Contributions

So, if I contributed $30,000 to a political party and as a result received $500,000 in government subsidies for my (already profitable) business, would anyone have a problem with that?

You might be...

“If you're intolerant of people you think are intolerant, you're being intolerant. Intolerance of intolerance is still intolerance.”

Apparently

Apparently I’ve got some sort of internet stalker situation.   When I’m the topic of conversation in comments on multiple blogs, and the topic of multiple posts, I’m not sure if I should be flattered, disgusted, or creeped out.

When we say "I can't believe in a God who would ___", we're saying we don't really want a God beyond our comprehension.

The Op/Ed

Much has been made recently of the anonymous Op/Ed that appeared in the NYT, purportedly authored by someone in the current administration.   I’ve got a few thoughts, and will possibly add more later.

I’ll start with the obvious.   It’s anonymous, unsourced, unverified, piece of opinion.    By definition, we have no way to judge the veracity of the piece or the credibility of either the piece or the author.   Unlike a hard news story, which requires things like sources and facts, this is an opinion.   Yet it’s being treated as some sort of holy writ.

As a general rule, my respect for someone increases proportionally with the amount of risk they take or courage they show.   In this case the author is either scared that they’ll lose their job, or narcissistic enough to think that they have the power to fix the situation.   Neither option fills me with confidence.    In most situations, rational people give less credence to anonymous complaints.  

While I am sympathetic to the general premise that Trump may suffer from some sort or degree of mental illness or loss of capacity related to his age, one anonymous opinion piece is not justification to invoke the 25th amendment.   At this point deposing a president based on one person’s anonymous opinion seems more like some banana republic coup than anything else.

I have to note the hypocrisy (for lack of a better term) of those who use this as a cudgel against Trump, while ignoring the clearly expressed fact that the writer wants to further many of his policies. Policies with which these folx disagree.  

Again, I’ve said for quite some time that Trump is amoral and that this is one of the reasons why I couldn’t support or vote for him.  However, in a society with no objective standards of morality, by what standard does someone (with no objective moral standard) judge amorality to be objectively bad?    Darwinian theory is amoral.   Utilitarian philosophy is amoral.    Once again, I’m struck by a society which denies objective truth and objective morality, being critical of Trump for violating the standards they deny exist.

Gotta work, more later.

Cyberspace

The more time I spend on social media and at various blogs, the more convinced I am that way to many folx just use those platforms to parade their monomania to the world.

And the world encourages them to do so.

I just saw..,

I just saw a Christian musician post about how much she lived Queer Eye.

Doesn’t presenting gay men as some sort of fashion gurus reinforce negative stereotypes about gay men?