BVMLTT

 "To sum up media bias and "The Narrative" in one sentence:  If Muhammed Anwar's killers had been two white teenagers, the story would lead the national news for 2-3 weeks."

W. Reilley

Predictions

 Mike Lindell, who's pillows I enjoy and who's got an inspiring story, is back in the news again.  He's predicting that his lawsuit will be so explosive that Trump will be back in office by August.     This is quite a claim, and is being met with skepticism, rightly in my opinion.

Not that I would object to Biden being litigated out of office, but I think that part of the problem here is the inability to shut up when it's appropriate.     For all I know Lindell might have the smoking gun evidence that will do exactly what he claims, but I kind of doubt it.   In this case, I think we've reached the point of "put up or shut up".   Generally speaking strategic surprise is the single most important factor in any military engagement, and strategic surprise means that you don't announce your intentions before you act.  Hell, it usually means that you hide your intentions before you act.   But not Mike.    

I fully support his right to file all the lawsuits he wants, part of me hopes that there really is some compelling evidence of voter fraud that will lead to increased election security.   But the bigger part of me wishes that he'd have kept his mouth shut until the opening argument of the lawsuit in front of a judge.  

The reality is that if he fails, as is likely, to follow through on his promise it likely means the end of his career as a politician or as a political influencer.    I'm not making a value judgement on that, just wondering if blowing one's political aspirations on this is really worth the time and money.   

Maybe the lesson is that knowing when to shut up is a good thing, or "Talk softly and carry a big stick.", or something similar. 

The Trial

 The trial has started and it never ceases to amaze me how eager people are to pretend that everything that happened before Chauvin pulled Floyd back out of the police car, had absolutely nothing to do with his death.

Let's start with the fact that Floyd himself set this chain of events in motion completely of his own volition.

He tried to buy cigarettes with a counterfeit $20 and got busted by the black (or brown) clerks at Cup Foods.   They literally gave him the opportunity to pay some other way, or leave the cigarettes and walk out the door.  No harm, no foul.    He could have tried to see if the clerks at the SA across the street were less vigilant, but he didn't.     One wonders if he chose Cup Foods to pass the counterfeit bill because he knew it was owned and staffed primarily by immigrants, and he thought they wouldn't know of check his $20.  

He could have chosen to spend the money he budgeted for meth and Fentanyl, on cigarettes instead.   Of he could have passed the fake $20 to his drug dealer instead.  Obviously the drug dealer would have simly accepted the fake $20 with no consequences whatsoever.

He could have chosen to simply ditch his meth and Fentanyl, or accept the consequences of a(nother) arrest for possession, instead of injesting a potentially lethal dose.

He could have cooperated with the officers instead of fighting back and resisting arrest.    Let's not forget that arresting someone for passing counterfeit money and drug possession is something that is completely reasonable for the police to do.

Absolutely none of this is intended to diminish the establishment of the proper level of responsibility to apply to Chauvin.  Nor is it to suggest that he did everything correctly.     It's simply pointing out that our actions have consequences, and that we don't always control the consequences and that we possibly underestimate the consequences (or don't think about them) in the moment.

Bodies

 Just saw this except from a BLM social post.

"George Floyd was human.

His body was glory..."

Obviously no disagreement with the first, George was human from the day he was conceived.

It's the second one the raises questions, not just for Floyd, but for us all.   If our bodies "are glory". whatever that means to each of us, then...

Why do we we use them for such un-glorius purposes?

Why do we fill them with so many harmful things?

Why do we use our bodies to inflict negative things on others?

Why do we put our bodies out for sexual objectification, or sexually objectify the bodies of others?

Why do we not use our bodies for their best and highest purpose?

Lest there be any confusion,  I fail in all of these areas.

Deal

 I saw someone make this proposal today and the more I think about it, the more I like it.

They said that if photo ID is good for voting, it’s good for a gun purchase.   

I’ll go one better, let’s place the same requirements for both.   Whatever you need to do to exercise your 2nd Amendment Constitutional right, you have to do to vote.    

There’s not a lefty in the country that would make this compromise, but if I was a young congressman, I’d have the bill written and submitted immediately.  

Stop the hate

 This recent notion that all violence is motivated by hate seems strange to me.  Let's start by saying that hate certainly can be, and is, the motivation for violence in some cases.  But absent any indication does it really make sense to attribute hatred of a particular ethnic group and the primary or only motive for violence without actual evidence?   

I understand that it's a catchy hashtag for those who's idea of changing the world stops at Tweeting.  I understand that it's a catchy slogan that is easy to chant or fit on signs, but is it the Truth?   Or, do we even care if it's True?  

In the past month I've seen Asians being put in the "white" category when data about academic success was being discussed, and then see Asians being put in the POC category after a "white" guy murders 6.   strangely enough, we didn't hear this narrative when it was African Americans killing Asians, or African Americans attacking Asians (complete with racial slurs) on video.

Which leads me to think that it's all about opportunities to promote a narrative, regardless of whether of not it's the Truth.

 I was going back through my posts from 2020, and 2019, looking for something that is appropriate for the current thread, I haven't found it yet, but I did learn a couple of things.

1.  I wrote much more that I thought I did about morality, especially a post which examined multiple moral systems and how Dan's wasn't there.  It's safe to say that if Dan has questions about my stance on morality, the information is avaliable for him to find.

 2.  I was shocked at how often and extensively I posted Dan's actual words in context, and how frequently I did so.  

 3.  I was surprised at how frequently my posts contained in context quotes from people of multiple stripes, links to those quotes, and links to support my opinions.

 

 

It sure seems...

 As I've been following the news regarding DeShaun Watson and the growing number of suits filed against him for sexual assault, I can't help but wonder a few things.

1.  When the media and the left are forced to choose between competing victim groups, which group will get thrown under the bus and why?

2.  Why has there been so little coverage of this story outside of sports media?

3.   If we find out that the accusers are filing suit as a way to get an easy payoff, and that their accusations are either false or exaggerated, will it reset the narrative going forward that we must always believe all women?

4.  Will the teams that seemed interested in acquiring Watson from Houston catch flack from the media/left for being racist, when it's more about not wanting to sign a guy who's currently carrying some sexual assault baggage?

It's interesting to see the silence from the left when these sorts of intersections happen, especially on Twitter.   I suspect that if Watson was white, that there would be a much greater outcry than there currently is.  Obviously, it's still early and we don't know enough to make determinations yet, but I suspect if he was white there'd be all sorts of folks jumping to all sorts of conclusions.     Maybe he's got some privilege.

An interesting approach

“Let me see if I understand,” I said to my daughter’s high school biology teacher. “The human eye is the evolutionary product of a light-sensitive spot on the skin. Is that right?”

“Right,” she said.

 

“And by evolution, you mean a mindless, random process that didn’t really have an end in mind. In other words, there was no “designer” for the eye or the body for that matter. Am I getting that right?”

“Right again,” she replied.

But how could an undirected process produce such highly functional complexity, I wondered aloud. She gave me a look that said, “you really don’t have the time or, probably, the background to understand, so do we really have to go there?”

We did, and I persisted, trying another tack that I had been wondering about for a while.

“Okay, well let me ask you just a few questions” I countered. “Would you agree that evolution as you understand it is a gradual process of adaptation over time, where changes that are advantageous accumulate?”

“Yes,” came her quick reply.

“Would you agree that over time these gradual adaptations would lead to the development of complex systems, such as organ systems?”

“Yes, that makes sense,” she said.

“Would you also agree,” I pressed, “that, generally speaking, the more complex the system, the longer it would take for these gradual adaptations to evolve so that a complex system would take longer to evolve than a less complex system?”

“Yes.” The response was a bit slower, more thoughtful.

Shifting gears a bit, I asked, “In the field of human biology, would you agree that generally speaking, the human female reproductive system is considerably more complex than its male counterpart?”

“I’m not sure what you mean,” she queried.

 

“Well,” I started, “the male half of the equation involves dividing cells to get to 23 chromosomes and providing a, uh, delivery mechanism. The female system involves the production of eggs, the delivery of the eggs to a specific location, the means for implantation, and if that occurs, the creation of a placenta that is fine-tuned to support the development of the life that is growing. The whole system must work in conjunction with the woman’s body, provide for correction of any mistakes occurring to minimize miscarriages, screen the fetus from harmful substances in the woman’s blood, connect the fetus to the mother by means of a two-way umbilical cord, and provide a method for the baby to be safely delivered into the world. More amazingly, the two systems must somehow recognize each other and work together, so that the 23 chromosomes from each half form a single cell that has the complete instructions for a new human life to begin. This seems like a pretty complex, interconnected, and interdependent system requiring multiple components to work just right. And yet it does work right millions and millions of times.”

“I suppose there’s something to that, but” she hesitated, “what’s your point?” Her tone matched her more serious expression.
“Just this,” I responded. “What exactly were all those men doing generation after generation waiting for the first fully functional female to evolve?”

She stared at me, no doubt wondering whether I was trying to mock her. But, though my question was of course facetious, I wanted to know where my logic was flawed. After all, the premises seem valid. If designed, it makes perfect sense that God could create a system in which some parts are more complex than others, and still have them work together for a purpose. But how could mammalian sexual reproduction – involving separate male and female individuals -ever evolve simultaneously? I wanted to know where that very first human male and very first human female came from. She took a deep breath and began her answer…. and it didn’t have anything to do with God.

“Well, it didn’t work that way,” she said. “Evolution occurred gradually, over time, as the predecessors to humans slowly began to change.”

“Fair enough,” I responded. “So, tell me about that first pair of monkeys, the very first male and female monkey from which you say we evolved.”

 

“Well,” she began, formulating her thoughts, “it didn’t work that way.” I gave her a quizzical look and she continued. “Those predecessors also evolved slowly, over time, from still more primitive forms of life.”

I was patient. “Like what?” I asked. I don’t think anyone had pressed her for answers like this, but after all I wasn’t worried about getting a grade. My daughter, on the other hand, probably wouldn’t be too thrilled about dad’s efforts at higher learning. Luckily, she wasn’t nearby.

In answer, the teacher started to explain that monkeys had evolved from still lower forms of life. It was a long process with smaller animals making adaptations, adding features, becoming larger. It all sounded quite vague and fuzzy, as she painted the picture of a planet teeming with life of various kinds, widely dispersed, and being driven by this engine of evolution.
I tried to stay on track with her. Then she made the jump that I was expecting – she started talking about life emerging from the primitive seas. Single-celled life forms that began to replicate and pass their DNA on to the next generation. She paused when she saw me starting to shake my head.

“Wait a sec,” I said. “You’re getting ahead of me, or perhaps more precisely, you’re moving back too far. I’ll grant you that life first began in the seas, but even if I grant you the ‘primordial soup’ theory, you’re still making quite a jump. What I want to focus on are the first male and female land mammals. If we wind the clock back, there must be a point on the early Earth in which there are no mammals walking the land. None whatsoever. Whatever life exists, it hasn’t yet evolved to sexually reproducing, warm-blooded mammals. Before that point, maybe there’s life in the sea, but the land is barren; after that point, the land begins to get populated. You with me?”

She nodded.

“I’d like to know what model science has to explain how that first began. That first couple.”

 She was still formulating an answer, so I pressed on. “I can understand that once you have thousands of fully functioning mammals that over time they may begin to change, especially if subjected to some environmental challenge. That makes perfect sense, whether it is directed by the genes, as I believe was designed into them, or whether it’s a random process. But tell me how the first pair appeared on the land.”

 

 

 https://crossexamined.org/problems-with-evolutionary-biology

 

Jury Tampering

 I’ve mentioned repeatedly that the protests and threats of violence and intended to encourage the Chauvin jury to reach the “right” decision regardless of the actual evidence.

That seems to be small potatoes compared to what MPLS did this week.   They announced, during jury selection, that they’d reached a $27,000,000 settlement with George Floyd’s family.   There was absolutely no reason to settle the case at this point, certainly no reason to announce the settlement with the trial ongoing.    No matter what the real motivation is, the reality is that this will be perceived as one more heavy handed attempt to push “justice” toward the preferred result.   The defense has already raised the issue at trial, and it seems likely that the city just handed Chauvin one more pathway to appeal if convicted.   

What’ll be interesting is if the rioters will wait until after the appeals are finished to have one more go around.  

Stuff

"According to The Centre for Women's Justice, figures show a "growing pressure on young women to consent to violent, dangerous, and demeaning [sex] acts", which is "likely to be to to the normalization of extreme pornography".

 

If it's "normalized" then doesn't that mean it's not "extreme"?

 

"Biden showers stimulus money on Americans, sharply cutting poverty in defining move of presidency"

 The Washington Post

 

If TWP thinks that $1,400 is going to "sharply cut poverty" then they're either stupid or irredeemably partisan.   

 

If you are a Pro Life Evangelical for Biden, and you "feel used and betrayed", then you're just stupid.  I'm sorry, but Here's Your Sign.

 Apparently the black folks who own the businesses and apartments at 38th and Chicago are unhappy that the G Floyd memorial street blockage is harming their businesses.   I guess that’s just more black owned business that’ll be sacrificed on the alter of “justice”.   Clearly the best way to get “justice” for Floyd is to inflict more harm on black entrepreneurs and property owners   

So.   The lifting of the mask mandate is going to cause a massive COVID spike in TX, but allowing in thousands of unscreened, unvaccinated, unmasked immigrants is absolutely hunky dory   

 Sat on hold for over 20 minutes with the MPD today, thanks for all those “defund the police” folks.   

We now live in a world where claiming that you aren’t racist is evidence that you actually are racist, and where a white man marrying a black woman does so because he’s racist.    The notion of a wife as a “minority sex servant”, is quite the stretch in the race to label everyone a racist.  

 

For years I've heard people say that Jesus didn't actually have any rules or commandments that anyone needed to follow, but now that renowned theologian and CNN anchor Don Lemon breaks the news that Jesus isn't about inhibiting or judging anyone.    You'd think that actually reading the Bible would be a good idea.   

In the past couple of weeks, we've learned that the NYT claim that a capitol policeman was beaten to death with a fire extinguisher, and that Trump was misquoted in reports about his phone call with GA election officials.  

1.  When the misquote bears no resemblence to the actual words used, is it really misquoting the speaker?

2.  Both of these news stories were uses as evidence in the second impeachment trial.

3.  What does it say about both the reporters and editors that failed to fact check the stories for accuracy and let them run anyway, and about those prosecuting the impeachment?   I guess neither group was particularly interested in accuracy. 

Riot Season

As we approach riot season, we learn that the some guy named Ken told the Washington post that the insurrection originally planned for March 4th, has been rescheduled for March 20th.  Meanwhile the US capitol is enclosed with a fence and national guard troops are still stationed in DC.   But we know that fences and walls don't work, don't we?

 

Meanwhile, here in flyover country, the city of Minneapolis is fortifying the courthouse, hiring (then not hiring internet influences), and is desperately short of cops as we count down the days to the Chauvin trial.  Of course, people are protesting the fortification of the courthouse, I suspect that the overlap between theses folks and the post trial protesters is pretty significant.   As in DC the national guard is gearing up for an indefinite period.

I look forward to the post Chauvin verdict riots being characterized as another "right wing insurrection" by some.   Of course, the fact that the 5th police precinct is impossible to access for the citizens of MPLS, and the piles of burned out structural steel sit, untouched from last summer, is also a right wing plot of some sort.   

In all seriousness.  The chances of Chauvin being convicted of murder, seem to be virtually zero.   The chances of him being convicted of manslaughter are higher, although not certain.   The reality is that anything less than a 2nd degree murder conviction will likely see more fires in MPLS.  Fires lit and stoked by the political left.   What's kind of strange, is that an attempt to influence/subvert/overthrow the workings of the justice system won't be labeled as an insurrection, yet a couple of hundred idiots in costumes continues to be.  

Is justice under the threat of violence really justice?

Because there might be some confusion, I'm adding the relevant MN law.

Subdivision 1.Intentional murder; drive-by shootings.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being with intent to effect the death of that person or another, but without premeditation; or

(2) causes the death of a human being while committing or attempting to commit a drive-by shooting in violation of section 609.66, subdivision 1e, under circumstances other than those described in section 609.185, paragraph (a), clause (3).

Subd. 2.Unintentional murders.

Whoever does either of the following is guilty of unintentional murder in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 40 years:

(1) causes the death of a human being, without intent to effect the death of any person, while committing or attempting to commit a felony offense other than criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence or a drive-by shooting; or

(2) causes the death of a human being without intent to effect the death of any person, while intentionally inflicting or attempting to inflict bodily harm upon the victim, when the perpetrator is restrained under an order for protection and the victim is a person designated to receive protection under the order. As used in this clause, "order for protection" includes an order for protection issued under chapter 518B; a harassment restraining order issued under section 609.748; a court order setting conditions of pretrial release or conditions of a criminal sentence or juvenile court disposition; a restraining order issued in a marriage dissolution action; and any order issued by a court of another state or of the United States that is similar to any of these orders.

 

 

609.195 MURDER IN THE THIRD DEGREE.

(a) Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years.

(b) Whoever, without intent to cause death, proximately causes the death of a human being by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule I or II, is guilty of murder in the third degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 25 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $40,000, or both.

 

 

609.20 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

Whoever does any of the following is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 15 years or to payment of a fine of not more than $30,000, or both:

(1) intentionally causes the death of another person in the heat of passion provoked by such words or acts of another as would provoke a person of ordinary self-control under like circumstances, provided that the crying of a child does not constitute provocation;

(2) violates section 609.224 and causes the death of another or causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offense with such force and violence that death of or great bodily harm to any person was reasonably foreseeable, and murder in the first or second degree was not committed thereby;

(3) intentionally causes the death of another person because the actor is coerced by threats made by someone other than the actor's coconspirator and which cause the actor reasonably to believe that the act performed by the actor is the only means of preventing imminent death to the actor or another;

(4) proximately causes the death of another, without intent to cause death by, directly or indirectly, unlawfully selling, giving away, bartering, delivering, exchanging, distributing, or administering a controlled substance classified in Schedule III, IV, or V; or

(5) causes the death of another in committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.377 (malicious punishment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

As used in this section, a "person of ordinary self-control" does not include a person under the influence of intoxicants or a controlled substance.

 

609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.

A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:

(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another; or

(2) by shooting another with a firearm or other dangerous weapon as a result of negligently believing the other to be a deer or other animal; or

(3) by setting a spring gun, pit fall, deadfall, snare, or other like dangerous weapon or device; or

(4) by negligently or intentionally permitting any animal, known by the person to have vicious propensities or to have caused great or substantial bodily harm in the past, to run uncontrolled off the owner's premises, or negligently failing to keep it properly confined; or

(5) by committing or attempting to commit a violation of section 609.378 (neglect or endangerment of a child), and murder in the first, second, or third degree is not committed thereby.

If proven by a preponderance of the evidence, it shall be an affirmative defense to criminal liability under clause (4) that the victim provoked the animal to cause the victim's death.