Kenosha

 It looks like Rittenhouse was acquitted today, and that he'll likely be the next young person to strike it rich through defamation suits.   I've already seen the extremists on both sides and I'm not that interested.

I am interested in two questions.

1.  If you believe that Rittenhouse should have been convicted, do you accept misconduct of the prosecution as an acceptable means to accomplish that goal?     

1a.   Is it appropriate for the state to withhold evidence, violate the constitutional rights of the accused, and defy the rulings of the court in order to get a conviction?

2.   Will the acquittal of Rittenhouse (white) for killing/wounding other white men justify rioting/looting/violence/protests against "white supremacy"?

Any comment that doesn't start with simple, direct, unequivocal answers to these two questions, will be deleted.   Once the questions are answered, I'll consider opening up any discussion. 

Tax cuts?

Wintery Knight does an interesting look at the new "infrastructure" plan from the Biden administration, https://winteryknight.com/2021/11/18/how-much-does-joe-bidens-build-back-better-stimulus-cost-and-who-benefits/, and it points out something interesting.   For years we've been told that tax cuts for the rich are bad, but this bill actually provides an effective federal tax cut for the rich.   While at the same time,  high inflation lowers the relative income of the poor.   This seems like a strange set of circumstances for a progressive administration. 

 

What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding/

BLM, the wellspring of peace, love, tolerance, and non-violence, provides one more example of how to win friends and influence people.  Clearly threatening "bloodshed" is an appropriate response to the NYC mayor elect saying that he'll keep his campaign promises.  

 

 

 

https://www.fox5ny.com/news/black-lives-matter-threaten-riots-fire-bloodshed-in-nyc-if-adams-brings-back-police-unit

 

 https://www.nationalreview.com/news/black-lives-matter-leaders-threaten-violence-if-nyc-mayor-reestablishes-anti-crime-nypd-units/

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nyc-elections-2021/ny-nyc-mayor-elect-eric-adams-black-lives-matter-20211111-evksw6cs3bg7xptjnsjlxe2tzi-story.html

Contradictions?

 Friday night, I heard John Piper speak on 2 Corinthians 6:10, then heard my wife's ex boss speak on it as well.  

  ^"10 sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything."

The most interesting point that Piper made was that most people would think of experiencing these two things as linear.  First sorrow, then joy, rinse and repeat.  However, he made the point that Paul was talking about experiencing both simultaneously.  That our goal is to layer the two.    My wife's boss, who knows whereof she speaks, talked about how this verse has guided her life for over 50 years and is her daily reality.    It definitely got me thinking about the concept.     What's more interesting is if we look at that verse in context.

^"3 We put no stumbling block in anyone’s path, so that our ministry will not be discredited. ⁴ Rather, as servants of God we commend ourselves in every way: in great endurance; in troubles, hardships and distresses; ⁵ in beatings, imprisonments and riots; in hard work, sleepless nights and hunger; ⁶ in purity, understanding, patience and kindness; in the Holy Spirit and in sincere love; ⁷ in truthful speech and in the power of God; with weapons of righteousness in the right hand and in the left; ⁸ through glory and dishonor, bad report and good report; genuine, yet regarded as impostors; ⁹ known, yet regarded as unknown; dying, and yet we live on; beaten, and yet not killed; ¹⁰ sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; poor, yet making many rich; having nothing, and yet possessing everything."

 If Paul can experience joy after all that...

 

As I thought more abut this, I was struck that the emotion du jour in christian circles, isn't sorrow.      No, in 2021 that trendy christian emotion is anger.  We see lots of folks embracing anger, some even seem to revel in it.   It's "righteous" anger, of course.    

 What I realized is that I understand the value of experiencing joy and sorrow simultaneously, I don't think it's possible to allow joy and anger to do the same.  

For now, I'm going to leave this here.

Dan is grumpy because his actions have caused others to block his comments, and because his actions have turned his cesspool into a hostile environment for those who won't accede to his demands and whims.  Therefore he's decided to comment here.    

I'll point out that every question/comment at Stan's represents a question I've asked Dan, but never gotten an answer that makes sense for.    I'm not sure what I'll do with this disjointed mess, but for now I'll leave this here. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Just because you won't see my answer at Stan's, here's my response to you: Craig... "I just stuck my toe in the cesspool, and am shocked to think that the "hyperbole" explanation passes for anything but unsupported opinion." But it's not entirely unsupported. Don't YOU THINK that when Jesus said "Cut off your hand" he was engaging in hyperbole, not an actual command? Do you think that the "fiery hell" was hyperbole and imagery, not a literal description? I suspect that you and most of conservative Christianity would agree that the maiming verses are NOT literal commands but imagery/hyperbole. And thus, it's not unsupported, we all AGREE on that passage, thus establishing that Jesus is using hyperbole/imagery in this larger section. And once we've supported that by our agreement, the question becomes: What is the basis for thinking maiming is imagery/hyperbole but fiery hell is literal (or sort of literal)? Beyond that, I'm always quite clear that this is MY opinion on how to best understand it. Neither the maimer, nor the hellfire preacher, nor the rational adult who takes such things as figurative can prove our positions and guesses about what God thinks. The question then is, which idea is most rational and likely? I'm confident that my idea is rational and the idea of maiming or torturing someone for an eternity of torment for minor sins is irrational and unjust and immoral. But you are free to disagree. It's just that you'd have more credibility in making your case if you would answer the reasonable questions that get raised."

 

 

" You can do as you wish, but would love for you to address this question that will go unaddressed at Stan's... Craig... "While I think that we would all agree that our sinful actions come from our sinful nature, and that when the scripture says that "no one" is good that it should be taken at face value." But WHY? I get that you think that, but why shouldn't anybody take that seriously? It seems irrational, non-factual and unjust on the face of it. That's what we are saying. If you're saying that no one is PERFECT or PERFECTLY good, no problem. We all can agree to that. On the other hand. if you're trying to say no one is good, I know good people. You know good people. I suspect that you two guys are relatively good people. So what rational criteria are you having for suggesting that no one is good? I would just point out that words have meanings. Good is not the same as perfect. And don't point to The Bible as criteria. When The Bible says no one is good, the question is is this hyperbole or literal? You can't then lift that verse to prove that NO ONE is literal. That IS the question. You're begging the question, if you're doing that. So define Good, as you are using it."

 

E xcuses/Election thoughts

 The other night,  we saw election results that shouldn't bode well for the Brandon administration.     The conventional wisdom was the the governors races in VA and NJ were referendums on the Brandon administration.   

Things didn't turn out well for the DFL in either case.  Add in the failure's in Minneapolis to get rid of the police dept, and get rid of Frey, and it looks even worse.

What's interesting to me, is that the left really only has two choices to explain the results.

1.  A failure on the part of the DFL, the candidates, the Brandon administration, and their agenda(s).

2.  Racism.

I wonder which one they'll find more reasonable.

-----------------

 It's strange that a bunch of anti-immigrant, racist, mysoginists, would elect an immigrant, black, woman to statewide office in VA.

 -----------------

 

I haven't researched this yet, but I suspect that if the demographic splits on the MPLS  question regarding eliminating the MPD are made public that the majority of the "defund the police" voters will end up being white, middle/upper income folks, who live in the gentrified parts of the city, while the majority of the other side will be POC who actually live in the highest crime neighborhoods.