You can't quarantine stupid

Yesterday, Trump made some comments at his briefing that fell into one of the following categories.

1.  Poorly expressed sarcasm
2.  Poorly expressed, badly understood, well intentioned,  questions
3.  Poorly expressed, well intentioned serious suggestions
4.  Poorly expressed stupid suggestions


I'm sure there are other options, but I think everyone can agree that he, as he is wont to do, expressed himself poorly.   (It's reasonable to take issue with "poorly", I won't argue about it)


Also yesterday, the media (professional and social) took Trumps actual words out of context and reported things that were clearly false.

Trump never said that anyone should drink bleach or inject themselves with disinfectant.

This trend by the media has been very noticeable since the feeding frenzy over his Chloroquine comments.   They were twisted, turned, and taken out of context, while Cuomo was saying virtually the same things and got a complete pass.

Look, I get it, Trump says dumb things.  He says things that aren't necessarily dumb in dumb ways or ways that sound dumb.  He says things in ways that open him up to criticism.  His vocal inflections don't convey sarcasm well at all.   All of these and more are true.

Yet the truth of all of this, doesn't excuse the media (social or otherwise) for twisting and misrepresenting what he actually said (stupid as it might have been), and demonstrating that they are also willing to say stupid things as long as they are attacking Trump.

I guess injections ultra violet light into people’s bodies isn’t a completely crazy idea.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6122858/

“@SpeakerPelosi: "The president is asking people to inject Lysol into their lungs and Mitch was saying that states should go bankrupt. It's a clear, visible within 24 hours of how the Republicans reject science and reject governance."”

I guess neither CNN nor Pelosi feel compelled to attempt honesty.

“Now we see “inject ourselves with bleach”, I guess that it’s perfectly fine to give one’s imagination free reign as long as it’s making up falsehoods about Trump.    

This just reinforces my original point.  No matter how poorly Trump communicates or how stupid he might sound, none of that is an excuse for falsehood and stupidity on the part of those who hate Trump.  


What’s most interesting about this is that after the initial hubbub we find out that the types of things that Trump is poorly referring to, are actually being done by actual medical personnel.    We’ve seen the UV light thing, now I’m seeing Dr’s talk about injecting “disinfectant” into people’s lungs.  (Not bleach or Lysol idiots).   

The anti Trump idiocy and hatred is actually pushing me toward voting for Trump.   Congratulations, we’ll done.

Well....

“Of all ignorance, the ignorance of the educated is the most dangerous. Not only are educated people likely to have more influence, they are the last people to suspect that they don't know what they are talking about when they go outside their narrow fields.”

Thomas Sowell

Lying is bad

Yet I just watched tape of Pelosi denying that she said what the videotape clearly showed her saying.

Save Me

I saw a HuffPo headline suggesting that the government should jump in to save the journalism industry.

It seems like people have said for years that it’s the job of journalists to hold government accountable and to act as kind on an ombudsman for the citizenry.

If the government nails out the journalism industry does anyone really expect that the journalism industry won’t rerun the favor down the road.

Of course there’s also the irony of journos expecting the Trump administration to bail them out.

False equivalence

There’s something going around Facebook that goes something like this.

“The curve is flattening; we can start lifting the restrictions now.

=

“The parachute is slowed our rate of descent; I can take it off now.


I’m surprised that I see really intelligent people posting this foolishness.

The balancing of further damaging the economy and managing the virus, is multifaceted and not a static situation.

The job of a parachute is to safely get one from point a to point b in relative safety.   To remove the parachute before it’s done it’s job is foolish.

To begin to plan for the loosening of restrictions and getting people back to work, is prudent.

To ignore the fact that the restrictions cause harm, which must be balanced against the harm of the virus, is foolish.   Just like making or supporting decisions based on dislike for Trump is foolish.

Speaking of foolish, Joe Biden

“We’re in the middle of a global pandemic. No one feeling ill should have to choose between earning a paycheck or staying home to recover. We need to provide paid sick leave to everyone who needs it immediately.”

I hate to break it to him, but giving people money for “paid sick leave” is not “earning a paycheck”.   Forcing people to stop “earning a paycheck” has nothing to do with choice.   

How about letting people choose to go back to work in a responsible way, taking into account the local conditions, instead of forcing them to take paid “sick leave” when they aren’t sick.

Data is always interesting

http://www.ruthblog.org/2011/05/19/what-types-of-unions-have-the-highest-rates-of-divorce/

Female unions seem to have the highest divorce rates, followed by male unions, followed by opposite sex unions.
“For Sweden, the divorce risk for partnerships of men is 50% higher than the risk for heterosexual marriages, and that the divorce risk for female partnerships is nearly double that for men.”
“For Norway, divorce risks are 77% higher in lesbian partnerships than in those of gay men.”  (The Norwegian data did not include a comparison with opposite sex couples.)
In California, the data is collected a little differently. The study looks at couples who describe themselves as partners, whether same sex or opposite sex. The study asks the question, how likely is it that these couples live in the same household five years later. Male couples were only 30% as likely, while female couples were less that 25% as likely, as heterosexual married couples, to be residing in the same household for five years.

For years the pro SSM folx have told us that SSM is not significantly different from marriage.  That it's just gay folx who want to formalize a long term, faithful, monogamous relationship.

 https://www.advocate.com/sexy-beast/2017/6/15/15-reasons-why-gay-man-will-never-be-monogamous

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/understanding-the-erotic-code/201809/monogamy-it-s-not-what-you-think

I know this will shock some people, but just maybe we should look at the data and reconsider the view that SSM is a panacea that will solve every problem in gay relationships.

Another damn racist

“Georgia State Rep. Vernon Jones—A Democrat, just endorsed President Trump He said:”

“A generation of African American families have been devastated by draconian policies that Joe Biden supported and voted for when he served in the Senate”

“It’s very simple to me. President Trump’s handling of the economy, his support for historically black colleges and his criminal justice initiatives drew me to endorse his campaign,” said Jones, who added that he had no immediate plans to switch parties. 

“There are a lot of African Americans who clearly see and appreciate he’s doing something that’s never been done before,” Jones said. “When you look at the unemployment rates among black Americans before the pandemic, they were at historic lows. That’s just a fact.”

A Front Row Seat

https://progressivespirit.net/


This is a chronicle of one atheist, progressive, christian, muslim, unemployed, "pastor" into what can only be described as insanity.   It's kind of sad to watch.

It’d be a shame

I see that someone has decided to spread nails throughout the grounds of MBC.   What a mature way to express disagreement.     It’d be a shame if the people or person who did this identified as progressive christians.

While I think that it’s stupid to gather in person, I also have problems with the government infringing on the right of people to peaceably assemble, and of the government to unilaterally decree that places of worship must be shut down.   Seems to be a constitutional problem to me. B

Of course, as I said, this sort of gathering is just about as stupid as those who don’t vaccinate, but I wasn’t aware that stupid was against the law.

...not like the other.

Back in the day, I followed a blog by a guy who was as in seminary planning to become ordained PCUSA.   This was back when I had at least a minimal investment in the future of that denomination.  Anyway, this guy had a buddy who commented a lot, these guys were like an old married couple.   Their comments and opinions were virtually identical and they literally could finish each other’s sentences.    One day I made the mistake of treating them as if they both believed the same thing about some topic.   One of the few times they didn’t share virtually identical beliefs.   Well, they both got really offended, and I apologized for my faux pas.    What I learned from this was that it is usually a mistake to assume that people who belong to the “same group”, or who share some beliefs, automatically share all/most beliefs.    From them on I realized that I needed to take the time to differentiate between what individual people say and believe, without assuming certain beliefs based on affiliation.  

Why this is relevant is that I’ve recently noticed a trend of people making negative assumptions about individuals and their beliefs, based on perceived associations with a particular “group”.    When I see this sort of thing, it reminds me of how intellectually lazy people can be (as was I back then), and how desperate some people are to cast negative aspersions on individuals based on assumptions based on other individuals.   It’s simply cheap, lazy, and a poor attempt to establish some sort of  personal superiority.

I try to avoid this, and I’m sure I probably fail occasionally.  But I recognize the temptation and I try. When I see others do this, I usually ignore what they’ve said and chalk it up to laziness or stupidity.


As an aside, this doesn’t invalidate conclusions about beliefs that certain groups hold in common.   It’s reasonable to assert, for example, that the DFL as an entity doesn’t believe that there is room in their big tent for anyone who espouses a pro life position.     That is a generalized statement about a well documented, commonly held, belief shared by a significant number of people in that group.  Where it becomes problematic is to assume that Bill personally holds that belief based on his association with the DFL.   In the absence of direct evidence, that would be an assumption based on perceptions.        This tendency has certainly become more pronounced recently.

I’m not sure

“Me too. I did a bad thing. I took out $1800 in further student loans to send to Bernie. I was thinking  my loans would be erased, so no big deal. 

But I really need that money back now. My landlord can’t be held off much longer. If you wouldn’t mind sending me the email?”

I saw this in a thread where Bernie bots wanted their contributions back, I’m not 100% sure it’s not a joke, but it certainly is a great example of why many of us aren’t excited about blanket forgiveness of student loan debt.    It seems like this person admitted to getting student loan money under false pretenses.

It’s either depressing or amusing, your choice.

Good stuff

“We often hear the phrase "the crux of the matter" or "the crux of the situation." The word crux comes from Latin and simply means "cross." 

Why has the word crux come to be associated with a critical juncture or point in time? 

Because the cross of Jesus Christ is truly the crux of history. Without the cross, history itself cannot be defined or corrected.

There is another word we often hear when we are in the throes of indescribable pain - the word "excruciating." 

That, too, derives from Latin and means "out of the cross."

Across time and human experience, the historical event of the Cross intersects time and space and speaks to the deepest hurts of theGood  human heart.”

Ravi Zacharias

Deep thoughts

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.

― H. Richard Niebuhr talking about modern liberalism. 

Wild how many folks still think, "hmm, let's flesh that out a bit and build a church on it."”

“John Stott: “Nothing cuts us down to size like the cross. All of us have inflated views of ourselves, especially in self-righteousness, until we have visited a place called Calvary. It is there, at the foot of the cross, that we shrink to our true size.”

“Jesus didn’t die because of your sins. Jesus died because he was a poor brown revolutionary who was a threat to the Roman Empire.   Because there seems to be confusion already: state violence is a sin that many of us benefit from, of course. What I’m saying is that I refuse to cede any divine reason Jesus died. He died because he was a victim of state violence, full stop.  When it comes to the cross, I yield to womanist Delores Williams who cannot find the cross salvific. It is simply a place where a victim dies and God suffers with him.“

Mason Mennenga

“My only atonement theory is a rejection of atonement theories altogether. Because of my reading of Delores Williams, the *only* theological meaning I can ascribe to the event of a brown Palestinian man executed by the state is: fuck violence.This is not to say if one does find salvific meaning in Christ’s execution that makes them violent or racist. James Cone more or less ascribed to Christus Victor after all. Rather, at the encouragement of Delores Williams, I place my soteriology (the way I think about salvation) not in Christ’s execution but exclusively in his resurrection. Further clarification: some have mentioned that my argument bifurcates Christ’s life and resurrection from the cross. I’m aware that is a weakness of my argument. But I’m willing to live with it for the sake of simply and *only* saying, in regards to the cross: fuck violence.“

MM

A big tip of the hat to WK

I've been posting a lot of links to Wintery Knight recently because he's had some really interesting  takes on some relevant topics, these two are no exceptions.




https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/10/william-lane-craig-explains-the-doctrine-of-penal-substitutionary-atonement-7/

https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/09/new-study-intact-heterosexual-married-home-still-critical-for-childrens-academic-success/

 I could copy/paste quotes, but it's easier and seems like a better option to just post the links.

Imagine there’s no...

“Amazing Dems spend so much energy on so many things but were ultimately unable to come up with a candidate who can speak a single complete and coherent sentence. I have nothing against this man, he seems very nice, but he is clearly firing on few or possibly no cylinders.”

Against the narrative/Do as I say, not as I do

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52189349


According to multiple sources, the number of firearms sold in the US reached a new monthly high in Marsh.   Roughly 3 million new firearms were sold in March.  Yet, for some reason we've not seen a rash of mass shootings during this same period. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2020/04/07/trump-has-small-distant-link-to-sanofi-french-drugmaker-of-hydroxychloroquine/#2c0d2adc7260

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/coronavirus-trump-malaria-drug.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR0J9OmWUf0Szvu3hMI_pGyrBmYNaYE1kC6-EkG4oiowAf7uXw4I7uyWoQY

The other bid "news story" is the narrative about Trump profiting from the possibility of Chloroquine becoming widely used for the Wuhan Virus.

Unfortunately, this narrative is pretty much one more bit of fake news.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/04/07/trumps-promotion-hydroxychloroquine-is-almost-certainly-about-politics-not-profits/

Of course, it's also true that Chloroquine is a drug that has been around for years, is out of patent protection, is manufactured by multiple companies, and those companies are donating millions of doses.

I posted this link somewhere else, but it's still got some great information.

https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/07/so-much-good-news-in-the-battle-against-the-chinese-wuhan-virus/

There are multiple links in the post for the different stories.

It's just interesting that there seems to be in increase in stories and narratives that aren't actually what they appear to be.

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/07/how-can-coronavirus-models-get-it-so-wrong

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/06/americas-most-influential-coronavirus-model-just-revised-its-estimates-downward-not-every-model-agrees/


Now we see that we've shut down the economy of the entire country based on models which have been  shown to bear little relationship to the actual facts.   Yet the second story seems to want to continue the commitment to the models showing worse outcomes.

https://thehill.com/homenews/news/491558-chicago-mayor-defends-getting-a-haircut-amid-coronavirus

The mayor of Chicago is in full "Do as I say, not as I do." mode.  

https://nypost.com/2020/04/06/de-blasio-defends-exercising-in-prospect-park-amid-coronavirus-outbreak/

https://www.cityandstateny.com/articles/politics/new-york-city/all-de-blasios-covid-19-missteps.html

Meanwhile DiBlaso violates his own "stay at home" orders to take multiple walks in a park (miles from his mansion, traveling in a chauffeured SUV), as well as at lest one trip to the gym.  Not to mention the other stupid acts detailed in the second piece.

#NotMeToo, #NoLyingPerverts

"The #Biden1988 presidential campaign ended in 1987 when Joe Biden was outed as a pathological liar & a plagiarist.  In year 2020, why would independentsーthe largest voting blocーelect ANOTHER conman for president?"

I saw the Tweet  quoted above and honestly had forgotten Biden's casual relationship with the Truth.  The article below does a good job outlining some of the problems that go back to when he was in law school.

https://www.businessinsider.com/plagiarism-scandal-joe-biden-first-presidential-run-1988-2019-3

Now, it's obvious that one of my biggest reasons not to support Trump was his moral failings.  Two in particular.    The first being his lack of any sort of moral compass in his past sex life and the second being his casual relationship with the Truth.

So, when those who decry Trump and his problems with telling the Truth, suggest that Biden is the anecdote I get a little suspicious.  However, when people who decry Trump's lies, also  deny the the existence of Truth, or advance the notion of the existence of millions of Truths it also makes me wonder.   How, if one is intellectually consistent, criticize someone for failing to meet a standard that you don't unequivocally agree exists.


In other Biden campaign news, It appears that Joe has named Tavia Galonski as a "senior advisor".  This is the same Tavia Galonski that wants to refer Trump to the ICC at The Hague for "crimes against humanity".  Although the fact that she appears ignorant about the feasibility of this move and has "no idea" how to go about here plan, raises questions about what her qualifications are to be a "senior advisor" to the Biden campaign.


https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/6/tavia-galonski-ohio-democrat-wants-to-take-trump-t/

https://www.cleveland.com/open/2020/02/joe-bidens-campaign-names-three-ohio-elected-officials-as-senior-advisers.html


While on the topic of politicians and Truth.  Is it possible that if a woman accuses and politician of sexual impropriety and the politician denies or ignores those accusations, that her version of events is True while his version of events is also True?


 https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/04/04/the-economist-calls-it-striking-that-the-media-has-greeted-with-silence-the-latest-metoo-claim-against-joe-biden/

Not Directly Related

https://winteryknight.com/2020/04/06/is-asking-am-i-going-to-hell-a-good-rebuttal-to-scientific-arguments-for-theism-3/


This doesn't directly line up with some of the recent discussions,  but it does a good job of explaining why it's important to start by laying a foundation and building on that, before jumping ahead to topics and questions that don't make as much sense absent the foundation.

Blast from the past

Morality
1.   Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture,
2.   In its descriptive sense, "morality" refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong.
3.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
4.    Morality in a descriptive sense may be defined as a code of conduct endorsed and adhered to by a society, group or—much less frequently—individual. Moral codes in this sense will, therefore, differ both from society to society, within societies, and amongst individuals.
5.     Conformance to a recognized code, doctrine, or system of rules of what is right or wrong and to behave accordingly. No system of morality is accepted as universal, and the answers to the question "What is morality?" differ sharply from place to place, group to group, and time to time



Unfortunately, I'm not sure specifically where thees definitions came from,  but what's interesting (and what agrees with the definitions Dan used) is that they all agree that morality does not necessarily cross cultures.  


 1.  If morality is self evident, why do we see so much variation on moral principles from society to society and group to group?
2.   If morality is self evident, how do we explain the large numbers of people who act in immoral ways?
3.   How can morality be both self evident and subjective/
4.   How can one argue that protecting the right to live is self evidently moral, and argue that abortion is not immoral?   (That abortion is either moral or morally neutral)
5.   When people engage in acts that contravene these self evident morals, why do they engage in those acts?
6.   Are people simply unaware of these self evident moral standards and act from ignorance?
7.   Are people aware of these self evident moral standards, yet choose to act contrary to them?
8.   If a member of a society who considers it moral to randomly kill innocent people, acts in a way they (and their society) believe to be (subjectively) moral, what basis do other societies have to condemn those actions?
9.   Are actions moral or are individuals moral?