Cease Fire, Closing Argument

 It appears that there is finally a cease fire deal in place between Israel and Gaza.   I haven't seen a lot of details, but there is the return of some/all of the hostages, along with the cessation of hostilities.  I'm obviously pleased that the hostages are finally going home, despite the fact that to many of them are being returned dead.   I'm ambivalent to the cease fire because Hamas will spin this as a victory against the Zionist oppressors, when it's much closer to a defeat for them.   Three thoughts on this news.  

1.  This looks a lot like the return of the hostages by Iran.  A last minute capitulation in order to avoid the harsher consequences of a Trump administration.   The reality is that Trump gets some credit for this, and I doubt we'll ever know how involved his representatives were.

2.  If I had to guess, I suspect that Hamas will violate this cease fire first.  Because that's on brand for them.  Start a small war, get the crap kicked out of them, whine about being oppressed, finally hide behind a cease fire to rearm.  

3.  Any deal that leaves Hamas in control of Gaza is a bad deal.  

Biden gave his farewell address last night and whined about billionaires taking over, as if there weren't more billionaires supporting Harris than Trump and we haven't had Soros, Zuck, Gates, and the like involved in leftist politics for the last 4 years.  He also whined about multiple things that he wants to ban (Dark money, congressional stock trading, etc), yet that he's done nothing about for the last 12 years.  (really 50, but who's counting)    The fact that he thinks that trying to condemn these things as he shuffles out the door is somehow going to make him look good is absurd.   The entire Biden/Harris campaign seems based on the notion that they'll do all kinds of stuff that they ignored if only they'd get elected again.  

Good riddance. 

Hypothetical

 Let's say, hypothetically, that a local church hires a staff member for a specific job.  Let's say that, hypothetically, this job has a written, defined set of responsibilities and that the church has a similar set of written guidelines for their employees.   Let's say, hypothetically, that this employee regularly fails to actually fulfill the responsibilities of their job well.   Let's say, hypothetically, that one of their job responsibilities is to submit all volunteers for background checks.   Let's say, hypothetically, that this has not been done (although it's been discussed regularly for months) for over 6 months.   

What should this person's immediate supervisor do?

How does this person's failure to do their job affect other staff members?

What level of responsibility does the church leadership have for these continued failures?

Now let's say, hypothetically, that the church expects (in writing) all of it's full time/salaried employees to work 40 hours a week.    Let's say, hypothetically, that the church understands that ministry is not a 9-5 M-F job and generally is very accommodating of  the actual schedule worked, and flexible about it.   Let's say, hypothetically, that this employee agreed to work from 6AM-2PM M-F as their primary work schedule.   Let's also say that this employee has never actually worked an entire week according to the agreed upon schedule, and has never worked 40 hours a week in their tenure.  

Is it equivalent to theft to intentionally and consistently work less than the amount of hours you are paid to work, while also not completing the duties of your job?

If the above answer is yes, does the fact that it's at a church make it worse, or is it no different from any other employer?  

Finally, hypothetically.  Let's say, hypothetically, that this person's spouse got a pert time job at the same church.   At some point they realized that with the combined incomes that they were making too much for them to have the taxpayers of the state pay for their health insurance.   They faced a conundrum in that they could not afford the health premiums on their combined income.   (Leaving aside the affordability or not of healthcare for the moment.   The costs are what they are, the choices are what they are.  It's pointless to argue about this here.  Further, the fact that there is a hard cut off on things like this is stupid.)   What do they choose to do?

1.   The part time spouse seeks a full time position that would allow them to afford health insurance.

2.  The part time spouse quits their job so that the taxpayers (the remaining spouses fellow employees) can pay for their health insurance.  

3.  If the answer is 2, is that a moral or ethical choice for a believer?

Ultimately as one of many people who financially support this church, I would have serious questions about the stewardship of the money that members donate to the church.  It seems reasonable for me/us as stakeholders and financial supporters of the church to expect that our donations be spent wisely and that those who are employed would respect the fact that their salaries are paid via donations.  

Thoughts?

Untitled

 " I don't know nothin' 'bout economics, just what makes sense to me"

 

Coming from someone who's written extensively on economics, this is fascinating.  

Old Man Rant

Okay, I've been sitting on this for a while and it's time for a grumpy old man post.  

One of the hot political topics of the last few years is the minimum wage and what the appropriate pay for law skill jobs is.  The result of this conversation is that fast food and convenience store employees are making $15/hr plus here in the people's republic.  As someone who's employed people before, one thing I expected from my employees, before they got a raise, was competence.   

So, what sorts of things do I expect from fast food and convenience store employees for $15+/hr?

1.  Get my order right.   If I order Diet Coke, don't give me Coke.  If I order "unsweet tea", don't give me sweet tea.  If I order something with "no cheese", don't give me cheese.   

2.  Move the line along.  Y'all have extra windows and reserved parking spaces where people are supposed to wait for their food.   Get the simple orders through more quickly.   

3.   (related, but not the fault of the employees)   The point of fast food is the fast.  Stop adding more and more complicated "coffee" drinks, that slow things down.   If you have to add them, don't hold up the line because someone wants 10 Frappachinos.  

4.   When there are more than 3-4 people in line at the convenience store, one employee working a register, and 2-3 employees standing around, open the other registers.  

5.   Learn how to make change.   It's really not that hard.  Especially if the machine does the math for you.

6.   (for customers)   If there's a long line behind you, don't make 5 minutes of small talk with the cashier, don't get involved with having them check 35 lottery tickets for you, know how you are going to pay and have the payment ready.   

Call me crazy, grumpy, and old if you like, but I see this as a simple issue of respect.   People choose to patronize your place of business, so get them though the transaction as quickly as possible and get the transaction correct.   

One last thing, I'm basing a lot of this on interactions at places I visit regularly enough that this isn't a brand new employee thing.

That's enough for now. 

Focus?

 I'm a bit confused by Trumps recent spate of "policy proposals".    I'm not quite sure how they fit with what he campaigned on, and whether or not they make sense as priorities.  

I've addressed the port issue, and believe that Trump is wrong in his blanket support of the union.

I believe that it was a mistake to cede control of the Panama canal, leading to China gaining an inordinate amount of control over a strategic US asset.   I agree that we should look at reacquiring control of the canal.

I don't know enough about Greenland to understand what value it would bring to the US, beyond it's obviously strategic position in the North Atlantic.   I'm not sure how much of a threat the Russian navy is at this point, but a foothold in that area seems less valuable now than it would have been during the Cold War.   I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's a bizarre thing to prioritize, with very little explanation of the benefits.  

Likewise with Canada.  I know we've all joked about annexing Canada, but seriously.    I get that they have natural resources that would be more assured if Canada was a state, but is that really enough?   Do we really want another 41,000,000 citizens, most of whom are so liberal that they make Dan look conservative?   Again, would there have been strategic benefits to having control of part of the Arctic at one point, sure?   Now, I don't know.   Are the other reasons why having the US extend into the Arctic, possibly.    Is that worth annexing Canada, who knows.  Again, interesting theoretical conversation, but is this a priority?  

Personally, I'd have hoped for focus on the economy, reigning in the federal government, getting his cabinet approved, and dealing with immigration.   But that's me.  

Finally, why in the hell is Trump selling freaking watches?  Especially analogue watches? 

Compasses

https://geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/mag_fld/compass-en.php

 "Regardless of their intended purpose or the complexity of their construction, most mechanical compasses operate on the same basic principle. A small, elongated, permanently magnetized needle is placed on a pivot so that it may rotate freely in the horizontal plane. The Earth's magnetic field exerts a force on the compass needle, causing it to rotate until it comes to rest in the same horizontal direction as the magnetic field. Over much of the Earth, this direction is roughly true north, which accounts for the compass's importance for navigation."

 

A compass is an interesting device.  It is very simple in construction, yet it's effects go far beyond its simplicity.    In short, a compass works because there are objective conditions in the created world that cause the magnetized needle to behave (roughly) the same way at (almost) all times and (almost) all circumstances.   The objective reality is that a magnetic compass as accurate enough, in enough times and places, so as to reliably allow people to find their way to a destination.  Therefore that reliability of pointing in the same direction (virtually) always allows people to define the other directions relative to that fixed direction (magnetic north).    Now because there are a relatively few areas where that earths magnetic field shifts enough to throw off a compass, there are also tools that will allow people to continue to use magnetic compasses to accurately navigate, despite those fluctuations.   

So, if one of (if not the single) distinctive features of a compass is that it reliably and consistently points in the same direction and reliably and consistently allows people to use that fixed/objective information to determine direction of travel, wouldn't that feature apply to a "moral compass" as well?   Would not a "moral compass" provide moral direction that was the same regardless of who and where they used it?  Would not a "moral compass" provide a fixed, objective, indication of the morality of an action?   Is a "moral compass" like a magnetic compass in that not everyone has access to one, and that one must actively seek out a "moral compass"?  If a "moral compass" is something that is innate to all humans, then how does one account for the fact that so many cultures (countries/religions/clans/tribes/etc) hold such different moral values?   

As we are seeing in the UK right now, the Pakistani culture clearly believes that it is moral to rape non Muslim girls.    Which raises the question, where does the "moral compass" of these people point.    Does their moral compass point the same way as most of the rest of humanity which says that raping girls is bad behavior, or does their "moral compass" point in a direction that tells them that their behavior is appropriate?   

If there is a "moral compass", and the metaphor has any utility at all, would not everyone's "moral compass" have to reliably and consistently point in the same direction?   Of what utility is a compass (moral or otherwise) that doesn't point toward the same north as every other compass.   (In acknowledgement of the weakness of the metaphor, there are circumstances where a magnetic compass won't point to the north.   Yet, in those circumstances all compasses will still point in the same direction.  Not in contradictory directions.)  So when someone suggests that one's "moral compass" is broken because it doesn't point the way they believe it should, it only seems natural to wonder about the nature of the "moral compass" and how it relates to a magnetic compass. 

More Rape Ring

 https://x.com/jonatanpallesen/status/1875253382992085163?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/15/child-sexual-abuse-gangs-white-men-home-office-report

There is so much wrong with this.  Most obviously that a UK newspaper is blatantly trying to mislead people as to the nature of the rape ring problem in the UK.   Of course the notion that there are a significant number of "sexual abuse gangs", regardless of their ethnic background, doesn't seem to be a big concern at all.   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWP9LxnYmy4

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1875054148489732250?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

UK police asking if a 5 year old had consented to sexual abuse.    What in the hell is going on in the UK?

https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/your-rotherham/girl-by-age-of-16-id-slept-with-100-asian-men-court-told-4323693

1.  Nice victim blaming by the Rotherham Advisor.

2.  Nice job trying to hide the fact that the Asian men were Pakistani.

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1875229883044901288?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

For whatever reason Musk has jumped on this rape ring story and has been writing and forwarding relevant tweets on the story.   Yet somehow, the thing that has certain brits pissed off is that Musk is exerting pressure on the UK to deal with the problem, not that there is a decades long history of Pakistani men raping young girls and getting away with it.

 https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1875229883044901288?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 https://x.com/astor_charlie/status/1874924677820461073?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

If I was one of the victims, I'd be suing the UK government, the Labour party, the MP's and officials personally, and the media for how this has been handled.   

 https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/new-updates/zakir-naik-courts-fresh-controversy-says-rape-murder-accused-can-be-forgiven-if-/articleshow/114119663.cms?from=mdr

I though that we'd gotten past the "she was wearing..." defense.  

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1874668504835817491?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

https://x.com/msmelchen/status/1874945562912670024?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

https://winteryknight.com/2025/01/07/how-the-uks-secular-left-government-covered-up-sex-trafficking-of-children/