You'd Think

 I could be wrong, but it seems like credible allegations of what was essentially a money laundering scheme that benefited DFL candidates and funneled money to Ukraine would be something that would be investigated, and would be a bigger news story.  

It also seems like it'd be worth investigating the vast sums of money that were earmarked for Ukraine, but can't be accounted for.  

It also seems like the stories of election irregularities in Maricopa county should be investigated by a neutral 3rd party, doesn't it?   Because it seems improper that a sitting secretary of state, was able to oversee an election that she was running is, doesn't it?   Isn't that at least the appearance of impropriety?

However, I suspect these will soon be forgotten as more conspiracy theories, until 3-4 years down the road.   When, just like Hunter's laptop, the Russia dossier, and the like we'll find out that they weren't conspiracy theories but actual wrongdoing. 

Remember When?

At one point the most recent election law updates were characterized in all sorts of negative ways.  Mostly it was some version of trying to suppress voting.  Yet strangely enough voting in GA has broken all sorts of records since those laws were enacted.   

Clearly this couldn't be because certain people and organizations lied about the nature of GA's laws, or misrepresented them and their effects.

Remember When Hunter's Laptop was a Conspriacy Theory?

https://winteryknight.com/2022/11/22/cbs-news-admits-hunter-biden-laptop-is-authentic-2-years-after-new-york-post-broke-the-story/ 

Back before the 2020 election news broke about Hunter Biden and his questionable business dealings and of his use of his father's influence for his own benefit.   This story was poo pooed by everyone on the left.  "Conspiracy theory", "Russian disinformation", and more were put out by the media, the DFL, and the Biden camp.    Strangely enough, years later, CBS is the most recent MSM outlet to acknowledge that the story was actually True.   Now (I could be wrong) but it seems like a candidate for president who used his influence to help his son financially gain through business dealings of questionable legality, might benefit from the MSM not investigating this story right before an election.  It seems like this sort of potential influence peddling might have affected the outcome of at least 2 national elections had it been investigated in a timely manner.   It's possible that the DFL die hards, would have continued to support Biden, regardless of the Truth of the matter, maybe even likely.   But, I can't help but suspect that this news would have affected the independent voters.  

It's strange that this is finally coming to light after two elections which might have been negatively affected by this news.   It's also convenient that this could well be what keeps Biden out of the race in 2024.  One could almost conclude that Facebook, Twitter, and IG weren't the only media outlets that decided to influence recent elections, maybe the MSM did as well.  

But hey, this is just one more "conspiracy theory" that's turned out to be True. 

Speaking of Hyoocrisy

"Are any of you going to condemn unequivocally the shooting of gay folk at the Club Q in Colorado, apparently by a conservative?"

 

This, coming from someone who has never, to my recollection, unequivocally condemned  any political violence from folks on the left.  From the softball practice shootings, to the attempted assassination and illegal SCOTUS protests, to the years and years of riots, looting, and arson, or the vehicle attack in WI, I can't recall a specific, unequivocal, condemnation of any of those acts.  Let alone the multitude of attacks on crisis pregnancy centers.  It's always something like, "I condemn all acts of violence.", "We have no way to know who's really responsible.", "Jane's Revenge isn't really a leftist group.", "BLM had absolutely nothing to do with any riots, looting, or arson.  It was a bunch of conservative provocateurs.", and the like.  

My response to his nakedly political question is as follows.  

I have repeatedly and consistently opposed and condemned anyone who kills innocent people, regardless of their cause or reason for doing so.    The fact that you pretend as if I haven't said this multiple times, is simply another example of your double standard.  

If the bland, nonspecific, vague, general, condemnation of "all" of any behavior is good enough for you to hide behind, then it's good enough for everyone else.  

But, I really appreciate you jumping to a conclusion about the motives of the shooter without any actual evidence to back up your assumption.  

Maybe if you'd remove the log of hypocrisy from your won eye...

This Covers a Bit of Ground

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/football/reporter-world-cup-lgbtq-shirt-28549578 

A CBS reporter was prevented from entering a stadium in Quatar because he was wearing a shirt that expressed support for the LGBTQXYZPDQ agenda.      This event raises some questions regarding the left wing narrative, and assertions about morality.

1.  Given that news reporters are supposed to be neutral observers of events and to report on those events, why was this repporter choosing to insert himself into the event and the controversy?

2.  Are T-Shirts with political/agenda logos really appropriate for journalists when they are actually working?

3.  Clearly Quatar finds homosexuality to be out of line with their moral code, as well as their legal code.  Does this mean that they are objectively correct in finding homosexuality to be immoral, and using their sacred text to do so?

4.  Why would FIFA choose to honor a country that engages in this sort of discrimination with a World Cup, and why would countries that object to this sort of discrimination participate?

5.  Is it appropriate for reporters to engage in protests as a part of their reportorial duties?

Trump

 I'm pretty sure I predicted this, or something close to it, but I have no desire to go back and find what I said.

But the fact that Trump hasn't waited until the results of the midterms are final to announce for 2024, is pretty much what I expected.   It seems clear that he wants to be the first one in the ring as a way to intimidate any potential challengers.   It also seems clear that the other part of his strategy is to preemptively attack the challengers he fears the most, as a way to keep them from running.  If your goal is to elect someone who is interested in simply exercising raw political power, and who doesn't care how much long term damage he does to the GOP or the conservative movement, then Trump is your guy.  If you want someone who is out for themselves first and foremost, Trump is your guy.   If you want someone who's going to blame others first, Trump is your guy.  If old guys are your jam, Trump and Biden are your guys. 

While I'm predicting, I'll try this on for size.

If Trump doesn't the the support he believes he should, or if he loses early primaries, I suspect that he will blame others for his failures and run as an independent.  This course of action will, of course, result in the DFL candidate being elected and 4 more years of crap.    

I'm noticing a trend.  Trump is excellent at blaming others for his failures, and now his followers are starting to do the same.  I guess I've always thought that taking responsibility for your own actions was a good thing. 

Misunderstanding

"a failure to understand something correctly."

 Given the dictionary definition above, it would appear that if someone tells you that they are pointing out your misunderstanding about a topic, they are implicitly asserting that they do understand something "correctly".

 

" in a way that is true, factual or appropriate; accurately."

 Given the dictionary definition of correctly above, it seems appropriate to conclude that anyone who claims that they are correcting your misunderstandings is claiming that their understanding of the topic under discussion  is "True, factual, or accurate.".   If you think about it that's quite a claim embedded in one word.    Misunderstanding doesn't convey a difference of opinion, it conveys "I'm right and you're wrong".    What's interesting is that the words correctly, true, factual,  and accurately, all all words that are binary, something either is True or false,  accurate or inaccurate, factual or non factual, it's an objective claim of certainty.   

 

 

I Can’t Believe It

 Well the midterms are over, and instead of a brief respite, we get the beginnings of 2024.    Apparently Trump is trying to get a head start by blaming others for some of the losers he backed, and going scorched earth on his perceived rivals.   Clearly this is the best of all possible GOP candidates, and someone who has the best interests of the GOP foremost in his mind.

From a senile POTUS, to a paranoid POTUS, that’s exactly what we need.  

And all y’all who voted DFL because you believed Biden had actually given you a refund for your student loan debt, don’t look that smart at this point either.  

Maybe Dylan was right.

 During his "Christian" phase Dylan opined that we're "gonna have to serve somebody.",  I've always thought he was onto something.  Although I think that it's possible, even reasonable, to conclude that serve and worship can be used interchangeably in some instances.  

Last night, I was at an event where Jeff Deyo spoke.  Before I went I jumped into his recent book about worship.   One of the things he said in the book, and amplified last night, was that we are created/wired to worship.   He then followed that up with the observation that if we aren't worshiping YHWH, that we will worship something or someone else. 

Then I saw a tweet from Tim Keller which said, "You don't get to decide to worship.  Everyone worships something.  The only choice is what yo worship.".

This led me to conclude that maybe there was something to this idea.

The question, it seems to me, is "Are we going to worship the Creator or His creation?".

Election Day

 It's election day, vote if you haven't.  Vote early, vote once, vote if you're legally eligible.  Don't vote if you are not legally eligible, and don't facilitate anyone who's not legally eligible to vote.  In the absence of clearly evident vote fraud that is well documented, don't immediately default to "illegitimate" if the outcome doesn't go your way.  

Based on the polls, it seems likely that there will be a 40-60 seat swing in the house, and a GOP majority in the senate.   Does this constitute a "Red Wave"?  I don't know.   

One recent news story, that is troubling, is the increase of districts/states who are making excuses for not being able to get ballots counted quickly.  Especially the ones claiming it'll take several days.   Given the fact that most of these seem to be blue strongholds, this does raise some questions.  I'd expect some scrutiny of these areas just to reassure people that the count is correct.  

What I'm interested in is the response of folx on the left if the GOP does well.   I'm especially interested in the demographic breakdowns.  Polling is showing us that there might be a swing away from the DFL among certain "minority" demographics, and it'll be interesting to see how that plays out.   Mostly what'll be interesting is to see how the MSM will spin a GOP win tonight (or a GOP loss).   I'm especially intrigued by how folx like Dan will respond.  

 

One last thought.  After the 2020 election, I expect to there y'all who've been bitching about election deniers come down hard on folx like Stacey Abrams if she loses and complains about the election being rigged.  She's done it before, there's no reason why she won't do it again.

 

 

Romans 8

 We've been working through Romans 8 for the last couple of months, and are close to the end.   Where we find v. 28, one of the more popular verses in The Bible.

"²⁸ And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who^[i] have been called according to his purpose."

 

There is plenty to dig into with this verse, but I want to focus on two things for now.  

 

1.  Paul (who knew a think or two about suffering) is very clear that YHWH will use "all" things as He works for the good.  Not some things, not the things that we might think are good, but specifically ALL things.  

2.  "The good", in this case is whatever is "according to His purpose".

 

Shouldn't this verse change the way we look at our circumstances, how we pray, and what we thank YHWH for?   

 In the following 2 verses we see this. 

" ²⁹ For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. ³⁰ And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."

 Obviously people have spent decades defining what these words mean, and there is some valuable theology to be gleaned from that work.  

But I want to try to simplify it for the present.  What Paul seems to be saying is that YHWH has a plan for "those who love Him", that plan was in place before we were born, and the ultimate goal of the plan is to glorify us in His image.   

What was pointed out the other day is that Paul uses the past tense in these verses to indicate that the work that facilitates all of this has already been finished, even as we experience the reality of living in the now and the not yet.  Again, wouldn't knowing this change how we view our circumstances?

When I think of this verse, I immediately picture my wife's ex "boss".  Joni Erickson Tada embodies what this verse means every single day of her life.  She could easily have given up after her accident, and simply waited for death.  Instead she realized that all things work together for the good, and chose a different path.  Today, Joni and Friends has helped literally millions of people with disabilities all over the world.   They've folded a form of prison ministry into their model.   Because of her tragic accident, millions of lives are changed daily in both temporal and spiritual ways.  

Maybe we get too focused on how difficult our lives are and how upset we get a YHWH because HE promised that He'd make our lives better.  

FYI, Romans 8:28 and following really does contain some profound theological insights, and Truth.   But that doesn't mean that it''s helpful to quote it to a family who's just lost a loved one, or someone who's just lost their job.   I'm thinking that it's probably more important to focus on providing love and support, not deep theological discussion.