SCOTUS

 It’s looking like SCOTUS is going to find in favor of Trump on the immunity case.  If this happens and if this results in some or all of the cases being dropped, this increases his chances of winning significantly.   

On a related note, Trump is on the hook for a massive amount of money for an alleged rape for which there is literally no evidence.   Meanwhile NY (same jurisdiction) just gave Weinstein a pass on multiple rapes.

Who Knows.

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel-at-war/artc-un-confirms-to-i24news-u-s-pier-off-gaza-coast-attacked-during-construction

 

So, let me get this straight.   The pro-Hamas protesters convince everyone that Gazans are starving (reports from non Hamas sources on the ground say the if there is starvation it's because Hamas is hoarding the food supplies and overcharging for food) so Biden decides to support Hamas by building them a seaport (FYI Hamas has tens of billions of dollars and easily could have done this themselves years ago).  Now we see reports of "terrorists" attacking the seaport before it is even finished.  Who would have thought this could go badly. 

Random Videos, Mostly

Most of these are links to videos in X posts, it's easier for me to simply provide that link.  

 https://twitter.com/megynkelly/status/1783283054666002543?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

Biden literally reads the stage direction, "pause", instead of pausing.  The official White House transcript of the event changes "pause" to "Inaudible".   Because why not just be blatant about covering up Biden's incompetence.   FYI, does Biden really need the prompter to tell him to "pause" after a big line in his speech? 

 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1783510198017229048

" NEW: New York union leader Bobby Bartels says most of his Union workers are Democrats but they are supporting Trump in 2024. Bartels said he conducted a poll of his 9,000 members and Trump is leading Biden 3 to 1. “In the past, we are basically Democrats, all of us. And after what’s happened the last 4 years in this country, Democrats are basically pushing everybody to the other side.” “We are tired of immigration, we are tired of our tax dollars going to immigration, we are tired of the crime, we need to put a handle back on things in this country.” During a separate interview with Fox News, Bartels said: “I put out a poll in my union. President Trump is leading Joe Biden 3 to 1 in my presidential poll out of my 9,000 members.”"

 A long time ago, I wrote about the problem the DFL has when they kowtow to constituencies that are diametrically opposed to each other (Greens/Unions). This looks like the DFL losing it's grasp on labor, possibly for good. 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1783302855908053364

 For anyone who continues with the "Trump's lying is disqualifying", just stop it. Or hold Biden to the same standard. 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1783331504224915680

A compilation of democrats doing what they constantly accuse conservatives of doing.  Hypocrisy at it's finest. 

 https://twitter.com/AGHamilton29/status/1782801186111865221/photo/1

Peaceful, my ass. These morons are all in on genocide. 

 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1782062385437556880

 NBC POLL: WHICH CANDIDATE IS BETTER....? — Handling a crisis: Trump +4 — Strong record as president: Trump +7 — Competent and effective: Trump +9 — Necessary mental and physical health: Trump +19 — Dealing with inflation and cost of living: Trump +22

 

Whoops, that's not good. 

 

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1781521693623640394

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1781513296954184161

When someone as liberal as Maher is agreeing with the "evil" DeSantis and ripping NPR, you kind of have to admit that things are pretty bad. I can't recall if he mentions the child rape accusations coming out of Nickelodeon,  but given the slant of the entertainment industry, it's safe to conclude that the rapists were DFL voters as were those who covered it up and enabled it. 

 

 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GK5ShpCWQAAD5fh?format=jpg&name=small

I know that the notion that racial animus is entirely a creation of white people, but maybe that's an exaggeration. 

 

 "Exclusive: Home Office tells staff racial identity is a Portuguese invention from 16th century & claims "up to one third of people living in Britain were migrants" 2,000 years ago.

@NigelBiggar

: "The suggestion that racial prejudice was invented by Europeans is nonsense" Home Office diversity training on "Britain's migration and colonial history” features a video called “The beginnings of Racist Ideology” which claims: “The modern idea of racial identity seems to have started in Portugal in the sixteenth century”.

@RafHM

: “Anti-black racism in the Arab world has existed for well over 1,000 years, in large part due to the Islamic slave trade, which saw millions of Africans enslaved and brought to the Muslim world. Whilst the Koran is silent on race, in practice, sub-Saharan Africans were regarded as the lowest and most detestable slave strata.” The Home Office claimed the British Empire “was able to maintain colonial and imperial domination for many centuries over other countries”, describing “The first and most obvious reason for this was its military might over the colonies”. The lecture continued: “Second, the British Empire dominated its colonised people. Slavery is one of the most brutal examples of this.”

 https://www.tiktok.com/@1lifetimes/video/7243471449149771034

Korean idiot claims that Korea "didn't have slaves", then gets slapped upside the head with reality.   It's hilarious to watch the "evil white slave owners" people ignore slavery when it doesn't fit the narrative.

 

 

Insanity

 Biden proposes a 45% capital gains tax with a 25% unrealized capital gains tax.   This would literally tax imaginary money.

If you invested $100, made $100 on the investment in 2024, you’d owe $25, yet if you lost $125 in 2025, you wouldn’t get that tax back.   Absolutely insane.   

Par For The Course

 "Let ME Tell You What YOU Think..." 

On the rare occasions when I visit the cesspool, I find Dan and his pet troll often telling each other what other people (me, Stan, Art, Glenn, etc)  "really" think, mean, or believe.  

It seems strange to me that in a post dedicated to bitching about others telling Dan what Dan thinks, that we find Dan and his pet troll doing exactly what Dan is bitching about. 

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why that surprises me at all. 

Wonen's Sports

 I'll start this by being really honest, I'm not a huge consumer of women's sports.  I don't have anything against them, but just haven't found much compelling beyond this year's NCAA's and a few Olympic athletes.  Part of this is that I like my sports to have more to engage me than just the game.  Like the fact that a certain highly decorated downhill skier's mom worked with my wife made me more interested in her career, beyond the fact that she was a great skier.  

This year, however, it was impossible to miss the Caitlin Clark show in basketball.   It had everything, great athletes, great teams, great rivalries, and great coverage.  It was compelling.   Personally, I'm a Paige Beuckers fan(watched her in HS) but Clark, Reese, and the rest were fun to watch.  All of a sudden everyone was a women's sports fan.  The WNBA draft get big TV ratings.  It's possible that the last 12 months have been the best stretch women's sports has ever had.  Hell, the Woman's final get higher ratings than the men's (could have been because the men's started god awful late on TBS instead of 7:00 PM eastern on CBS) but still it's a great story.  

It could, and is, argued that the single thing that led us to this triumph of women's sports was Title 9.  The law that made women's sports on an equal footing with men's.   Title 9 was very probably a good thing on balance, and I'm not really interested in nitpicking the nuances of it.  

But, as we watched women's sports reach their pinnacle, Biden decided to piss on the party.  Joe's DOE decided to rewrite Title 9 to give some men equal status with all women.  Biden opened up the door for the downfall of women's sports.   Just for example, basketball is a game where height is rewarded.   7' tall men are pretty uncommon, and the one's with even a modicum of athletic ability can have some success as basketball players.    So, we know that the tallest D1 women's basketball player last year was 6'7" with a few 6'6" and 6'5" women right behind.  15 women were taller than 6'3" last year on NCAA D1 teams.  What's to stop an enterprising D1 women's coach from trawling the ranks of D2 and D3 or even NAIA to find a couple of guys who are between 6'9" and 7', and convincing them to "transition" to women?   What's to stop this team from running roughshod over the rest of D1 next year?   We know that the best women atheletes have trouble competing with men who are much younger or much lower ranked (USWNT, Williams sisters) than they are.  So it's not much of a stretch to think the NAIA, D2 and D3 men couldn't compete with D1 women.  I know, no coach in any sport would ever stretch the rules to win a championship, would they?  No women's coach would intentionally put the other team's players at increased risk of serious physical harm, would they?  No D3 college basketball player would ever think about how cool it would be to win a natty, and all that was necessary is to pretend to be a woman for a year or two, would they?  

But, none of that really matters much compared to Biden's huge mistake.   If this was such a big, important bit of executive action, why did he wait?  Why not do it sooner?  Why wait until the election campaign is in full swing?   Why not wait until after he's a lame duck?  Either post election (if he loses) or after he's sworn in in 2025?   Why risk pissing off a potentially significant number of his most reliable supporters to enact something that affects a minute number of people?   Is this in response to the "trans" narrative going down in flames in Europe?   Is this a bone thrown to the "trans" vote because the writing is on the wall as far as following the science?   Or is this just Biden being an old, guy with cognitive issues.   In any case, it's possible that this could affect the vote in November as all the women who just found out that the WNBA is the best thing ever (other than Taylor swift-and she's a Chiefs fan) realize that it's possible that nest years NCAA tournament could get won by a team with a couple of tall men on it.  Or that deserving women who've worked their asses off are going to miss out on scholarships or NIL because a dude took their spot.  Or watch Beuckers get injured early in her senior season as a 6'10", 275lb dude commits a charge and sends her to the ER.  

Because it's now "trans" women's sports. 

Horrible

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1781738037010993356

 

If you can watch this video and not come away with a sense that schools are protecting "trans" kids at the expense of other students, and that this girl was thrown to the wolves by her teacher and counselor, I can't imagine how heartless you must be.    

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/04/why-the-rise-in-trans-shooters

https://www.nationalreview.com/2024/03/the-detransition-time-bomb/

I appreciate Reilly on many issues.  One because he's not "right wing" by any stretch, Two, because he's a black college professor (out of step with those who dominate his race and career) Three because he's coming from a background of stats and data.  

He makes some good points here, especially as relates to screwing with testosterone in people, and the presence of mental health issues in the "trans" population.  

It seems like the data is not supporting the "trans" Narrative, and that we're seeing the "trans" enabling community getting desperate to save their Narrative. 

Columbia

After a weekend of antisemitic protests at Columbia, with threats of violence against Jews and demands that Jews not be allowed at Columbia, we hear virtually nothing from those on the left.   The entitled children of the rich, white, liberal elites, run amok and not much happens.     Much like 2020, when liberal mobs engage in vile behavior, the "mainstream" left stays silent or offers excuses.   Dan, for example, was active at both Facebook and his blog, yet isn't bothered enough by such virulent and public antisemitism to say a word.   

Jewish parents should immediately pull their children out of Columbia, and file suit to recoup all fees paid to Columbia.  Columbia should immediately be investigated by the DOJ for civil rights violations.  Any parent who sends their children to an Ivy League school at this point is making a huge mistake.  

What a left wing shit show.  

Yale students, who've been preventing Jewish students from aces sing campus, "Yale protestors accost Jewish student w/a boombox, dancing to rap lyrics: F* Israel, Israel a b*tch B* we out here mobbin' on some Palestine sh*t Free Palestine B*, Israel gon' die B* N*gga it's they land why you out here tryna rob it Bulls* prophets, Y'all just want the profit

 https://twitter.com/i/status/1782083841001402558

 

This isn't anti Israel aggression protesting, it's flat out antisemitism.

 

BTW, Ilhan Omar's daughter who was engaged in the antisemitic protests was described as starving and homeless because the protests prevented her from going back to her dorm room. Of course, it makes complete sense than the daughter of an immigrant congresswoman can somehow afford a school costing $90k per year. But her loans will be forgiven, don't worry. 

 https://www.msnbc.com/ayman-mohyeldin/watch/-100-targeted-rep-ilhan-omar-s-daughter-speaks-out-after-arrest-suspension-209404997518

According to that paragon of news reporting integrity, MSNBC, Omar's daughter was "targeted". Because the daughter of a rich, congresswoman, is going to be a prime target.  

 

" “I condemn the antisemitic protests," BIDEN tells reporters. "I also condemn those who don’t understand what’s going on with the Palestinians.”

Remember when Trump's comments about the peaceful protest in Charlottesville were taken out of context to imply that he thought that the neo Nazi's were "nice people"?  First, let's ignore the fact that the Charlottesville protests were significantly more peaceful than the BLM/CHAZ-CHOP/Pro Hamas protests. Then let's realize that Biden just did virtually the same thing Trump got pilloried for. 

 https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/columbia-protest-anti-semitism-campus-israel-jewish-students-justice-palestine.htm

 "The main national umbrella group for campus pro-Palestinian protests is Students for Justice in Palestine. SJP takes a violent eliminationist stance toward Israel. In the wake of the October 7 terrorist attacks, it issued a celebratory statement instructing its affiliates that all Jewish Israelis are legitimate targets:

Liberation is not an abstract concept. It is not a moment circumscribed to a revolutionary past as it is often characterized. Rather, liberating colonized land is a real process that requires confrontation by any means necessary. In essence, decolonization is a call to action, a commitment to the restoration of Indigenous sovereignty. It calls upon us to engage in meaningful actions that go beyond symbolism and rhetoric. Resistance comes in all forms — armed struggle, general strikes, and popular demonstrations. All of it is legitimate, and all of it is necessary."

 This is the kind of thing that these protesters, and those on the left who remain silent, condone.  This is what they are trying to bring about.  

" A second group that has helped organize the demonstrations at Columbia is called Within Our Lifetime. Like SJP, WOL takes an uncompromising eliminationist stance toward Israel, even calling for “the abolition of zionism.” If you suspect it would be difficult to exterminate an idea peacefully, you are correct. WOL, like SJP, endorses all violent attacks on Israeli Jews: “We defend the right of Palestinians as colonized people to resist the zionist occupation by any means necessary.”

More pertinently, WOL “reject[s] all collaboration and dialogue with zionist organizations” as “normalization,” which is to say it believes people anywhere in the world who wish to see a Jewish state survive in any form should not be permitted to live normal lives. If there is a theoretical distinction between this doctrine and direct advocacy of systematic harassment of mainstream Jewish people and organizations, it is paper thin."

" But the groups themselves are very clearly not advocating for “peace.” They are for war. Their objection is not to human suffering but that the wrong humans are suffering."

 " The pro-Palestinian groups have chosen to embrace violent fundamentalist death cults as their allies. They have chosen to spurn compromise and coexistence. The gaping void of a humane, universalist, liberal movement to advocate for the cause of Palestinian freedom is their failure, and its fruit is the rancid antisemitism that, despite their feeble denials, has sprung up everywhere since October 7."

 

 This is from a clearly left wing writer, who has the courage to speak (some) Truth into this situation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hymnals Final

 

"Familiarity and Comfort:

• Hymnals provided a sense of familiarity and comfort as congregants often grew up singing certain hymns that became deeply ingrained in their religious experience. The shared history of singing these hymns created a sense of continuity and comfort.
• The shift away from hymnals might require intentional efforts to create a new sense of familiarity and comfort with the repertoire of songs, potentially impacting the emotional connection during worship."
   
  Sure they do, for some.  For those who grew up in the church back in the day, and had a great church experience, absolutely.   For someone born in the '90's, not so much.   Wouldn't it make sense to not focus on the hymnal as the medium, but instead focus on how best to expose new generations to some amazing music that defines and preaches the faith?  Forcing people out of what is comfortable because someone else thinks that they should be comfortable with something else sounds like a bad idea.   Obviously, some degree of familiarity with the canon of church music is a good thing.  But to limit what that can be seems arbitrary. 
  
   
   
  

"Cultural and Linguistic Diversity:

• Hymnals often contained songs from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds, allowing for a diverse and inclusive worship experience. This diversity helped congregations appreciate the global nature of the Christian faith.
• Without hymnals, there may be a need for intentional efforts to ensure the inclusion of songs from different cultures and languages, fostering a sense of unity and diversity within the worshiping community."
   
  Again, it's as if the only possible way to bring songs from different cultures into worship is with a book.  Again, if whoever is planning music for worship isn't being intentional about the song choices, they are failing their congregation.   Lack of intentionality and discernment is a huge problem in  contemporary worship music.   It's why we are plagued with Days of Elijah.  
  
  

"Physical Symbolism:

• Hymnals had a physical presence in religious gatherings, representing a shared resource and symbolizing the communal act of worship. The act of holding and flipping through hymnals created a tangible connection between the congregation and the musical aspects of worship.
• The move away from physical hymnals might impact the symbolic nature of congregational singing, and congregations may need to find alternative ways to create a tangible and communal connection during worship."
   
  This seems (again) like a huge stretch.  I've can't say that flipping through a hymnal looking for Hymn 478 has enhanced my worship experience.   I also can't say that looking down, focusing on tiny lyrics, trying to sing harmony when the person next to you is off key, and trying to keep up with an organist who doesn't have good time automatically makes worship more meaningful.  Personally, I've found that not being chained to a page with a tiny font (I'm old deal with it)(yes I've had eye surgery, deal with it) enhances my worship.   Focusing up instead of down feels different.    I'm not saying that I'm right.  I am saying that arbitrarily proclaiming that one is better than the other seems like a step to far.  
  
  
  
  
  I'm not saying anything negative about hymns in general at all.  I've always pushed for more hymns when I've had the chance.   But, to think that hymns are good just because they're hymns seems just as problematic as the "keep the hymnal" folks. 
  

Hymnals 4

 As I noted earlier, these points are reaching further and further. 

"Scriptural Integration:

• Hymnals often included songs directly inspired by or quoting scriptures, providing a musical expression of biblical themes and narratives. This integration of scripture into worship through hymns helped reinforce the teachings and stories of the faith.
• The move away from hymnals may result in a reduced emphasis on scriptural connections in worship songs, potentially impacting the depth of biblical engagement during communal singing."
   
  Obviously, scripture and incorporating scripture into worship is of paramount importance,  but suggesting that the hymnal is the only or best way to do so is simply wrong.  I can open virtually any hymnal in any church and find un biblical hymns pretty easily.   The logical extension of this thinking is that the only acceptable music for worship is the Psalms.  I'm not saying that any music in worship shouldn't be assessed for biblical fidelity and accuracy, I am saying that (by definition) this claim about the hymnal would exclude psalms, unless they were in the hymnal, which seems weird. 
  
   
   "Adaptability and Spontaneity:

• Hymnals allowed for spontaneity and adaptability in worship by providing a comprehensive collection of songs for various occasions. Worship leaders and congregants could easily flip through hymnals to select songs that were relevant to a particular theme, event, or mood.
• The transition away from hymnals might require a more deliberate selection of songs in advance, potentially limiting the flexibility and spontaneity in responding to the dynamic needs of a worship service."
  This is hardly worth responding to.  The thought that the choir director is spontaneously going to switch hymns in a service is laughable.  I do agree that a deliberate selection of songs is of critical importance regardless of whether they are hymns or not.    In all seriousness, have you ever seen an organist or piano player switch keys on a hymn because it's hard to sing?   A hymnal with the same song in multiple keys? 
  
   
   "Musical Literacy:

• Hymnals, with their musical notations, contributed to the development of musical literacy within congregations. Congregants had the opportunity to learn and understand musical elements such as rhythm, melody, and harmony.
• The absence of hymnals might lead to a decline in musical literacy within the congregation, potentially impacting the appreciation and understanding of the musical aspects of worship."
   
  The fact that they had to repeat this as if it hadn't been addressed seems like they were just trying to fill space.   Musical literacy is a problem that goes way beyond the church and I'm not sure that forced choir training  or using worship time to teach music theory are going to go over well.    I get the appeal of that sort of music and appreciate it, but it seems like conflating style with substance. 
  

Hymnal 3

 

"Congregational Participation and Engagement:

• Hymnals facilitated congregational participation by providing a common resource that everyone could follow. The physical act of opening a hymnal and singing together created a sense of unity and shared experience.
• The shift away from hymnals might impact congregational engagement, as individuals may find it more challenging to follow along with lyrics or participate actively without a common visual reference."
   
  While this might have been True at one point, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the only way (or even the best way) to achieve this is with a physical book.   Further, every denomination I've ever been in has a different hymnal with different hymns.  Obviously, there's some crossover, but the notion that there's one common hymnal is ridiculous.   The shift away from hymnals might affect congregational engagement in a positive way.  I always appreciate it when the words aren't in a font so tiny that I can't read them.   This also raises the question of the congregations that can't afford hymnals, let along new ones every few years.   Isn't it more cost effective to invest in the means to project the words (and music if you like) than in physical books that need to be added to/replaced?  I'd also argue that focusing the attention of the congregation up, instead of down on a book, isn't necessarily a bad thing.  
  
  

"Cultural and Historical Connection:

• Hymnals often contained songs that reflected the cultural and historical context of the religious community. These hymns served as a connection to the past, preserving traditions and providing a sense of continuity.
• The move away from hymnals might result in a disconnect from the cultural and historical roots embedded in the songs, potentially diminishing a sense of continuity and identity within the religious community."
   
  The use of the terms "often" and "might" relegate these two point to almost irrelevance.  Especially in a culture that seems to have no desire to connect any more deeply with tradition and the past than necessary.   Especially tradition for the sake of tradition.  
   
  

"Personal and Corporate Worship Integration:

• Hymnals were versatile tools that could be used both individually and collectively. Congregants could use hymnals for personal devotion or family worship, fostering a seamless integration of religious songs into various aspects of daily life.
• The absence of hymnals might require intentional efforts to bridge the gap between personal and corporate worship, ensuring that religious songs continue to be part of individuals' spiritual lives beyond the formal church setting."
   
  Again, this is so speculative as to be almost worthless.  Are we supposed to accept that listening to hymns, or other Christian music on a device is less valid than reading it?   That singing by oneself is automatically more valuable than singing along with others who've been recorded?   As we get down this list, the stretches seem further and further.