Honesty

I think that most people would agree that honesty is important, and that it's especally important in our leaders and our news media. Yet, somehow that's not what we see. After Roe was overturned, we saw the news media, activists, and politicians harping endlessly about how women with ectopic pregnancies, and miscarriages would be dying left and right, and we heard about a 10 year old rape victim who chose to drive an onerous 2.5 hours to terminate her child. Yet, as we see in the article below, those concerns were all false. Somehow, the folks who bashed Trump for lying, don't hold others to the same standard. https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/06/every-abortion-law-in-america-protects-women-with-ectopic-pregnancies/ We now know that Dr Birx and others were less than honest about the COVID vaccine, yet many politicians and media members keep repeating the narrative, rather than the Truth. "I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection" Then there are the accusations of falsified research on Alzheimers drugs. https://www.science.org/content/article/potential-fabrication-research-images-threatens-key-theory-alzheimers-disease How many billions did these folks recieve in federal funding, and how many millions did they make selling flase hope to Alzheimers patients and their families. Then we also find out that that most of what we've been told about depression isn't True. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/202207/depression-and-serotonin-what-the-new-review-actually-says Finally, we don't see these sorts of stories getting nearly as much publicity as they should. https://winteryknight.com/2022/07/25/what-is-it-really-like-for-a-young-woman-to-regret-her-gender-transition-3/ The problem is that for too many, when the narrative is contradicted by the Truth, they choose to stick with the narrative because it's more attractive to them and aligns with their prejudices. Which is fine, until you start holding those you disagree with to a different, and higher standard. Brian Deese yesterday: "Two negative quarters of negative GDP growth is not the technical definition of recession." Brian Deese 2008: "Econimists have a technical definition of recseeion, which is two consecutive querters of negative growth." It's hilarious when people contradict themsleves, and when folks on their side make excuses for it.

J6

I keep seeing and hearing bits and pieces about the congressional hearings around J6, and It's raised some questions. 1. It seems as though the Justice Department is actually conducting an investigation of J6 as well. Isn't DOJ better equipped to conduct this sort of investigation than the house? 2. Isn't the DOJ actually in a position to bring criminal charges and punish those found guilty? 3. Isn't the DOJ staffed with (theoretically) non partisan, non political, investicgtors and lawyers who are actually trained in both US criminal code, as well as in how to do an investigation? 4. Given the makeup of the J6 committe, in what way is this an impartial panel that is deciding the outcome? 5. What exactly are the rules and how are the accused guaranteed due process? 6. Do the accused have actual defense counsel to represent them and advocate on their behalf? 7. Who on the J6 committe has actual experience in any sort of criminal investigation? 8. Aren't the members of the committe, and their staff, by definition both partial and partisan? 9. Don't these congress members have anything better to do, like legislate?

Babe the Pig Boi

https://archive.ph/2022.07.22-215440/https://twitter.com/BabeRogersxxx/status/1550274037934264320 The above is a link to an archived Twitter thread by a person who goes by the handle Babe the Pig Boi. Babe was outlining the journey that led him to contract Monkey Pox. This journey included two orgies where he had sexual contact between 30 and 35 different men, as well as a foursome with different men. In addition to that responsbile behavior he drank a large quantity of human urine as well. Data is telling us that Monkey Pox is primarily spread through gay men having sex. https://www.science.org/content/article/why-the-monkeypox-outbreak-is-mostly-affecting-men-who-have-sex-with-men I know it's been a while, but does anyone remember what happened at the beginning of COVID? What was the primary response to COVID? What I remember is being required to modify my behavior. I was expected to wear a mask, social distance, stop meeting in person, quarantine, use sanitizer, and abide by all the rest of the restrictions. Yet somehow, no one is suggesting that men stop having sex with men as a way to stop the spread on Monkey Pox, I wonder why that is?

If a fetus is a baby.

There are two things going around social media that I wanted to address. The first is a Tik Tok video where a young woman puts out some what if statements about babies. Her statements are as follows. 1. If a fetus is a baby then there would be child support from conception. 2. If a fetus is a baby then the pregnant mother would be eligible for food stamps/welfare. 3. If a fetus is a baby then they should be claimable on one's income tax from conception. 4. If a fetus is a baby, then laws about assaulting (She probably means battery) would also include child abuse. 5. If a fetus is a baby than pregnant women should have gotten an exra $500 added to their stimulus payments. 6. If a fetus is a baby, then the parents should be able to get life insurance on the child. She adds, "I've had multiple miscarriages, if I had life insurance I'd be a millionaire." (or words to that effect) As someone who is is pro-life, I would absouletly support any or all of these being put into law, although I'd expect something in return. 1. That legal standing/personhood/constitutional rights/etc be acknowledged as beginning at conception. 2. That the father of the child has equal rights/say in what happens to the child if he is paying his child support. 3. That all laws as relating to the injury or death of a pregnant woman include additional charges/penalties for the child. 4. The potential for insurance fraud gives me pause, but I think that there are definitely ways to defend against fraud and make this work. If this young woman in particular (aand the pro abortion crown in general) really meant what these videos imply, I believe that virtually every single pro life advocate would gladly accept what I've outlined above with minor adjustments. The problem is that these sorts of things are based on a flawed understanding of the pro life position. I believe that the reality is that the pro abortion folks would never accept any compromise that codifies that life/personhood begins at conception, therefore these types of things are simply propoganda. I also find the seeming profit motive from the "I'd be a millionaire" after miscarriages a little disturbing. But if people want to profit from their miscarraiges, I guess it's not the most disturbing way to make money I've seen. The second is a meme that says: "Everyone's a biblical literalist until Jesus says, with no irony, that sex workers are mmore accurate an image of the kingdom of God than obscenely rich people will ever be.". The first and most obvious problem with this meme, is that it doesn't provide the reference that it's referring to. In a world where biblical literacy is low, there will be plenty of people who have absoluetly zero idea what Jesus actually said, who'll blindly accept this as sound, biblical scholarship. The second most pbvious problem is that the meme implies a complete lack of repentence on the part of either party. The notion that an unrepentant sinner of any kind accurately represents the Kingdom of God is simply ridiculous. Since this meme doesn't actually give anyone anything to work with (beyond bad interpretation), there really isn't any point in going deeper. The problem with both of these is that they rely on ignorance of the actual positions of the "other side" to try to push an inaccurate narative.

Congress

Lately we've been seeing an ad for a guy runing for congress. He's a black guy, who points out his background, and basically is focusing on two points in this ad. It seems that the two most important issues this guy sees are a lack of "green jobs", and not enough abortions. I could be wrong, but in a world of hideously bad inflation, grocery and drug store shelves that have big empty spots, a city that still hasn't built back from riots, black kids being killed by black adults in black neighborhoods, and the like, it doesn't seem like "green jobs" and propogating Margaret Snager's racist philosophies is a winning strategy. Unfortunately, he's likely to get is high % of black DFL voters simply becuase he checks some demographic boxes.

Will They Listen?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/14/republicans-exploits-culture-wars-democrats-performance-building-abortion/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/07/14/berkeley-law-professors-senate-testimony-didnt-go-how-left-thinks-it-did/ I came across a couple of good pieces by left leaning writers for the Washington Post. While I'm dissapointed to see them figure this out, I do agree with their conclusions. It's interesting to see the polling that shows that many traditionally left leaning voting groups are starting to move away from blindly voting for the DFL, yet see folks on the left pretend that everything will be fine. I saw poll numbers that suggest that about 13% of Americans favor a virtual ban on all abortions, while about 13% of Americans favor unlited/unrestricted abortion up to and potentially past birth. Yet somehow the MSM and the left portary that 13% on one side as extremists and crazy, while advocating that the 13% on the other side are somehow in the mainstream. The fact the the headlines around this number will invariably read "87% of Americans favor abortion", instead of "87% of Americans oppose unlimikted/unrestricted abortion" should tell us something. As a conservative, I obviously want to see the DFL do poorly in the upcoming election. But, I then want to see conservatives actually get things done. It's not enough to win elections, we need to see results in terms of actual legislation. I realize that Biden is likely to veto anythng he gets from a GOP majority congress, and I'm fine with that. If we see a conservative majority in congress next January, then we should see Biden's desk flooded with bills for him to sign and veto. Force him to go on record and veto legislation. Set things up for the '24 presidential election by making Biden do something and actually have a ecord to run on. Fortunately, thanks to folks like Dan, I don't see the DFL changing their focus away from these fringe issues, because the true believers won't admit that these are fringe issues.

Not surprising

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/business-food/starbucks-store-closures/index.html News today is that Starbucks is closing 16 stores in parts of cities where their employees are not safe. As we've seen over the past year or so there have been increasing numbers of incidents where people (from the video I've seem mostly POC) who have taken it upon themsleves to ransack, rob, loot, cause damage, and threaten the safety of employees in retail and restaurants. Just recently we've seen video of mulitple instances of black women attacking food trucks and other food service establishments for no rational reason. The narrative will likely end up making Starbucks, CVS, Wallgreens and the like as the villians in this while ignoring the actual perpetrators, the Soros DA's, the fact that these incidents are largely happening in cities run by the DFL and who embraced "Defund the Police". The narrative will likely paint the locals as victims of corporate greed instead of bad government. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaMKL-HHEZ4 https://www.americanpost.news/video-woman-destroys-hispanic-taco-stand-in-los-angeles/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/nyc-women-attacked-fast-food-employees-dipping-sauce-fee-viral-video-police https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSAuJT0EDGs

I appears that...

I looks like there is a suspect in the rape of a 10 year old in Ohio. We still don't know if it's the same 10 year old from what I've seen. The most interesting factor so far is that the guy in question is an illegal immigrant. We don't know what his past criminal history is, so I won't speculate on that. Of course this is just one more story that will disappear because the left wanted the 10 year old rape vicitim who had to drive a couple of hours for an abortion as the exception that would underpin the unlimited abortions narrative. Now they have an illegal immigrant who raped a 10 year old story, and we don't talk about how this guy shouldn't have even been in the country to rape this girl. Or how a background check might have shown reasons why he shouldn't have been in the country. It's all good. The girl got rid of her baby, Ohio is evil, and there's nothing else to see here. The spin on this one is interesting. The reality is that when Biden used this example, many people rightly pointed out that the story was an unconfirmed (single sourced) story that was being treated with more gravitas than unverified (single sourced) stories are. The OH AG said that he was unaware of any case specific case being pursued at the time he was asked that matched the information know at the time. Just to be clear, if this guy is convicted of raping this 10 year old, there is no punishment too severe for him. Castration is the minimum, and a sppedy appointment for the next execution is preferred. I suspect that there'll be some folks who'll push for him to be deported, because setting him free in Guatamala is the appropriate punishment for him. So Jill, what kind of taco is this guy?

Random Stuff with some BVMLTT thrown in for good measure

We just saw a video of two young black boys actively engaged in hitting and verbally attacking two police officers for no apparent reason.    I can't believe that the parents bear no responsibility for two kids out on the street in their underwear showing a complete lack of respect for the officers. 

 https://twitter.com/fdsheckler/status/1546314111797149696?s=27&t=lUBxIK6hKJEDulXfVTdz3A

 https://twitter.com/NuanceBro/status/1546566985835839489?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

 "I think it is abundantly clear that the most powerful "privilege"  in our society is growing up in a loving. low-conflict household witha father and mother committed to one another and their children.  That's what every aspect of our culture should be encouraging 24/7/365"

Delano Squires

"The problems are not because of white supremacy  but about deeper internal issues such as parenting or lack thereof."

Elijah Schaeffer

 

 

Lot's of folks on the left default to various "fact checkers" as the ultimate arbiter of Truth in society.   Well Biden told quite a whopper the other day and WAPO  "fact checked" him.    The most obvious reason why this story is problematic is that it comes from a single source.   So far there has been no independent corroboration of the story.    But, the best line is this, "With news reports around the globe and now a presidential imprimatur, however, the story has acquired the status of a “fact” no matter its provenance.".  Apparently in the MSM simply repeating something makes it a fact, regardless of whether or not it's actually True.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/07/09/one-source-story-about-10-year-old-an-abortion-goes-viral/

Remember back in the days of debating "Gay Marriage"?  Remember when the folks advocating "Gay Marriage" kept telling us "If only these wonderful gay folk were able to marry,  we wouldn't see all of the promiscuity that is so prevalent in the Gay community.".    Or "The Bible writers just didn't know about  the existence of monogamous gay relationships.  If they had then they'd have supported "Gay Marriage".    Well, it's happening.   We're seeing the early salvos in an attack on monogamy.  Gay's who revel in bathhouse sexual encounters, rejoice.  Your predilections will soon be "moral".   

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5996/is-monogamy-morally-wrong

Oh look.   Masks didn't help stop the spread of COVID and may have made it worse.   Studies and data, and all that sort of thing.   It also looks like death rates among the vaccinated are much higher in the UK than for the unvaccinated. 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123350

https://twitter.com/guy_middleton/status/1546540670172778498?s=27&t=lUBxIK6hKJEDulXfVTdz3A

Biden-  "None of what I'm talking about infringes on anyone's Second Amendment rights...I support the Second Amendment."

Biden (moments later)- "Assault weapons need to be banned...I'm determined to ban these weapons again..."

 

"Breakfast tacos"    Enough said.  

 

"Has anyone realized that when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are still speaking on yur behalf the same way they did for your parents and grandparents that maybe something's wrong?  If these same men are speaking to the same problems decades later, then what's being solved?!"

Barrington Martin

"2 reasons why the modern 'left' has become unhinged over the decade: 1/ The big fights have been won. Society is more egalitarian than ever - both legally and socially 2/ The focus on working class people has been lost, and replaced by race and gender ideology bullcrap.

 
As a society becomes more equal, fair, and tolerant, and REAL racism, ethnosupremacy, sexism, homophobia, etc. decline sharply, you're left with millions of people fighting 'battles' that don't exist. Many end up moving things backwards with their fake struggles and bad policies.

 

I think this largely sums up why so many former liberal/lefties eventually find themselves aligning with people in the centre and centre right, as 'their side' accelerates recklessly into an abyss of performative activism, imaginary fights, and outright nonsense.

 

 'Old school lefties' are barely represented anymore in Anglosphere countries. They either find themselves having to adopt the progressive, woke claptrap in order to stay aligned with 'their side', or they end up aligning with more conservative people, and being labeled as such.

 

 In short, if you support having lots of taxpayer funded social programs, welfare, state subsidies, worker's unions, etc. but DON'T think women can have penises or that white people are inherently privileged, then good luck to you! "

 

 https://twitter.com/ZubyMusic

 

 

Spurgeon

"I fear that some men would rather be damned than be laughed at."

C H Spurgeon

 

Some things seem to be universally True.  Although I'd  add that some men would rather be damned than be on the "wrong side of history".    

I guess it's an interesting look at what different people value more highly.  

I've posted abut this before

 A while back I posted about this and I've been reminded of it again.   

I don't understand how so many women have been convinced that the path to empowerment is to objectify yourself based on publicly posting pictures/videos of yourself as close to naked or posing provocatively as possible without running afoul of the censors.

I just saw a video of a state representative who posted a video of herself from behind, standing on her hands, topless (I think), with a very small bikini, twerking.   Leaving aside her physical attractiveness or lack thereof, I wonder what made her think that informed voters would see this and think that she'd be an excellent legislator.      Don't misunderstand, I'm not suggesting she be prevented from doing this.   I am wondering what convinced her that this video was the key to her success or empowerment.

I also just saw something related to Britney Spears posting a video from her honeymoon where she's rolling around on a beach, topless, lowering the top of her bikini bottom, etc.   I guess I find it a little strange that she'd be publicly displaying herself while celebrating her honeymoon, but I'm a little old fashioned.

Finally, there was quite the stir when the daughter of Charlie Sheen and Denise Richards decided to declare her independence by starting an Only Fans.  Surprisingly enough, dad wasn't thrilled to see his little girl entering that world, while Mom decide she'd go there to in solidarity.   

Throughout history we've been told that men just "Want a beer and want to see somethin' nekkid" as Jeff Foxworthy puts it.   So again, I'm struggling to understand how women putting themselves out publicly defining themselves and their worth by how far that can objectify and sexualize themselves by playing into the stereotypes of what men want, is somehow empowering to women.   I guess if you define empowering as making money from a bunch of middle aged perverts who get off on looking at young, naked, women then go right ahead.  Make the cash while you're young and desirable.  

 

Disclaimer:  I don't think women should be prevented from any form of trading their sexuality for cash, no matter how I personally feel about it.  I'm merely wondering how appealing to men's base desires is empowering women.   

I just saw an interview with Sydney Sweeney who is an actress on a very popular show.   Don't know/care about the show.   Apparently her character is involved in a lot of sex scenes or nude scenes, a quick look at her IG shows that she's not shy about her body.    In the interview she expressed shock that people were "sexualizing" her based on what she chooses to do on TV or other media.   The notion that she has any role in sexualizing herself doesn't seem to cross her mind.     Again, I could be wrong, but it seems like people perceiving someone in the way that that person chooses to present themselves isn't out of line.   It seems like we should have some degree of responsibility in the choices we make and how others react to those choices.    Again, I'm not saying that she should be prevented from making those choices or be punished for them.   I am saying that choices have consequences. 

Athiesm/Materialism/Naturalism/Darwinism

" But the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, orthodox among today's scientists, insists that evolution is an unplanned, undirected process. It combines elements of chance and necessity or natural law, a combination of random genetic changes or mutations, which accumulate through natural selection. These are impersonal material forces reflecting no preexisting intelligence and no guidance. As the outcome of this process, human beings are essentially unplanned acts of nature.

 When you die, you're not going to be surprised, because you're going to be completely dead. Now if find myself aware after I'm dead, I'm going to be really surprised! But at least I'm going to go to hell, where I won't have all of those grinning preachers from Sunday morning listening.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear -- and these are basically Darwin's views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That's the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. What an unintelligible idea.

Christian humanism has a great deal going for it. It's warm and kindly in many ways. That's the good part. The bad part is that you have to suspend your rational mind. That part is really nasty. Atheistic humanism has the advantage of fitting natural minds trying to understand the world, but the disadvantage of very little cultural heritage -- and that's a real problem.

So the question is, can atheistic humanism offer us very much? Sure. It can give you intellectual satisfaction. I'm a heck of a lot more intellectually satisfied now that I don't have to cling to the fairy tale that I believed when I was a kid. Life may have no ultimate meaning, but I sure think it can have lots of proximate meaning. Free will is not hard to give up, because it's a horribly destructive idea to our society. Free will is what we use as an excuse to treat people like pieces of crap when they do something wrong in our society. We say to the person, "you did something wrong out of your free will, and therefore we have the justification for revenge all over your behind." We put people in prison, turning them into lousier individuals than they ever were. This horrible system is based upon this idea of free will.

Since we know that we are not going to live after we die, there is no reward for suffering in this world. You live and you die. I've seen bumper stickers (very sexist ones, actually) that say "Life's a bitch, and then you die." Well, whatever life is, you're going to die. So if you're going to make things better for yourself or for those you care about, you had better become an activist while you're still alive."

Will Provine

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Provine

 

 

I keep hearing people who try to ground some level of objective or universal morality from an Atheist/Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinist worldview with little or no success.   The above are excerpts from a debate between Provine and Johnson.    It's interesting that Provine is so certain in his beliefs.  This notion that the most evil humans in all of history will simply cease to exist, somehow doesn't seem like it would encourage people not to commit genocide.  Why not abort babies at any time, for any reason?  Human life has no meaning, it's just some impersonal materialistic forces.  Under this worldview what could possibly be wrong with slavery?  Why is it a bad thing to harm people?  

Without intrinsic value and purpose, why would anyone care about human life?