Maybe Things Are Not What They Seem

 Dan made much ado about Trump being overturned by a couple of lower court judges and demanded that everyone make definitive claims about how they would respond of SCOTUS finds against Trump.   Well, let's see if his reverence for the judiciary is still what it was, and let's see his support for the more recent rulings on Trump's actions.  

https://www.beaufortcountynow.com/post/86714/massive-conflict-of-interest-found-on-anti-trump-federal-judge.html

https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/judge-mcconnells-daughter-catherine-works-in-education-department-elon-musk-sparks-row-article-118156678

https://instituteforlegalreform.com/press-release/mcconnell-is-unqualified-to-sit-on-the-federal-bench-in-rhode-island/

 https://x.com/america1stlegal/status/1891226933481877590?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

So the states that sued Trump decided to venue shop to find a friendly judge, well known as a highly partisan democrat, who would find in their favor on their initial motion.   That doesn't really sound like the way that an impartial judicial system should be engaged in cases of this import.  

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal-judge-declines-block-musks-doge-from-accessing-data-firing-employees

I'm sure that Dan will be applauding this judicial decision because of his reverence for the judicial system. 

Again, WTH?????

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/17/call-your-senators-and-ask-them-to-vote-against-lori-chavez-deremer/

 

I'm not going to waste time reiterating WK's points about this Trump's cabinet picks.  I am going to note that it's these sorts of actions that convince me that every president needs to be  be judged on individual actions, choices, and words when they don't align with the principles espoused during the campaign or with the majority of his supporters.  One only hopes that the GOP and conservatives can force Trump to make a better choice. 

Users

 Dan posted about not being used by users, which seems reasonable.    However, when it comes to politicians, I'd argue that any politician who amasses vast personal wealth while allegedly engaged in public service is the very worst kind of user.   We see plenty of examples of members of congress using their insider knowledge to make millions in the stock market.   We see people regularly manage to amass tens of millions of dollars wile earning less than $200,000 a year.  I'm suggesting that those who pardon family members who've engaged in influence peddling, or who've engaged in spreading lies about political opponents, are also users. 

I'm not advocating for users, I am suggesting that to focus on one or two users (especially one whose net worth dropped while in office), while remaining silent on a multitude of others is probably driven by partisan hatred than by principle. 

Bits of Tid

 There's a meme going around about how the US aid freeze caused a 71 year old woman t die because she ran out of oxygen.  

I guess I'm confused as to why the US is somehow responsible to provide oxygen for people from Myanmar who are in Thailand.   Since when is this burden solely on US taxpayers?  

Strangely enough, the NGO (if your NGO can't operate without G funding, are you really an NGO?) had almost $1.4 billion dollars in revenue in FY 2023.  In 2023 they reported having $630 million in assets, including $169 million in cash.  It seems strange that the US taxpayer is funding a non-profit NGO to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, primarily to import "refugees" into the US.     Also, strangely enough, their top 5 employees salaries are almost $3 million/year.  They also have a reported stock/investment portfolio of nearly $100 million dollars.   It seems like they probably could have managed to buy an oxygen tank or two while they're waiting for more US taxpayer funds.  

https://x.com/realchrisrufo/status/1889724242628944195?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

I think that there is a lot of Truth to this.  I believe that most people tend to identify with and try to recreate certain things or times when they felt significant.  In this case, I think that it's why everything is cast as a "civil rights" issue, and why everything is compared to "race".  Where I think the problem lies is in not acknowledging that things are different now, that things have improved, and that there might be other alternative ways to achieve ones' goal.  Maybe it's possible to move toward living in 2025, not 1963.  

Another meme that's making the rounds is that the government is buying a bunch of Teslas.   What's being ignored is that this purchase was finalized in 2024 long before Trump became president.   So, those making it a political payback should probably shut up   Is this purchase the best possible use of taxpayer funds, who knows, but that's the only potential argument against it 

 

H/T WK

 https://winteryknight.com/2025/02/12/wikipedia-co-founder-who-holds-phd-in-philosophy-returns-to-christianity/

I regularly hear people, both Christian and non,  claiming that there are no good arguments for Christianity.   That somehow they have exhaustively examined every argument and found them wanting for some objective reason.   Then we see stories like this, where well educated non believers actually examine the arguments/evidence and realize that there are good arguments for things like the existence of YHWH.    Personally, I think that it's laziness that makes people draw these conclusions.  Primarily laziness in thinking that whatever answers they sought several decades ago have not changed with the times.   I understand that it's easier to form one's opinions decades ago, then just pretend as if nothing has changed or that new information doesn't exist, I just don't find it compelling. 

Responsibility

 I've noticed something recently that is interesting, and probably bipartisan.   Although I'm currently seeing if from the left.

It's that they are reflexively overreacting to almost everything Trump is doing and looking to the courts for salvation.   

What I'm not seeing is an acknowledgement that they totally blew the 2024 election.  That their going all in on Biden, then throwing him under the bus and going all in on Harris, might have been part of the reason why Trump won.  

Maybe replacing an old white guy with dementia with a "black" woman who'd never gotten a significant number of votes on a national election and who sucks at communicating was a bad strategy.    Maybe continuing the practice of rigging primaries in favor of the anointed one is a bad idea.   

Maybe, just maybe, y'all bear some responsibility for the situation you find yourselves in.  Maybe losing elections does have consequences, and maybe that is just how things work. 

WTH?????????

 Trump chooses who to lead the Office of Faith Relations?   Really, of all of the orthodox non heretical Christian leaders around he chooses who?  

I have my problems with the whole concept personally.  History suggests that every time the Church gets too cozy with the government, that it is the Church that ends up losing.   Scripture tells us that the Church will prevail and that the "gates of hell" cannot stop it.  In short, the Church does not need the protection of the government to fulfill it's mission.   

What I expect from the US government is "fair and equal" treatment under the law for all religions.  

What I don't want is a president who doesn't appear to have any significant faith himself appointing a false teacher to protect the Church.  As we see in places like Iran, the Church seems to do pretty well without government protection.