Untethered Empathy

  I've seen a couple of times recently where authors have are are planning on writing about the concept of taking empathy so far that it becomes harmful.    While I haven't had a chance to dig to deeply into their research, I saw this earlier today and found it interesting.  I'm seeing people "describing this inclination as “untethered empathy,” which is “a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality.”"

I think that this could be interesting.  The notion that it is possible to unmoor empathy from "truth, goodness, and reality"  seems to describe some of what we see in our culture today.   

It's something that I plan on digging deeper into going forward.  

https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-beauty-and-abuse-of-empathy

https://medium.com/@sexvangelicals/what-is-untethered-empathy-625d8701e3d3

https://andynaselli.com/how-empathy-can-be-sinful

https://www.biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/2021/10/29/avoiding-untethered-compassion-re-engaging-in-church-after-church-hurts/

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-pinch-of-incense-to-the-genius-of-democracy-2.html

I know that in the past when I've posted on something that I'd found interesting or that had drawn my attention, that Dan has jumped to to conclusion that I wholeheartedly agree with everything that everyone has said on a particular subject.   As in the past, this conclusion is not True.  This term and concept is new to me, and I posted a few links for reference.   Until I dig deeper, it's too soon to draw any conclusions.

But, at first glance, the notion the empathy could be misused or could be harmful does make some sort of intuitive sense.   Of course, that doesn't really mean much. 

WTH?

 With the proliferation of cameras everywhere, we now see things that we would rarely or never see in the past.  One of those things is men beating the crap out of women.    Every once and a while we'll see a video of a man beating the crap out of a woman in public, and it's very hard to watch.  For those of us who grew up in a world when men were taught to never hit women, it provokes a visceral reaction of wanting to remove the threat to the woman.   In those cases where we see men standing around watching a man beat the crap out of a woman, my disgust extends to the men who stand by and do nothing.  

Who would have thought that we'd be able to see men beating the crap out of women, televised for profit by a major network and sanctioned by a multinational body.  

While I couldn't have watched much of this travesty, the few excerpts I saw were sickening. 

Lame Duck Joe

 A couple of thoughts on Lame Duck Genocide Joe.

1.  There are reports out there that clearly state that P-BO called Biden and told him that he, Kamala, and others had talked and that they would invoke the 25th amendment if Joe didn't remove himself from the race.

If this is True, then how is it possible that Biden is still in office.  If Biden is truly incapacitated to the point that the 25th amendment is necessary, then he should step down now.   

If Biden is not incapacitated enough to justify his removal under 25A, then how is this not election interference, a coup, bribery, or insurrection?   How can P-BO and Harris threaten Biden to drop out, if he's not really that incapacitated?

Further, since Harris stands to benefit from this threat isn't that a conflict of interest or something?

2.   Lame Duck Genocide Joe just made headlines for his attempt to destroy the concept of three coequal branches of government.  He's come out with some changes to the supreme court that will lessen it's independence.     I'll give him credit for realizing that a constitutional amendment is the only possible way to achieve this takeover.    However, this is one more of those Biden things where he'll announce some major initiative, then not deliver, but still take credit as if he'd done what he said.    For years, the DFL sheep will give Biden credit for doing nothing.  

The reality is that this is all for show, as the chances of getting a constitutional amendment passed for this is virtually 0%.    

Now, had Biden done this right and suggested implementing these sorts of changes for all three branches of government, he might have been on to something.   The notion that SCOTUS should be held to higher standards than the executive and legislative branches seems absurd on it's face.  

You've got to give him credit, or at least his puppet masters, for making a big announcement that gets him headlines while accomplishing nothing.

If Biden wants to cap his term then he should do everything necessary to free the US hostages held by Hamas and help remove Hamas from power for good.     He won't, but he should. 

I Don't Want To

 I don't want to invest much time in the Olympic Opening ceremony controversy.   There seems to be some question as to what painting the offensive portion of the ceremony was parodying.    Although I can't believe that they really expected everyone to conclude that they really were referring to a painting that is not as well known as the Last Supper painting.   I'm also wondering why they didn't make a point of telling the commentators so that they could have shut the controversy down before it started.   Finally "the Olympic presentation was literally called "La Cène Sur Un Scène Sur La Seine," i.e. "The Last Supper on a Stage on the Seine." per one source. 

 

Be that as it may, the reality is that as Christians we should expect this sort of thing from non Christians. We should expect to have Christianity mocked, parodied, and ridiculed.  

What I find interesting is that these folx mock Christianity because it's safe and the people they respect condone it. There is virtually zero chance that we would have seen transvestite tableau mocking the painting  The Night Journey of Muhammad on His Steed, Buraq from the Bustan of Sacdi as a part of the opening ceremony.    I think that everyone knows what the results would have been had that happened.  

I suspect that they knew that their tableau was going to get some Christians all riled up on social media, but that they would ultimately benefit from the Christian "Turn the other cheek" thing.  I'm not sure how much courage it takes, or how edgy it is, to mock or parody a group that poses absolutely zero risk of danger to the parodists.  It's kind of a hallmark of the left, they want to "protest" and "speak out", but for most they don't want to risk much of anything.   They'll put a black box as their profile picture or add a Ukrainian flag to their bio, but they know that they're safe to do so.  

It's a bunch of cowards who won't poke a Grizzly, but bravely poke a teddy bear.  

FWIW. the tableau was stupid, pointless, unnecessary, and intentionally provocative.   It had added nothing to the absurdly long and boring opening ceremony.   

Some Grace for Your Monday

 https://naminghisgrace.blogspot.com/2024/07/do-we-christian-have-choice.html

 

"This, I know, will seem simplistic but I felt the need to write it tonight. 

Is there a choice? Can we choose between the two candidates? Will we pick the one who is so forceful about reproductive rights (the right to kill the most defenseless little ones), or shall we pick the one who thinks its okay to grab a woman’ genitals, if you are famous that is—or to lessen it, if you must, to think its just men’s talk and that is okay. Shall we pick the one who was willing to prosecute a journalist for revealing Planned Parenthood’s business of selling baby parts. Or shall we pick the one who encouraged a mob to attack Capital policemen with flagpoles and bear spray, while watching on TV for several hours without attempting to stop it. 

Shall we vote for the party that’s willing to let a sovereign state be attacked, its people murdered, its children kidnapped, its women raped—willing to let Ukraine disappear like they and the Baltic states did in the time of Stalin and Hitler. 

Shall we vote for a party whose fringe is willing to let the bombs of Hezbollah, Hamas and others fall constantly on a sovereign state, Israel. Who do little to prevent the harassment of American Jews. Do we have any choice? What is our choice? 

If you are a Christian, no, in this matter, you can vote or not, but you don’t really have a choice. You are doing the best you can as an American citizen, but it isn’t a good choice whichever way you go in political matters. Don’t let anyone tell you, “You are not serving Christ if you don’t vote for this person or that one.” Know this, you belong to Jesus and to His kingdom and nothing can separate you from His love and care. 

Yes, Jesus calls you to be faithful, to love those about you, to care for those who have needs, to stand for those who are being oppressed, to be in His word and in His place of worship but you are not judged by Him for your vote. America is not the Kingdom of God.

 “What shall we say to these things? If God is for us who is against us? 

He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered him over for us all, how will He not also with Him give us all things? 

Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies. Who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes rather was raised. Who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us. 

Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, 

“For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through him who loved us. 

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities. Nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8: 31-39)."

 

Viola Larson is one of my favorit bloggers, and one who I wish would blog more often.  She was a light in the darkness during the worst days of the PCUSA implosion, and a voice of grace and wisdom on denominational issues.   I suspect that she and I differ politically on many issues, yet she is steadfast on the pro-life issue, and on Israel.    Her post above is a needed antidote to folx like Dan who insist that anyone who votes against Biden/Harris/whoever they appoint, is somehow not a Christian, evil,  and on the "wrong side of history".    Her expression of grace to those who acknowledge the poor choices we have is appreciated.   It'll be interesting to see what choice she makes.    Given her staunch pro-life commitment as well as her staunch commitment to Israel, I can't see her voting for Biden/Harris/whoever, but I also can't see her being comfortable voting for Trump. 

It's Regan's Fault

 https://winteryknight.com/2024/07/27/will-venezuelas-socialist-totalitarians-finally-be-voted-out-on-sunday/

 

As Dan frequently uses Nicaragua as an example of US interference  destroying other countries, it'd be interesting to hear how he blames the US for Maduro blocking one of his most popular challengers from the ballot.  It's kind of like what the DFL tried to do in a few states recently.  It's almost exactly like what the DFL did with RFK Jr and Bernie.   

I'm sure that somehow, something that Regan did back in the '80s is the only possible reason why Nicaragua has declined drastically under it's socialist rulers, and why the socialists desperately want to prevent an avowed capitalist from running.  

Strategery?

 I've noticed something interesting in Dan's strategery recently.    Once while he was trying to argue that motor vehicles were an immoral blight on society, as well as in his attcks on Trump.   I'm not sure what to call this but it's him listing as many negative things as he can think of in order to demonize something, while failing to acknowledge that there might be some positive things that would offset the negative.

For example, in his screed about the evils of motor vehicles, he ignores a few things.

Our entire modern economy, the ready availability of reasonably priced goods and services, the freedom to move from place to place, emergency response (police,fire, EMT), is significantly connected to motor vehicles.   So if we eliminated motor vehicles (with internal combustion engines) we would still be able to transport goods between major cities via steam trains (maybe as they still pollute), and then rely on some other transport from there.   Or, say you wanted to hire a painter.  You'd only be limited to painters within a very small geographic area as it'd be stupid to ride for hours to paint for 8.    How many people's lives have been saved due to things like ambulances and medevac helicopters?     

Do motor vehicles have some negatives, sure.  Have some of those negatives been mitigated or minimized over time, absolutely.   

If given the choice between our 21st century economic, technological, and freedom to travel and eliminating motor vehicles which would most of us choose?  

Sure, you could argue for some form of allowing certain motor vehicles, but at that point who gets to decide what motor vehicles are acceptable, and which aren't?     Do you really think that the elites will somehow manage to retain their access to motor vehicles, while restricting the rest?

On a global scale, let's consider countries that depend on tourism for the bulk of their economies.    For example, the islands in the Caribbean.    If we eliminate or limit motor vehicles, (especially planes and ships) the economies of those islands would suffer, as would the people who live there. 

Likewise with Trump.

Has Trump done plenty of bad things in his life, absolutely.   Is it fair to define Trumps entirely by making a list of the worst things he's ever done?   

First, Trump employs hundreds/thousands of people directly and significantly more indirectly it seems like employing people is good for those employed as well as good for society at large.

I've seen multiple examples of Trump being lauded and awarded by "black leaders" for the work he did to make the lives of the minority communities in NY.

Come to think of it, I've seen plenty of laudatory press about Trump playing a pivotal role in the turnaround of NYC in the 70s and 80's.

We regularly hear of Trump's individual acts of charity and compassion from those he's helped.

While in office his efforts to fund HCBU's, reform the justice system, improve minority employment numbers, and other things should be considered as positives, shouldn't they?  

So, do we really define anything by focusing on the perceived worst attributes and ignoring any positive attributes?   

The point of this is not to suggest that motor vehicles are absolutely perfect or that we should not seek technological advances that cold further reduce some of the negatives, nor is it to lionize Trump.   It's simply suggesting that we balance the bad with the good before passing judgement on things or people. 

I'm Not Sure What to Make of This

 

"Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that she believes women who say they felt uncomfortable after receiving unwanted touching from former Vice President Joe Biden.

“I believe them and I respect them being able to tell their story and having the courage to do it,” Harris said at a presidential campaign event in Nevada."

 

So Kamala Harris believes the women who've complained about Biden engaging in sexually inappropriate contact with them, yet still lauds Biden as a wonderful human and great president.  

Inconsistency?

 So, a group of protesters invaded the US capitol, tried to obstruct proceedings, attacked police, burned stuff, and defaced public property.   Strangely the outcry from the APL is essentially silence.   

I'm not surprised from a bunch of people who think that burning, looting, injuring, killing and over  $2 billion in damages is "mostly peaceful".

Something Different

 https://joshbalogh.wordpress.com/2024/06/29/christianity-i-do-not-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means/

 

This is a link to a post from a music blogger I follow, while I sometimes disagree with his music takes, this particular post was different and thought provoking. 

Q

 For like a week and a half a while back we were inundated with all sorts of hysteria about Q Anon and the mortal danger it/they/he posed to the free world and how we must rid ourselves of this evil influence.  Well, the only specific I ever heard about Q Anon was that it/they/he were vehemently opposed to child sex trafficking.    Now, as I oppose all human trafficking, I can get behind anyone who opposes it.  Therefore on that one issue, I agree with Q Anon's position.    But somehow, Q Anon quickly faded into the ether and miraculously the treat disappeared.  

Now the threat to our very existence is Project 2025.   It's a document put together by a think tank with things they think would improve our country and our culture.   Now Trump has made it clear that he does not endorse this document, although I suspect that there is some overlap on some issues.  But we know that there is virtually zero chance of the things in Project 2025 being implemented exactly as written, let alone all of them.  Yet somehow this theoretical, intellectual, thought exercise has become the greatest existential threat to all that we hold dear in the entire history of the world.  

What's strange, is that when I read or hear leftists talk about it and compare their characterization of it to what it actually says, the leftist version is always exaggerated (that's a polite way of saying it).    The hysteria over something that has literally no chance of being implemented is impressive.   It's almost like conspiracy theories cross party lines or something. 

Sports Post

 As I've said, I don't often post about sports here, but wanted to throw a couple of things out there.

1.  I've been watching Reciever on Netfilx and it's been interesting.  Quarterback was very enjoyable and showed all of them in a pretty positive light.   The receivers though seem determined to make themselves look like all of the stereotypes are True.   

2.  As we watch quarterback salaries go crazy, with Dak expected to rake in $60,000,000 plus as a mediocre QB at best.     It seems obvious that these salaries for QB's are going to destroy some teams.  When you spend 20-25% of the salary cap on one player, especially one who's not among the best, it means that you have to move on from other talented players that would help the QB succeed.     San Francisco is facing a situation where they hit on a late round draft pick who's making squat and having great success.  Yet the players that surround him are all demanding top dollar. knowing that Purdy is up for a new contract next year.   

The potential solution I see is to allow some sort of QB exemption.   In the NBA, there are salary cap exemptions for resigning players that a team drafted (or something).    Why wouldn't the NFL do something similar?   Exempt QB's that the team drafted and developed from the salary cap, or exempt a % of their salary.    I'd argue that it's good business for the NFL if Mahomes stays with the Chiefs, Burrow stays with the Bengals, Purdy with the 49ers, etc.   Why not reward teams who draft and develop players well?    Not only that, but this proposal would help teams like the Giants add talent around a less talented QB which should increase success. 

Is this somewhat selfish, sure I'd love to see what KC could out together with Mahomes salary off the cap.  But, that'd obviously be the case for any of the other teams I mentioned.   

Ultimately, the problem with the system is that players aren't paid based on talent and production.  They're paid based on getting more money than the last guy.  

Electability

 https://www.mediaite.com/news/the-new-york-times-rates-10-democrats-chances-of-beating-trump-and-puts-kamala-harris-dead-last/

 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/22/opinion/kamala-harris-democrats.html

 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/22/opinion/best-worst-candidates-to-replace-biden.html

 

The New York Times, one of the revered bastions of real journalism polled their real journalists to find the most electable democrat.  Strangely Harris ended up 10th.  Maybe the real journalists know something JUCO journalists don't.  

 

 

FYI, the law school Harris attended is currently ranked 82nd  out of 196 law schools.   How much of this ranking is due to it's absorption into the California state university system, I don't know.    So far, I can't find a rating in the mid '80s, other than it wasn't top 20.   So, while completing law school is an achievement, it's hard to gauge the extent of that achievement without knowing the quality of the law school. 

 

I Don't Know

 https://winteryknight.com/2024/07/20/utilitarianism-and-the-moral-life-by-j-p-moreland-7/

 

WK, re posted this  analysis of Utilitarianism by JP Moreland.  The two quotes below struck me as they are very similar to things Dan has said in regards to determining morality.   I've often thought that Dan's view of morality aligns with a Utilitarian worldview.    This essay does a relatively good job of demonstrating the problems with a Utilitarian worldview. 

 

 

 " Currently, the most popular utilitarian view of value is subjective preference utilitarianism. This position says it is presumptuous and impossible to specify things that have intrinsic nonmoral worth. So, they claim, intrinsic value ought to be defined as that which each individual subjectively desires or wants, provided these do not harm others. Unfortunately, this view collapses into moral relativism."

 

 "This can be interpreted in different ways, but many utilitarians embrace the following: the correct moral action or rule is the one that produces the greatest amount of utility for the greatest number of people."

 

I suspect that Dan would disagree, which is fine as he usually does.  I'll leave the essay linked and allow people to draw their own conclusions.  

 

 

 

 

Biden is Out, Apparently

 Well, Biden removed himself from the race for president via a post on Twitter the other day.  We now are waiting to see what's next for the DFL.  

One thing that will likely remain is their insistence that Trump is a "threat to democracy".    It seems strange that the party that wants to protect democracy, that is so fond of the "popular vote" that they want to eliminate the electoral college, is prepared to nominate a candidate for president without an actual "popular vote".   

While circumstances might make this "necessary", the reality is that the vary same people who spent months telling primary voters to vote for Biden because he was perfectly capable of  a second term, and the he was sharp and on top of the day to day requirements of the job, and now going to appoint his replacement because they were wrong.  

Crazy Compromize.

 An out of left field compromise, with obvious problems down the road.  But, just for fun let's pretend that the left would actually keep their word and not immediately move to change this.

We have X million illegal aliens in the US who are currently "employed", married to citizens, or otherwise have significant connections to the US.    

We also have Y million illegal aliens who are none of those things.    

So, here's the compromise.  

1.  We immediately finish constructing a border wall with entry points every 250 miles (or whatever).

2.  We immediately deport all of Y, and take precautions to keep them from coming back in.

3.  We immediately deport any illegal alien who is convicted of a crime.

4.  We create an immigration status that allows X to remain in the US, legally work/pay taxes/drive but deny them citizenship except under certain, limited circumstances.  

5.  We identify the top 3-5 countries where illegal aliens come from and begin a process to provide appropriate aid to improve conditions in those countries.   Enlisting the aid of neighboring countries in this process.   This would NOT be exclusively throwing foreign aid money at the (corrupt?) governments, but a broad initiative using ONGs, direct aid/microfinance/clean water/help growing food/law enforcement help.   

6.  We establish simple, easily understood conditions for legally immigrating to the US and enforce them.

7.  We separate asylum seekers from other immigrants and set up a separate process for them.

8.  We work with other countries to provide immigrants with more options.

Offer other suggestions, bash away. 

Another One

 "There's no doubt that Biden's administration is a greater evil and there are compelling reasons Christians give to vote for Trump that I fully respect. For example, believing Trump’s administration will: 1. Provide greater protection for the unborn as opposed to Biden’s administration that wants the murder of babies to be unrestricted and forced on every State. 2. Provide an end to the Transgender evil that’s destroying so many lives as opposed to Biden who fully supports and embraces the LGBTQ+ godless agenda. 3. Provide greater protection for our nation’s citizens by securing the border as opposed to Biden’s open border policy that is an existential threat. 4. Provide greater religious freedom to advance the Gospel as opposed to Biden’s support of anti-Christian policies like the Equality Act. 5. Provide a greater opportunity to advance Christian values in our culture as opposed to Biden’s evil agenda that has no resemblance of a biblical worldview. But Christians have an obligation not to blindly follow any administration’s positions that oppose a biblical worldview... including Trump's. Furthermore, we have an obligation to speak with clarity when those positions are grossly immoral. Even with many good reasons to vote for Trump, we should be deeply grieved to vote for a man who openly supports it to be lawful for a baby to be murdered until “late term” and is supportive of “gay marriage.” 20 years ago, if a Democrat candidate held those same moral positions, those things would’ve been given as the top reasons to not vote for that candidate. We should not be less vocal now when we would've been then. It seems to me that any Christian who votes for Trump should have mixed feelings at best. There are things that will cause you to be glad to vote for him and other things that will cause you to grieve that he was your only viable option in the end. But if a Christian were to vote for Trump with only feelings of joy while shouting, “Trump, Trump, Trump,” that would not be a respectable place to be. My intention in emphasizing the facts about the current godless positions of the Republican Party is not to shame anyone who votes for Trump. Romans 14 guides my thinking in these matters and it should keep us from binding the conscience of others. Someone not voting for Trump isn't necessarily more principled than someone voting for him. Many Christians will vote for Trump with heavy hearts over the current godless positions of the Republican Party. They are principled people, and their convictions to vote for Trump are driven by a commitment to Christ, not a political party. I pray that will be true for all Christians who pull the lever for Trump."

 

Tom Buck

 

One more example of a reasonable  argument for Christians to vote for Trump. I'm not saying I agree with every point of any of these, just that they are interesting.

AOC Rocks

 https://x.com/i/status/1814302294202069039

 

I don't know but "We will do anything..." would seem to include literally anything.  Unfortunately, anything covers a lot of territory, including assassination.  

VDH

 Democracy Really Is Dying in Darkness—But by Whom? "Never in modern presidential history has a political party staged a veritable inside coup to remove their current president from his ongoing candidacy for his party’s nomination and reelection. Stranger still, the very elites and grandees, who now are using every imaginable means of deposing Biden as their nominee, are the very public voices that just weeks ago insisted that candidate Biden was “sharp as a tack” and “fit as a fiddle.” And they damned any who thought otherwise! They are also the identical operators whose machinations ensured that there would not be an open Democratic primary. They demonized the few on the Left who weakly challenged Biden in the primaries. Yet now they will select a replacement candidate who likely never received a single primary vote. Note further: Biden’s impending forced abdication is not because he is non compos mentis. Rather, the inside move is due to Biden’s disastrous debate exposure that confirmed his dementia could no longer be disguised by a conspiracy of leftist politicos and media. But far more importantly, the impetus for removal is driven by the admission that the cognitively Biden is headed for a climactic November defeat. Were Biden now ahead in the polls by five points, these same backroom machinists would be insisting that he was still Pericles. Yet now Biden is being un-personed and Trotskyized, as we prepare the new groupthink narrative of his likely surrogate—a soon to be praised eloquent, mellifluous, and articulate Cicero-Harris. That Biden will likely remain as president until January 20, 2025, should remind the country the Left is more worried about its own next four-year continuance in power than the fate of the country that now admittedly will be guided in the next six months by a president judged unfit by his own supporters to run for the very office that he will still keep holding. Further irony arises when those who, as supposedly guardians of democratic norms, pontificated to the country the last nine years about the Trump-Hitlerian threat to democracy. Yet now they so cavalierly work overtime on how: a) to pull off the removal of their candidate from the November ballot on grounds of senility, b) but not the removal of the same president from office (their own fate is more precious than our collective fate as a nation), c) while trying to select, rather than elect, a replace candidate, d) without ever offering any explanation, much less an apology, how a Democrat president from January 20, 2021, was daily declared vibrant, dynamic, and engaged but suddenly one day after June 27, 2024, was remanufactured as not? Perhaps as an aid and primer on Biden removal they should reread the essay by former Obama Pentagon official Rosa Books. Just 11 days after the Trump inauguration, she published in Foreign Policy, “3 Ways to Get Rid of President Trump Before 2020”. It was a veritable manual on the various ways of removing the just inaugurated president—listing immediate alternatives to the distant 2020 election: impeachment and conviction, 25th-Amendment removal, and, barring all that, a military coup: “The fourth possibility is one that until recently I would have said was unthinkable in the United States of America: a military coup, or at least a refusal by military leaders to obey certain orders.” So, to make sense of what these self-appointed and sanctimonious protectors of democracy are trying to pull off demands an Orwellian vocabulary—memory hole, newspeak, unperson, and groupthink. Yet there is one more irony. Very soon, those who welcomed the protests of summer 2020 radicals, and exempted the rioting and violence, and then again did nothing in 2024 as mobs tore apart campuses and shut down public facilities, will host a Chicago convention—where those very same liberated forces may wreak havoc on the outside, while their backroom progenitors, with threats, money, and the media, will wreak havoc on democracy on the inside."

 

Victor Davis Hanson 

Always

 https://campaignlegal.org/update/another-court-agrees-fec-must-act-clcs-clinton-coordination-complaint

 

It's always the GOP.  

Science v. Medicine v. Ideology

 https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/12/opinion/gender-affirming-care-cass-review.html

 

Well, the NYT is real journalism, revered by Dan, right?  

Really?

 https://abc7chicago.com/post/new-policy-would-overhaul-long-criticized-chicago-police-department-traffic-stop-and-search-tactic/14823410/

 

This seems like a really bad, and racist, idea.  

Extreme?

 https://www.vernunftkraft-odenwald.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Todesstrafe-f%C3%BCr-Klimawandelleugner.pdf

 

Is this really what the Global Warming folks think should happen to those who don't agree with them?

Maybe?

 "Thoughts on Immigration: 1) Christians can love their immigrant neighbors by being charitable towards them, sharing the gospel with them, and inviting them to church. 2) Christians, who are heritage Americans (which is focused on culture, not color/historically has been predominantly white, but not exclusively white), can righteously grieve the eroding of their history and culture due to mass immigration. 3) Christians can vote, as well as inform others to vote, in ways that stop mass immigration and seek to preserve their distinct way of life. 4) Christians can recognize that, statistically, the vast majority of immigrants vote Democrat. This is not necessarily because all of them are pro-abortion and pro-LGBT. Many immigrants have conservative views on these issues. However, most immigrants will vote for whatever political party promises to let their families and friends into the country. In other words, they will vote Democrat for the purpose of loose borders, but the result is more abortion, homosexuality, taxation, inflation, etc. 5) Christians who rightly despise abortion can vote for Donald Trump, while recognizing that both he and the GOP have significantly compromised on the protection of the unborn. However, Christians can also recognize that not voting in this upcoming election greatly increases Joe Biden’s chances of reelection, and Biden (or the puppet masters behind Biden) will import millions of more Democrat voters. The “message” Christians attempt to send to the GOP by withholding their vote “might” cause the GOP to provide a better candidate in 2028. However, after four more years of the current invasion of our borders, GOP voters will potentially have to compete against 10-20 million more Democrats voters so that their more ethical GOP presidential candidate is crushed in the 2028 election (a master class in how to be “beautiful losers”). 6) Christians can vote for Trump AND send a message to the GOP by simply being relentlessly outspoken about their disapproval with the compromise of Republicans. Withholding your vote is not the only avenue for “sending a message.” *Lastly, Christians can do all of these things simultaneously. None of them are mutually exclusive."

Joel Webbon 

BVMLTT

 https://x.com/wil_da_beast630/status/1812158560870019140?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

BVMLTT

 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/07/15/opinion/focus-group-black-men-trump-voters.html

Turn?

 https://x.com/louisvillegun/status/1813574817507107327?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

I know Dan will bitch because the news stories are aggregated in a series of Tweets, but I see no reason to reinvent the wheel and post this many individual links when that's already been done.  

RNC

" A few friendly thoughts from your neighborhood "Christian political realist" in support of the "vote for the best possible candidate" position. 1. We are never going to have a perfect candidate. 2. Jesus is never going to be on the ballot. 3. In terms of candidates in this age, we only have imperfect choices, with no exceptions. 4. Politics in this age is not, therefore, about achieving utopia. 5. Politics is about getting the most good done that we can for God's glory. 6. Christians are wise to partner with like-minded partners to accomplish good and push back evil. 7. Doing so will mean a lot of discomfort, frankly (much as our own sin means discomfort for people around us!) 8. But again, we should not make the good the enemy of the perfect. 9. Instead, we should be like Joseph, Esther, Daniel, and other biblical figures, and be light in darkness. 10. We have no ability to transform the world into its ideal state; we cannot do so. 11. Nor can we make nations Christian; nor are we called to by the New Testament. 12. The mission of the church is distinct from the mission of the state. 13. As God works, sinners become Christians; that's what the Great Commission is all about. 14. Only the church has the keys of the kingdom; the magistrate in the new covenant era does not (Matthew 16 and 18). 15. Per the chastened vision of Matthew 22, 1 Timothy 2, 1 Peter 2, and related New Testament texts, we want a government that honors good and punishes evil. 16. As we live as "salt and light" per Matthew 5, we remember that only Jesus can--and will--make the world right. 17. Until that day, we are free to support the best candidate before us, and we do so without shame or guilt or despair. 18. Our political theology is thus inescapably eschatological, for we are living for the last day now, confident that our sovereign God will make all things right (Revelation 21)."

 

Owen Strachan 

 

" So, um, about last night . . . I awoke this morning to see no small number of professing Christians on this platform expressing their displeasure, to say the least, with certain elements of yesterday's Republican National Convention. At the risk of sounding like "Captain Obvious," I would humbly remind my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ that political conventions are precisely that—political. That reality makes political conventions, both by definition and by nature, worldly, not ecclesiastical. We must remember, notwithstanding the biblical positions we individually should, and must, hold regarding such sociocultural issues as abortion, for example, that the overarching mission of political conventions is to win votes not souls. Psalm 146:3 reads, "Do not trust in princes, in mortal man, in whom there is no salvation." With that exhortation in mind, as believers, we should not think it unusual or even appalling when even "our side" attempts to widen the narrow road (see Matthew 7:13-14). In his book The Great Evangelical Disaster, one of the most influential Christian thinkers of our time, Francis A. Schaeffer, acknowledged, "Ours is a post-Christian world in which Christianity, not only in the number of Christians but in cultural emphasis and cultural result, is no longer the consensus or ethos of our society." Against the backdrop of Schaeffer's sobering words, it warrants noting that the Republican National Committee, which organizes and puts on the Republican National Convention, is not a church. To the contrary, in fact, it is a wholly secular (worldly) entity and always has been. Consequently, we should expect a tree to always bear the kind of fruit that is in keeping with its nature (see Matthew 7:17-18). All this to say, I get the disappointment. I get it. It stands to reason that we who are the people of God would want godly people governing us since, as John Calvin declares in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, "rulers derive their power from him." But consider this, my brother and sister: should you really be disappointed in people who are driven by political expediency and propriety rather than biblical fidelity and veracity? If you consider that question objectively, particularly in light of what I argued previously about what political conventions are inherently designed to do, then, you already know the answer to that question, don't you?"

 Darrell B Harrison
It's fair to say that anyone who objects to the RNC because it wasn't "Christian" enough is mistaken.  The RNC is, and always has been, a political event intended to rally support for a political candidate.  Strangely enough, in a nation like the US, that means acknowledging and appealing to thousands or millions of people who are not Christians.  The opening night prayer by Harmeet Dhillon, wasn't inappropriate because she is a Sikh who has done much to advance the conservative agenda in the US.  Likewise the uproar over abortion.  Trump gave abolitionists exactly what they wanted, repeal of Roe, and turned it back to the states.  It's now up to the abolitionists to work to change state laws, not complain that Trump won't contradict himself and support a national ban.  Trump and the RNC are trying to win a political victory, not a spiritual victory. 

If it Weren't for Double Standards, Dan Would Have No Standards at All.

 I was/am going to do a larger post on this topic, but a comment from Dan indicates that I probably need to break this out from a look at the larger issues of coverage of the Trump assassination attempt.  

Biden was clear and direct when he referred to putting Trump in the "bullseye" on a call before the assassination attempt.    Along with years of referring to Trump as one who will "end democracy", "evil", "Hitler", and various other references, the left is surprised when they are called out for the role their rhetoric might have played in the shooting.

But, if only there was a way to look into the past to watch how the DFL would have responded to something similar to Biden's "bullseye" comment.  Oh, wait, maybe there is a way to accomplish that...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/01/did-sarah-palin-s-target-map-play-role-in-giffords-shooting/342714/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-focus-gabrielle-giffords-debate/story?id=12576437

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sarah-palins-pac-puts-gun_n_511433

Strangely, it seems, we have a very similar situation that occurred in this century.  Even stranger, the rolls were reversed.   I think we all know how the APL responded after that last incident, and not surprisingly it was completely the opposite of how they respond now.  

Even stranger,  from Kyle Gass of Tenacious D to various congressional staffers, to average people, the outpouring of regret for the shooter missing Trump is truly disgusting.  The virtual silence from the "mainstream" left on this barbaric commentary matches the silence when Kathy Griffin posed with a severed Trump "head" covered in blood.    I seem to remember a Broadway musical which involved a Trump assassination as well.  

Then watching Biden stumble through his rambling attempt to deflect from what he actually said, by mumbling that he hadn't said "crosshairs" (as if "bullseye" and "crosshairs" don't mean the same thing), and end by mumbling.  To his later attempts to justify HIS vitriolic attacks on Trump while condemning "GOP" hate speech.  

Hell, Dan's done his share of calling trump all sorts of vitriolic names, and he's probably not going to take the responsibility he demands others take when he gets mad at what we say.  Just like Dan defending Biden's "bullseye" comments.  

The problem isn't the use of metaphorical language about "bullseyes" or "targets" or "crosshairs".  The problem is that APL double standard about who that language gets used about.   The fact that Dan and his ilk apply this double standard so freely and obliviously can only mean that they consider themselves exempt from the constrictions they want to place on the speech of others. 

Unbelievable

 " with Trump literally promising to pay for legal fees for conservatives at his rallies to assault reporters or protesters."

 

While ignoring Kamala  Harris shilling for donations to an organization that was literally getting rioters out of jail after the burning of Lake Street.  

 

It's OK for libs, not for Trump.  It's horrible when Trump says he'll do something, not horrible when libs actually do something.   

Prediction(s)

 In light of the absurd headlines from the MSM where they’re all real journalists, (examples later), I predict that we’ll see the following sometime.

TRUMP BLACKSHIRT SECURITY SHOOTS BIDEN SUPPORTER

The fake news shined through on this one, didn’t they.

Please post examples in the comments.

Prediction 2, unless they find incontrovertible evidence that Trump paid for this, Trumps chance of winning just skyrocketed.   Biden might as well stay in, because I don’t think it matters anymore.  

Oh my goodness, the riots, the insurrection, the civil war, last night were horrific. 

Truth, Justice, and the Liberal Agenda

 https://x.com/equalityalec/status/1811392794734318066?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

I'm not going to copy/paste the multiple tweets in the thread above because I'd rather leave them in context and avoid charges that I's omitted anything.

 

But, in summary, the tread goes like this.   

 Even though the APL  was insistent that police wear body cams at all times, and did so because they were convinced that this video evidence would prove that all (a majority) of LEO were racist thugs who regularly mistreated POC.   This position was an article of faith among the APL who were vehement that body cams were necessary.  So this guy decides to see what the body cam experiment really showed, and he somehow invented an entirely new narrative because the old narrative was proven completely false.  Body cams seem to be showing that the vast majority of LEO are not evil, racists drunk with authority.  Instead they show that the left isn't happy when the Truth about LEO interactions with those who might have committed rimes.   This guy seems upset that having video that clearly shows someone committing a crime is being used to encourage more plea bargains as opposed to wasting time in court when there is video clearly showing what actually happened.  

Obviously body cam video should be used to prosecute LEO who go beyond or misuse their authority, without question.     Likewise, the failure of a LEO to fail to use or to obscure their body cam (intentionally) should be considered in any complaints against them.   Also obviously, even if the use of body cams has caused the evil, racist, bad LEO to resign or to change their behavior, that seems like a big win.   But to complain that having body cams that accurately and dispassionately record events are now tools of oppression for POC is simply ridiculous. 

Trump Did It

 After Trump's debate performance where he managed to basically appear measured, reasonable, and exhibit self control allowing Biden to look ridiculous.   Trump manages to shoot himself in the foot with his party platform.  Specifically his treatment of abortion.    

As I've said, I think that Trump's position on abortion makes perfect sense from a pragmatic, political point of view and is completely consistent with his previous actions.  From a purely political standpoint I don't disagree with him.  The essence of overturning Roe was to get the federal government out of regulating abortion, which is exactly what happened.   Making abortion a state issue is also completely consistent with a conservative political stance.  

But, now that it's "official" that Trump will not pursue a federal abortion policy, the pro-life abolitionists are jumping ship right and left.    For some reason they believed that Trump was pro-life in the exact same way they were.  They believed that Trump was 100% in agreement with their abolitionist position.   They seem to be ignoring that Trump has been, in terms of actual policy accomplishments, one of the best presidents for the pro-life community in recent memory.  

My questions are as follows.

Could Trump have chosen to word the platform as to not be so adamant about a federal abortion policy?  Could he have left open a sliver of hope for the abolitionists?    Given that he is going to be a lame duck, why wouldn't he have been vague on the topic, and left people disappointed when he left office?  

I also wonder what the folks who've been so adamant that they're done with Trump over this one issue will do when faced with filling out a ballot with the only other choice being Biden.   Will the folks who are 100% abolitionists manage to compromise (as if voting Trump wasn't always a compromise)?   Or has Trump managed to lose an entire constituency? 

A Mulligan?

This post from former MPLS mayor RT Rybak was shared by a friend of mine, and I found it interesting that such hyper partisan, TDS sufferers would take this approach.  

 

 

"Gretchen Whitmer would mop the floor with Donald Trump in a debate about abortion rights. Kamala Harris would eviscerate him for killing immigration reform. Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom and Amy Klobuchar would make an incredible case about what Democrats have done to protect the climate, end child poverty, improve our schools and so much more."

What Rybak seems to be saying is that each of these democrats could debate Trump on one issue and win.   That's great. But...

Whitmer presides over a state where one fairly major city has had undrinkable water since 2014 and Whitmer has not solved this one problem.    Strangely a debate about abortion on demand isn't going to move the needle in a general election.   The majority of the public does not agree with the DFL position of abortion anywhere, anytime, at taxpayer expense, so I'm not sure how a debate on a subject where the majority disagree will help her beat Trump.

Given the fact that Harris is the "Border Czar" and has accomplished virtually zero to improve the border crisis, I'm not sure this is the slam dunk Ryback thinks it is.  Of course, Harris has some things Trump could counter with.  Her sleeping her way up the political ladder, sending large numbers of black people to jail for minor crimes, being the descendant of slave owners, and not black...   Oh, and Harris has a habit of saying really stupid things. 

Pete Buttigege, has an enviable track record of extensive parental leave, ignoring major transportation accidents, and wasting 7.5 billion to build 7 public charging stations.

Newsome is presiding over a state that features people shitting and using drugs on the streets of major cities, has huge budget problems, and is one of the states with the largest population declines in the country.  He's got his own sex scandals, and his public hypocrisy during COVID would be fodder for awesome ads.  

Klobuchar lost badly during her run for president in 2020, has zero charisma, a mediocre record as a senator, and is not a great public speaker.  

 "Trump would be no match for any of these, or many other Democrats, who could step in right now and win the election."

I'll note that Ryback didn't even mention Biden's one primary challenger in this election cycle in his list, pretends like it's a minor issue to replace the primary wnnler at the drop of a hat, and that none of his options has any significant negatives. 

 

 "Compare that to the disastrous debate you just saw. Those clips will be with us endlessly through November. The American people have spoken clearly that they don’t want a choice between Trump and Biden."

It seems as though we just went through these things called primary elections, where America was given the opportunity to "speak" (at least part of America), and they spoke.  America gave us these two as the winners of the primaries.  The GOP had at least two strong options, while the DFL had one weak option.  America spoke already.  The fact the DFL primary voters went all in on Biden and the party didn't bother to offer a worthy option shouldn't be ignored. 

 "They don’t have to because we have a stable of great candidates who could, not only get elected President, but make a compelling case about why other Democrats should get elected in critical races for Senate, the House and across the country."

Yet this "stable of great candidates" didn't even bother to challenge Biden in the primaries.  I wonder why?  

 "President Biden got us out of COVID and an economic collapse, and passed extraordinary legislation."

The COVID economic downturn had already ended before Biden took office, yet Biden pumped billions of dollars of government spending out which made inflation worse, the employment situation isn't a rosy as Biden would like to pretend (way more part time than full time jobs), inflation is nowhere near what it was when Biden took office (which he's repeatedly lied about), doubled down on Trump's COVID policies, and barely passed any legislation.   Most of this legislation hasn't even done much of anything yet. 

 "He deserves tremendous praise. But a Presidential election is not the Academy Awards where you are rewarded for what you did. Elections are about the future and Democrats have an inspirational message that is not being told..."

What is this mysterious "inspiring message"?   Apparently Ryback's next sentence will tell us...

 "while a convicted felon who tried to steal the election and end our democracy looks like he could win."

Well, that IS an inspiring message.  Fearmongering at it's best.  FYI, Biden is incompetent to stand trial for the felonies he committed.  

 "Not a single thing about that will change unless we—all of us—demand we change our messenger."

This is actually True.  So that's something.  

 "Taking the tough, immediate action we need to win this election is not about whether people like President Biden, or think he has done a good job. It’s like baseball: the pitcher should get credit for six great innings but when they start giving up home runs and the World Series is on the line, sometimes you call in a reliever. The context has simply changed and a lot more than the World Series is on the line. It is absolutely not too late to pick a new candidate."

I'm not disagreeing with his premise, but the notion that Biden was a strong, amazing, candidate mere months ago and was such a good candidate that the DFL didn't bother to offer anyone to challenge him in the primaries seems strange.   The fact that Biden was cognitively lacking has been apparent for years, yet it wasn't a problem until now, strange.   

 "Hold two forums for candidates who meet a threshold, do a straw poll and the delegates pick. A convention that right now almost no one would turn on, would turn into “must see TV” with Democrats trying to top each other on making the most compelling case."

Interesting thought.  Tell everyone who voted for Biden in the primaries that their votes don't count and that the elites of the DFL are going to fix the mistakes of the population who voted for Biden in the primaries.  

 "A four day informercial on why to vote for Democrats. Having been a vice chair of the Democratic National Committee I can say it is unlikely this would happen without a huge push from the public—you and me—right now. Our elected officials, are staying shockingly silent in public, especially considering how many of them acknowledge privately that this has to happen. They fear political retribution but they should really fear that if we lose this election because they didn’t have the guts to do what they know needs to be done, holy hell and history will come down on them like an anvil."

If only there was  a process already in place that could have prevented this, a time tested process that would have allowed this alleged stable of awesome candidates to have let the voters choose who was going to be the DFL candidate for president.  If only the DFL hadn't set things up for Biden to slide through the primaries unchallenged and cast Biden as the absolute best possible candidate. 

 "They need to be pushed—hard and immediately- to act, and know how many people support them if they do. Call their offices, circulate this or write your own but speak up now. Worrying about this with each other in private won’t get this done. Imagine the Republican convention if a change was made: If we had a new candidate they would lose the only talking point they have and, instead, have to spend four days trying to actually say what they are for. Now that would be must see TV."

I do actually agree that both parties have been absolutely dreadful at campaigning on anything but trashing the other guys and I would love a GOP convention where they laid out a vision for the future of the US.     What he leaves out is that the DFL strategy (as he's already shown us) is to do to Trump exactly what he doesn't want to happen with Biden.   We all know what the DFL strategy in the general election will be, "Orange man bad." (now that Joe is orange that might be a problem), "Convicted felon.", "He's going to get rid of democracy.", "Kings", und so weiter.    There is no chance that the DFL will campaign on anything but attacking Trump.

Y'all made your bed, you know what happens next.

330,000,000 people in the US, @ 200,000,000 meet the basic requirements to run for office, and these two are the absolute best we have.  

FYI, there is one candidate in this election cycle who is casting a specific, detailed vision for the future, and it's not Biden.

This notion that the DFL should get a do over because they were too blind to see that their power hungry president and his wife don't want to let go of their position, regardless of the mental acuity of Biden.