization of the position you are "arguing against"

 

"But given your worldview, why is a depraved Humanity worthwhile and to be valued?"

1.  Because depraved humans are created in the very image and likeness of God.

2.  Because God is the giver of life.

3.  Because human sinfulness and depravity isn't the entirety of the story.

 

In the past you've suggested that humans are born without sin.  That humans are intrinsically good. That infants are completely innocent.  Correct?

 If all of those things are objectively True, and human life has intrinsic value as being part of some vague and amorphous creation,   then how could anyone agree that it's appropriate to end the lives of those innocent, good, sinless humans?

Since you started this, and given your recent aversion to answering questions.  This post has some special rules.

1.  First, acknowledge the fact that you've switched the terms and falsely characterized what I actually said.

2.  Second, answer any and all questions completely and succinctly before you say anything else.

Failure to do so, will result in your comments being held, edited, or deleted depending on your attitude.

 

 

Summary

"- God is beyond everyone’s understanding, except mine
– God is beyond all definitions, except mine
– God is beyond all human understanding, except mine
– I’m not contradicting myself, it’s a mystery! a mystery!
– as long as you don’t look to closely, they’re all the same!
– allow me to tell you about God, which no one can do but me"

 

The excerpt above is from the summary of a debate that WK wrote.  What I find interesting (even though it;s clearly tongue in cheek), is that it's a pretty good summary of what I hear from a lot of people on the theological left side of things.  

 https://winteryknight.com/2020/09/09/chris-sinkinson-debates-john-hick-on-religious-pluralism-and-salvation-7/

Many of the "arguments" used in the debate to justify pluralism are also used to justify other theological claims, it's too bad that they aren't particularly good arguments.    Especially the third one, I see versions of that regularly. 

Potpourri+BVMLTT

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/06/opinion/pedophilia-a-disorder-not-a-crime.html

Really not much else to say about this one, the push to legitimize is slowly gaining momentum.

----

"Approximately 80 million people died in WW2.   That was only 3% of the world's population.  This we can conclude that WW2 was mostly peacful?"

Zuby

----

 https://www.outkick.com/washington-post-strikes-out-in-hit-piece-attempt/

https://www.outkick.com/washington-post-and-its-liberal-bigot-ben-strauss-protest-too-much/

I guess this is why people think that journalists are unbiased and don't twist things to fit a narrative.  Probably doesn't rise to enemy of the people, but it definitely calls the narrative into question.  I'm quite sure that those who fetishise the media as always searching for unbiased truth, as well as those who think that "listening to black voices" is some magical incantation, will ignore these links.  I'm quite sure they won't be bothered by the reporters choice to ignore the voice of a black man, in favor of misrepresenting said black man.

https://thefederalist.com/2020/09/07/atlantic-editor-concedes-central-claim-of-trump-hit-piece-could-be-wrong/

Along a similar line, except the Atlantic editor concedes by saying,  “I’m sure all of those things are true,”,  that the recollections of those who dispute the story are correct.  Hence, the story is false.  But he justifies printing literal fake news anyway.

----

"Since wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty, you might think that the left would be as obsessed with the creation of wealth as they are with the redistribution of wealth.  But you would be wrong."

Thomas Sowell

----

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/may/18/womens-rights-happiness-wellbeing-gender-gap

Another example of what happens when studies come into contact with a narrative.

----

"We all oppose bad cops, but BLM is a totally non data-based movement.  Last year NINE unarmed Black men were killed by police.  Black/white interracial crime annually is 5% oc crime (600K cases/12 million crimes) and 80% of that is Black-on-white.  Cities are burning because of lies."

Wilfred Reilley

---

"Trump deserves to lose.  Biden doesn't deserve to win.  This isn't the end.  It's a new beginning.  We who follow Jesus are being given the sacred gift of putting Him first in ways, both private and public, we've never known before.  A threshold for awakening."

Ray Ortlund

----

https://amgreatness.com/2020/09/03/when-will-a-prominent-black-athlete-stand-up-to-the-mob/

"The most prevalent, and incendiary statistic heard is that black people are being disproportionately being killed by police...The statistic fails on every level."

Larry Elder

It's interesting how people who are usually the first to demand data, statistics, and studies, don't seem to be applying those sorts of matrices to this topic.  Could it be that the statistics don't help their cause? 

----

"I'm not standing for the National Anthem until America removes Donald Trump from office, either by vote or by force.

Doc#DisasterAssistTeam @dobieblue

This isn't the first time I've seen the left advocate for the violent overthrow of the president.   I thought that sort of thing was discouraged by the allegedly pacifist left.

----

"I don't think most people think about laws properly.  EVERY LAW is ultimately enfprced by the threat of, or actual violence (disagree? resist arrest)

So before making a law, you should think about if you're 100% comfortable with the government sending their goons to enforce it."

Zuby

----

"Leave it to sinful human beings to take an aspect of out having been created in the image of God-ethnicity-and use it as a weapon to demean and disparage those same image bearers.  But such is the effect of sin on the human heart-it makes us the enemies of God and of one another."

Darrell B Harrison

----

"BLM promotes ancestral worship, LGBTQ, dismantlement of the nuclear family, and the emasculation of the black male.  This group is demonic and is anti-God and their agenda is to dismantle and destroy our society even if it means physical harm to those who oppose them."

@Ken-1689

----

 

More wisdome from a progressive

 "If you're not intentionally looking for the best in the person whose political views disgust you, you are, in effect, acting on the assumption that they are pure evil,  You are, in effect, acting like you are God, for only God could know this.  This is not something you want to do."

Greg Boyd

Needless to say, the comments and reaction to this post weren't positive, and demonstrate that the tolerance of those on the political and theological left is limited to those who don't stray even a little from the proper narrative.

Literal?

 "We both are looking at the actual words in the text. I'm looking at the words that say God is just and God is loving and recognizing that as those words are literally understood"

 

While it's clear that Dan doesn't always catch things like snark and humor in blog comments, as his recent reaction to a comment at Stan's demonstrates.  However, the above is interesting and worthy of exploring.

 

Dan is quite clear that he believes that the descriptions of God as "just" and "loving" are accurate descriptions of God and should be understood "literally".    I doubt that many would argue with the premise as stated.  Yet, it's clear that "love" and "just" are only to be understood literally as long as that literal understanding conforms to Dan's concept of what "love" and "just" entail.    

What's interesting, is that there are other descriptive words that describe God and his nature.  Things like "wrath", "jealous", "holy", "perfect", "Truth",  etc.    Yet, Dan and others don't always choose to accept these descriptions as "literal", I wonder how it is decided that "just" must be accepted as "literal" while "wrath" is metaphorical?  

The other obvious problem with this line of reasoning, is that it takes a (progressive) human view of justice (specifically that justice is about outcomes, not process) and overlays it on top of God.  It further excludes some possibilities from consideration, without any objective reason to do so.   In other words, there is an assumption that God's justice is limited,  that it cannot mean "X", that it must agree with what we perceive as "just".  

The problem with this notion, is just that, it's an assumption that isn't based on anything objective or concrete.  

Dan concludes that a couple of examples he picked out "fail", yet there's no actual evidence of this alleged objective failure.  I'm not sure that simply announcing that something or someone "failed" is quote adequate.  If that's the case that Dan has clearly failed to either, demosntrate that the Biblical teaching on Hell is wrong, or to make an objective, positive case that his views are correct.

"One of the great things about truly good people is their humility. They don't think of themselves as worthy of praise (of course!) and they certainly don't demand it nor do they think that any one who opts not to praise them should be tortured for an eternity."

 This, I think, sums up the problems with Dan's hunch.  He's decided that it's appropriate to judge God, by the standard that one judges "good people", that God must be humble.  That the God who created all, must bow in humility before His creation.

 

All in all it's a excellent example of applying a selective test for what is "literal" and  of expecting God to conform to progressive, human standards.

It's an amusing effort, but certainly not even an attempt at anything resembling an objective defense of a position.  There are more failures, but this is plenty. 

Apology

 It looks like I trusted the local news stories about the restraint technique used on George Floyd.   If my earlier comments, based on the news stories, were wrong I apologize.   This goes to show that waiting for more information is better than jumping to conclusions.

With all the talk about policing

As we discuss the role of policing two general things stand out to be as being under discussed.

 

First.  I'm seeing a lot of people complaining about police stopping people for equipment violations and other "minor" things.  The argument is used to claim that these laws are an excuse to harass black people.   I have absolutely no doubt that there is some degree of Truth to this.  Giving someone in power a reason to stop someone else for something potentially inadvertent, seems like a recipe for  bad cops to abuse that power.   Yet, the police don't make the laws.  They enforce them, imperfectly, but their role is limited to enforcement.   So far, I haven't heard a great hue and cry for the repeal of "equipment" violations, and I wonder why not.   Or how about setting speed limits artificially low, it seems like the same type of thing.   I'm wondering if we shouldn't be having a conversation about these kinds of laws and if they help  or hurt.  Do we want or need the police playing hall monitor on our brake lights or turn signals?  Do we want to increase or decrease the opportunities that exist for police interaction with citizens?   Should be be looking beyond the police and to the elected officials that make the laws and oversee the police?

Second.  We need to decide if the police are EVER justified in using deadly force against a suspect.   We need a conversation about what circumstances justify using deadly force.    Then, of course, we need to discuss when deadly force is too deadly.   Is that follow up shot (or 2, or more) really necessary?   Should cops shoot to simply hit the suspect, or shoot until the suspect is no longer a threat?   Speaking of threats, isn't a suspect behind the wheel of a vehicle a threat?  Isn't an armed suspect a threat?  Do all people react the same way and suffer the same effects when hit with a Taser or when shot?   Should be base our decisions on the best case or the worst case?   Is a suspect actively shooting at cops a significant enough threat for the cops to respond in kind?   Is it realistic to train cops to "shoot to wound", "shoot them in the leg?", or "shoot the gun out of their hand?"     Are movies and TV shows the best place to get our information about what is reasonable when these situations occur?   I'd love to see the "Shoot them in the leg." folks run through a use of force simulation.   I'm guessing that there would be "dead bodies" littering the screens or shooting house, and they'd have run through huge amounts of ammunition in the process.  

I'm not suggesting that we're having the wrong conversations, or asking the wrong questions, I'm suggesting that we aren't having a complete discussion or asking enough questions.

How likely

 How likely is it that the sins we find most prevalent in others, are the sins we struggle most with ourselves?

Potpourri

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/01/opinion/biden-trump-police-minneapolis.html

 It's an interesting take from people who live in areas most harmed by defunding the police.  As much as I hate to offer MPLS as the solution to anything...

 ----

"2 weeks ago, I was not even considering voting for Trump.  In 2016 I tried to run against him.  Now I am thinking about it.  And the outpouring of hatred and condemnation, and derision is pulling me more in that direction.  The left and their movements must be stopped." 

Austin Peterson

----

"What excuses and rationalizations will Governor Evers and Mayor Barnes come up with now for this violent racial incitement masquerading as social justice?"

https://www.kenoshanews.com/news/local/watch-now-kenosha-speaker-strays-from-message-at-rally/article_a91e142b-46bf-5702-bb45-42b2015ce4b6.html

 "But near the end of the rally, one man introduced as "our president" strayed from the message by saying, “If you kill one of us, it’s time for us to kill one of yours.”"

----

I'm not sure what else to say about this one.

 https://www.iheart.com/content/2020-08-29-judge-refuses-to-jail-pedophile-who-abused-6-kids-hes-too-fat-for-prison/

----

"Destroying the epistemic authority of objectivity is one of the most harmful manifestations of wokeness.  What's left are lived experiences and a moral hierarchy that determines whose narratives matter more.  Not only is this the death of journalism; it's the death of civilization."

https://thewalrus.ca/objectivity-is-a-privilege-afforded-to-white-journalists/

Melissa Chen

----

"Publishers weekly on the pro-looting book:  "A provocative Marxist-imformed defense of looting as a radical and effective protest tactic...a bracing rethink of the goals and methods of protest"

On In Defense of Looting by Vicky Osterwell.

----

The peaceful protesters in Portland have driven the mayor from his condo, because of damage to the building and his neighbor's fear.    I guess I don't understand why peaceful protests are causing this much concern and why the mayor (who's done literally nothing to stop the protests), is so scared.

 

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2020/09/portland-mayor-says-hell-move-after-protest-outside-his-condo-building-draws-arrests-widespread-calls-for-change.html

 It would seem that the DFL mayor of St Louis has also fled in fear from the peaceful protesters.

BVMLTT

 "The white man will not be our equal but our slave

History is changing

No justice no Peace"

Sasha Johnson

----

 "But near the end of the rally, one man introduced as "our president" strayed from the message by saying, “If you kill one of us, it’s time for us to kill one of yours.”"

 ----

Violence is the only way, of course  No votes. No Marching.  No spots on cable news. No high fashion magazine cover stories. No hashtags. No panels.  

None of that is going to bring about the liberation Black folks deserve."

"Begging white people to support BLM and related work has diluted the integrity of true revolutionary work.  I still don't get why folks were so focused on getting mainstream support when it only means the inevitable destruction of the movement."

"White people, no matter how "liberal" or "progressive" will never endorse revolutionary acts that may jeopardize their children's lives.   As such they will never fully support a Black revolution by way of violent rebellion.  Nope. Nah. Not gonna happen lol"

Feminista Jones

----

"Nothing scares me as much as people who admit that dismembering a baby is inhumane BUT still needed.  It is perhaps the most wicked layer of the abortion movement."

Obianuju Ekeocha referring to this.

 

"Because women need to have choices and right now there's no way to save unwanted babies.  Inhumane, maybe.  But we still need to have that choice."

----

" They have deputized all white people to murder us."

Tressie Cotton

 https://www.thecollegefix.com/black-professor-argues-republicans-have-deputized-all-white-people-to-murder-us/

----

"It's a testimony to the importance of controlling discourse that LITERAL MARXISM is still considered an acceptable political philosophy to hold.  Imagine how we'd react to someone advocating literally anything with a similar track record:  "I sirrah, am a PRO-slavery man!"

"Interesting point: I have asked some of my Appalachian white buddies today why their group-shot by police roughly as often as African Americans- doesn't protest more often.  The answer (quote) was: "We don't care if a rapist or criminal gets killed." 

"I thought about buying "In Defense of Looting"," but I just stole it instead.

Wilfred Reilly

----

"BLM did not start under Trump, it started under Obama.  The war on police didn't start under Trum, it started under Obama.  This racial tension did not start under Trump, it started under Obama.  Obama emboldened this hate through his administration and now we're paying the cost."

"OK I'm gonna say it, black racists are becoming a real problem."

McKayla J

----

 "A key distinction between the Civil Rights movement of the 1960" and Black Lives Matter today is that the Civil Rights Movement was rooted in the principle of the "Imago Dei" (Gen 1:27a).  Black people wanted equal rights-not special rights-as fellow image bearers of God"

Darrell B Harrison

----

"Good. We need to get citizens to control themsleves and reflect more than ever.  We need to be better.  We have lost all respect.  Then we can address the policing issues.  We're tearing each other apart and I really fear a domestic race war.  We need to make this right ASAP."

KingCollins

I was watching the news

 I was watching one of the national network news programs yesterday, which I don't always do.  There was a story about the devastation caused by Laura throughout the south, and what's being done to recover. 

Then I was hit by a realization.  Why do we care, those people have insurance?  It's not them that'll have losses, it's the insurance companies.

Right?

https://www.startribune.com/insurance-payouts-fall-far-short-of-what-s-needed-to-rebuild-twin-cities/572054742/

Church yesterday

 At church yesterday there was discussion of how to communicate with people who have different views an the issues of the day in a way that honored and pointed to Christ.

While I agree that as believers we need to do a better job of representing Christ on our fallen world, and that a big part of that is things like being willing to listen, to understand, and the tone of our responses.  Yet, I can't help but wonder what role Truth plays in all of this.   How do we seek the Truth and seek to share the Truth, when all too many of us are navigating these times based on feelings?   

I was in a conversation with someone who kept insisting that I needed to honor their feelings and emotions regarding certain things.   Then they complained that my response to their feelings/emotions was to bring facts and Truth into the conversation.   Now, I'll own the fact that I probably didn't do a good job of communicating the Truth in a manner that helped move the conversation forward.  I'll also acknowledge that I could have done a better job of acknowledging their feelings and understanding that those feelings were very real.

So, how do we balance Truth with feelings?  How do we acknowledge that this is at it's root an issue of sin and the spiritual, while understanding that there are some societal/governmental parts of the conversation as well.

It seems as if Christ is Truth, then Truth should be part of the conversation.