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.