Not Surprising
The story is that retirement applications are up 19% in the NYPD. A retired officer lists three basic reasons: 1) lack of support from political leaders, 2) tense relationship between police and the community, and 3) officers who are hated by family members because they are officers. All seem reasonable. All are offensive to me. Especially that last one, where loud voices (not a majority; just loud) of hate have turned family members against officers simply for being police officers. Oh, and, shock of shocks, "There's also been a recent spike in crime citywide." None of this should be a surprise. Sad, but not a surprise.
Banned Words
Graham Linehan was banned from Twitter permanently for the patently stupid idea that there are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes and the combination of those two and not one's feelings determine one's sex. To be precise, he tweeted, "men aren't women tho" and was banned for "hateful conduct." According to the story, he was "suspended from Twitter for after breaching the social media site's rules on using banned words." Banned words? Welcome to the thought police?
Trust in Princes
You thought we had a majority, right? You thought we had conservative judges. We could now take back the judiciary. You were wrong. Two of our "conservative" judges essentially rewrote the dictionary for us in terms of "sex" and biology for us in terms of gender. And now John Roberts has sided again with the forces of evil who wish to terminate the lives of the most defenseless humans and struck down Louisiana's attempt to mitigate the murder. Now, perhaps, you can see why we're told not to "put your trust in princes" -- not to expect earthly powers to protect you from satanic ones. Turns out they're largely on the same side. Who will save the children? Not your conservative judges.
On July 1
This data comes from July 1. They keep updating it. According to the CDC, from February 1, 2020, to June 27, 2020, 112,226 people had died of COVID-19 or COVID-19-related problems. According to the data, fully 33% of those deaths were in the over-85 age group. When you factor in the 75-84 group, you're now just under 60%. One more step, the 65-74 year old group, and you have over 80% of all deaths. Add in the 55-64 age group and it's more than 92.5%. Below the age of 55, the deaths account for just under 7.5% of all deaths. We are currently seeing a surge in cases among the 20-44 year old age group (a surge in detection, not in deaths) ... which, combined, total just 2.6% of all deaths from anything COVID-19. But we're in panic mode now because of the "surge" (which is largely fed by testing people who have no symptoms but get tested anyway out of fear and find out they have it ... and it has no effects). Now, I am in the 55+ age group -- 92.6% of the deaths -- so if it will make you happy, I'll stay home in isolation if you just let those 20 to 54-year-olds go back to normal because of the sheer unlikelihood that any of them will suffer consequences from COVID. Have them wear masks, wash their hands, all that safe stuff, but don't lock everyone down. We are penalizing the well with the infected. But, I suppose, it's what we do. Quarantine the healthy with the sick; punish the innocent with the guilty. They will continue to report the horrible numbers of new cases every day and we'll all panic and go back to whatever it takes to destroy the lives and welfare of the majority of our people in order to save lives, because they won't tell you the infinitesimal impact the Wuhan virus has on the vast majority of our population. How is that not "terrorism"?
What's Important
The news item said that a Black transgender was fatally shot in Dallas. Very sad. These things should not be. But that's just me ... pro-life, you know? Since it was a Black transgender (When did we start capitalizing "Black" in that context?), I suppose the police shouldn't investigate because, after all, you can't trust the police. Too much snark? Yes, I suppose so. But the real news was that the police "deadnamed" the victim. I had to look that up. "Deadnaming" is when someone uses a transgender person's birth name instead of their new, preferred name. It often goes right along with "misgendering," where the "incorrect" pronoun is used. So, to refer to Bruce Jenner as Bruce Jenner and "him" instead of Kaitlin Jenner and "her" would be "deadnaming." And killing Merci Mack in Dallas was bad, but deadnaming -- recognizing the biological sex and birth name -- now that is pure evil. More proof that the police are haters.
The Slope Slips
"Yours is a slippery slope argument," they said. "That is not a valid argument," they said. Well, it's not valid until it happens. And it has. The argument went something like, "If you redefine marriage from the definition it has had for all time -- a man and a woman -- to this new "same-sex" thing, where do you stop? Polygamy? Objectophila? (Look it up.) Polyamory?" Well, it was a slippery slope argument and now it's fact. The city of Sommerville, MA, has passed an ordinance to recognize polyamorous relationships. "It's not the place of the government to define a family." On what basis, then, do they exclude polygamy? Or all those other things I don't even care to think about let alone name? Stay tuned for greater perversions going mainstream in a city near you.
New Plan for Unity
"One nation ... indivisible ..." If we are to achieve this ideal, we need to be united. And the NFL has a plan to move toward it. Before they play the Star-Spangled Banner at the beginning of Week 1 games, they will play "the Black national anthem." (Again ... when did we start capitalizing "black" in that context?) Because clearly the way we can be united is to present the United States of America as two nations divided -- black and white. Makes sense to me ... oh, wait ... no it doesn't!
Inclusivity
In Hollywood actors are taking the pledge in the name of inclusivity to "never to take a role where they have to act like someone they are not." Good for them. It can only improve Hollywood, I'm sure.
In related news, Disney is promising to have Winnie the Pooh voiced by a real bear in the future. Equality at last.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
8 comments:
Never heard that song before. Seems like it will be a long opening
ceremony. Doubt it will catch on though, too religious. There was on odd
line though, "true to our native land." The version I heard was in the
gospel choir style, not exactly an African style. And I'd imagine there
are very few African-Americans that have ever been to Africa. For most,
the US is their native land. At this point, we need to come up with a
new term for people of black to blackish skin tone. Since black is
racist for white people to say, and African-American isn't anywhere
close to accurate...
Not Surprising
It's astounding the numbers aren't worse. Could it be that perhaps cops aren't so bad after all? That most will continue to serve because they're trying to do good in their little corner of the world? Naw, that can't be it.
Banned Words
I would say the best response is to continue using those banned words...because they're the right words to use when speaking truthfully!
Trust in Princes
I think you go too far with this notion of "trusting in princes". For the average American to trust in a politician is likely a bad idea in general, given their reputation. But to hope a politician is capable and intending to be the servant of the people their job truly is is not the same as "trusting in princes", even if one believes a politician is trustworthy. Otherwise, why vote at all for anyone? Can you predict a given person is or isn't worthy of your vote? No. Evidence may have convinced you, but there is still risk that he isn't what you hope he will be in terms of either honesty or intelligence.
My trust is in degrees of potential or likelihood. A Republican president, for example, is more likely to select a judge who is constitutionally sound (which I would refer to as a conservative, but never mind that). I would therefore also trust that the judge in question will actually be more constitutionally sound than one chosen by a Democrat, and I trust that such a judge will rule more conservatively more often than one chosen by a Democrat. We can look at past performance to justify our confidence, but only a fool would pretend there's no possibility the judge (or the politician) will fail us in part or in whole.
But more importantly, I trust my judgement more than the politician himself. That is, I trust that I've chosen the lesser of two evils, or the better of two options (same thing). But even that isn't the same as the trust I put in God.
On July 1
The willful distortion of the numbers is reprehensible and a truly despicable behavior meant only to impact the November election. The worse they can make it look, the more they will assert it is because of Trump, just as every problem before him was blamed on GW Bush. I'm 65 with emphysema. I don't wear masks, I don't take any precautions than I normally took because they're all the same and I do whatever I can to get out of the house (my job was deemed "essential", so I have that going for me). Humanity has lived with viruses and bacteria for centuries. It's part of life. This virus is not the Andromeda Strain. The draconian measures are, and were, unnecessary. In hindsight, I'm pretty sure I had swine flu back in '09. I survived as if it was just the flu. The vast majority of afflicted will do so with this and would have had this not been hyped as it has.
What's Important
Whenever possible, refer to all "Bruce Jenners" as "Bruce". I reject any mandates to lie. I lie by my own volition only.
The Slope Slips
"It's not the place of the government to define a family."
On what basis, I wonder, do they come to that conclusion? Does not the government reflect the people...as in a government of/by/for the people? And on THAT basis, are they acting on the will of the people or in full disregard of what that will might be? It's the same problem with the Obergefell decision, wherein the court decided, without consent of the governed, to redefine marriage. Now, the same low character people of the government of Sommerville, MA has chosen to redefine "family". UnAmerican and unjustified.
New Plan for Unity
We are told by certain "progressives" of "two Americas", insisting that black Americans (and other groups) are denied the same opportunities as do whites. I guess the plan is to cement the notion by having a "black national anthem".
Ya know, I can deal with complaints, critiques and observations about the flaws of this country. But what's hard to comprehend is the response and suggestions about how to correct those flaws. Too often, and we see this most clearly now, the plan...such as it might be...has no signs of improving strategies whatsoever.
Inclusivity
The Bee has possibly the most intelligent examples of satire that I've ever seen. They get right to the heart of things, exposing their targets in ways that should shame them to repentance. If only...
I'm sorry that I fail so badly at communicating. Since this is so common, I must be the common factor.
I have repeatedly said not to "trust in princes" (because, after all, it's biblical). I have also said every time that we need to vote, we need to do those things (like make better laws, policies, plans, etc.), we need to perform all those things that people who are reading me seem to think I'm saying we shouldn't do. I have never thought it and I have never said it. We need to do all that. The question isn't whether or not we should buy insurance (as an example). The question is whether that is where our trust lies. If I buy insurance and trust God, that's not trusting in my insurance; that's trusting God. If I vote for Prince Bob and trust God, that's not trusting in princes; that's trusting God. The question isn't whether or not we should function in this world or should be good citizens or whatever. The question is where our trust ultimately lies while we do. Princes? Policies? Laws? Judges? My own judgment? We do all that and we should, but if that's where my final trust is, the Bible calls it sin.
I don’t know how aware of this you are, but there’s a fascinating movement going on regarding the notion of family.
The goal is to move family away from biology and toward contractual relationships. When I first heard this, I didn’t believe it, but I’m starting to see more evidence of it.
I was not aware of it, but I've been aware for some time that the notion of "family" has been under attack. When you see those figures in the back window of a car and it shows a female figure and two dog figures and says, "My family," you know we're redefining family. When over 40% of children are born into single-parent homes, you know we're redefining family. On what basis they'll deny some versions eludes me.
I’ll try to send you some information. The short version is that it will require contractual agreements between family members which can be altered.
Together we have clarified the point...I trust. :)
Post a Comment