Random thoughts

 If Biden does transition to the elimination of fossil fuels, how will the rich environmentalists get to Europe to hobnob with the elites?

How will goods be transported over long distances and across oceans?

Is it reasonable or even possible for a president to protect or defend the entire country from every possible attack?

It seems like those folks who rip Trump for lying, should probably at least acknowledge that Biden has been telling a few big ones himself.    If honesty is important, then shouldn't it be important on both sides?

I’m amused at all the people who’ve ripped John Piper to shreds for years for his theology, who’ve all of a sudden become his biggest fans.

For all of the progressive Christians who were adamant that Clinton’s character didn’t matter because his failings were in his personal life, I’m glad you’ve decided that character matters again after all these years.    

News update

 The 4 ex cops had a hearing the other day and the judge did drop the 3rd degree murder charge, and not much else.    Still waiting on change of venue and a few other things.   Chauvin made bail and people got pushed, although no damage was done.   Heaven forbid that he be given the same opportunity as everyone else. Finally, they’ve charged one “right wing” person regarding the riot damage.    Given that the news kept telling us that there were thousands of “right wing agitators “, the fact that they’ve only charge the one seems anticlimactic and ignores the fake narrative.   One guy out of 10’s of thousands, it was definitely a “right wing” led riot.     Of course, those of us on the right will condemn his actions and hope for his conviction.   Unlike the left, we’re consistent in condemning those who caused the destruction we’ve seen.   

Covid

 From Greg Boyd.

"Shelly and I have meticulously followed CDC guidelines from the start of this pandemic.  Yet, somehow I contracted the COVID virus!  Come on!  I feel like I got hit with a bus, but otherwise I'm doing fine.  It just goes to show that, when dealing with COVID, you can't be to careful."

While I know this is anecdotal, it almost seems like the message being sent is that COVID doesn't really respect the boundaries and barriers that are claimed to prevent it.   It's almost like some people are going to get it no matter how hard they try to protect themselves.   

I genuinely hope that Greg recovers and that the symptoms are on the mild side, and that his family doesn't get it from him.   I also hope that this provides an example to show people that the precautions may not be as effective as some politicians would like you to think.

FYI, I'm not some sort of conspiracy theory guy like some, nor do I deny the reality of COVID, I'm just a pretty normal person who doesn't think that it's necessary to shut down an economy, put people out of work, and ruin the livelihoods of business owners, because of a virus with a 99% plus survival rate.  

Stupid

 For all of the hullabaloo unleashed on social media last night, you have to wonder about the intelligence of the anti-Trump crowd.   The fact that so many are unaware of the fact the coyote is a term for the fine upstanding folx who graciously and generously escort refugees across that US southern border out of the goodness of their hearts, raises serous questions about their intelligence.  It certainly confirms the desire to believe anything negative about Trump (regardless of truth or accuracy) and to follow lemminglike others who bash Trump. 

"Imagine callling the immigrant parents that bring their children to the United States for a better life "Coyotes".   The level of xenophobia is sickening."

David Hogg

Social Media "influencer".

 

 

No, David.  I'd say that the level of ignorance and partisanship is more sickening.

Another one

 https://www.outkick.com/nfls-instagram-page-honors-wisconsin-social-justice-hero-after-feds-announce-no-crime-occurred/

 

 

I've alluded to this phenomenon in the past, but here's another example of a situation where people, who claim to  be interested in hings like truth, have bought into something and stick with it even when it's proven to be false.

I understand the power of a narrative, but the fact that it seems more commonplace that the narrative trumps the truth, call into question the motives of many vocal people.  

Perhaps if we were more focused on what's true, less on what moves our favorite narrative forward,  and less inclined to jump to conclusions, our national discourse might be more profitable. 

You asked.

"I'm sorry to depart from the topic, but I hope you'll indulge me, as I believe it goes to the point regarding Dan's dishonesty about proving one's point.

His historians, ranking Trump with barely a year of a presidency under his belt against those with one or two full terms, doesn't do much to indicate integrity on the part of his sources. From what I've seen thus far...and I intend to further scrutinize the survey of historians from his first link...had not provided much at all in the way of policies enacted and their effect versus the policies of other presidents enacted and the effects of those. Clearly, and without any room for debate, Trump's tax and regulatory policies have far and away been more successful than eight years of Obama in turning around the economy. That one area alone should put Trump's ranking higher than Obama's, particularly when Obama insisted his crap was to be accepted as the new normal and that a magic wand would be necessary to do better. But we see no reference to anything like that, be it economics or any other issue.

Then, of course, we have William Henry Harrison. How could any honest, objective historian not rank Trump at least higher than a guy who lasted only 32 days in office before dying? Some of his surveyed historians rank Trump 44th out of 44 total presidents. How does this indicate integrity on the part of the historians?

What this and other problems with Dan's "evidence" against Trump PROVE is that Dan isn't interested in truth. He isn't interested in truly reviewing anything he offers as "proof" when there is clearly so many problems with his sources and their info. All he cares about is the conclusion to which they come...regardless of how they come to it...which he can then use as "evidence" to support his prejudices and hateful attitude toward whatever the point being discussed may be.

And when I offered examples of historians that find Trump to be among the better...if not best...presidents, and they actually use the very examples of his policies and their effects that people like Dan and those he favors purposely and deceitfully ignore, he counters with hit pieces that have absolutely nothing to do with their arguments in support of Trump as president. His offering of that extremist conservative periodical, "The Atlantic", does just that. It was an article wherein the author makes all manner of negative connotations regarding things Newt Gingrich has said and done, while never offering any response of clarification by Newt himself. The reader is left to wade through such biased editorializing of Newt's words and actions or just believe without reason that the author is still somehow objective in his reporting. No where in all the article does the author suggest he is giving his own impressions of what Newt's words and actions mean. He's asserting meaning and pasting it over Newt's words and actions.

But it wouldn't matter to Dan, anyway. The point is that the article speaks negatively about Gingrich, and thus it is true that Gingrich is evil and therefore his ranking of Trump, based on Trump's actual policies and their effects, is not to be considered. All the while, Dan does nothing to prove the integrity or character of his historians merits believing their assessment of Trump. This is Dan's modus operandi. This is Dan revering Judeo-Christian values. This is Dan's constant duplicity. And he dares speak of Trump being a liar."

 

Art

 

" "While there MAY be some validity to the notion of not assessing a presidency until after it's complete, but that assumes a normal presidency that isn't an active and ongoing series of train wrecks. Trump's presidency is a disaster and this obvious to all rational people, experts, scholars and otherwise."

While this notion provides you with a fig leaf to hide behind, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to assess something with a potential long term impact in either real time or in the short term. While not a fan of Trump, it's absurd to ignore the fact that the economy was in good shape pre Covid and that it's bouncing back faster than most thought. He's had some success in moving the ball down the field towards more peace in the middle ease, and has been disengaging us from overseas military commitments. He's also does some positive things in terms of criminal justice reform and in other areas. I'm not suggesting perfection, but any reasonably objective observer can't rationally conclude total failure either. One of the benefits to assessing these things in the future is the ability to assess more objectively. I'd suggest that looking at history through a subjective, biased lens is probably not the best practice.


"One can't make false claims and be so utterly dishonest and corrupt as Trump has factually been and still be a good president. One can't be as thoroughly inept and just stupid as Trump is and still be counted as a good president."

Yet, there's quite a chasm between "good president" and abject failure. I know that you frequently skip to extremes, but most of us live in the middle ground.

"In the middle of Hitler's reign, historians could tell that Hitler was a world-level disaster. Trump is no Hitler (for two things, he's just so much more stupid and inept than Hitler), but it is similarly clear to all rational people that Trump is just amongst the worst."

Interesting double standard there. Judging Trump in real time and the rest of "the worst" in hindsight.

"What's interesting is why some 30-40% of the population are blind to this? Are some part of that 40% acknowledging his ineptitude, but are just so partisan that they welcome historic corruption and ineptitude over the Democratic party?"

In much the same way as people like you have said that they'd vote for ANY democrat over Trump, many in the other side see Biden as a worse option. I'd argue that blindness isn't the problem, but seeing and judging the positives and negatives of both candidates is. You may not agree with those who don't share your visceral hatred of Trump, I'd further argue that if Trump wins, that the problem lies with the DFL's inability to put forth a candidate that's more appealing to a broader swath of the electorate than Biden. You frequently (rightly) criticize Trump for his lying. Yet, Biden is a decades long history of lying and plagiarism that is undeniable. You'll likely respond that Biden's trail of lies isn't as bad as Trump's, but that's subjective. It's also the exact same rationale a Trump voter has for voting against Biden. Make no mistake, the majority of Trump voters are voting against Biden, not for Trump. Unfortunately, the fact that the DFL is in a race to the extreme left, and couldn't find a good candidate twice says more about y'all that about Trump.

"Historians are rightly united on Trump's deserved place near the bottom of the list. What will take some time for historians is studying Trump's supporters and defenders to figure them out."

These are both simply hunches, and worth about as much because of your hatred for Trump.

And, that's it on this off topic diversion. If you want to continue, ask nicely and I'll open up a tread for this new topic. I'm giving you each one comment, and one response from me. It's all fair and equal."

 

Dan, with my responses.

 

Here y'all go.  Have at it.  

Book Review

https://www.challies.com/book-reviews/why-social-justice-is-not-biblical-justice/ 

Sounds like it might end up on my post surgery reading list.