Category: Lessons Learned

The Spark

I’m not saying it will ignite what seems inconceivable—a full and prolonged civil war—but I am saying it will light a proper insurrection.

The spark is going to be a widely attended and publicized funeral.

When the time comes, the funeral, and its attendant crowds, will be the event and day and time that ordinary citizens, and not-so-ordinary citizens, will violently enflame the tinderbox of MAGA vs. DNC incivility. Stay home.

Yes, I have been reading Les Misérables. Yes, I got the idea directly from it. No, I do not think the situation in America is anything like 1832 Paris. But we all can feel that more escalation and more outrageous events await.

It’s my blog. There is a thrill to making measurable predictions. Don’t steal my joy! And before you get your panties in a bunch, just admit that, sadly, you know I am right on this one.

Nothing Surprises

It’s all hype. There are no surprises.

I really want to say something about the content of Jack Smith’s “motion for immunity determinations”, but the truth is that the only thing that bothers me about it is that it is being hyped as “October Surprise!” I’m bothered because it isn’t a surprise! In fact, nothing surprises.

Nothing surprised because the news cycle is not 24/7, the cycle is perpetual. In fact, there is no cycle anymore. Also, there are no journalists. Instead, there are varying levels of paid hype-snitches.

We are suckers when we insist that there is such a thing as news and journalists. There used to be news and journalists. But today there are only empty forms. There is no substance. Something new is occurring, some new kind of communication. And the way to keep the upper hand, the way to stay true to yourself, is to admit it. And then train yourself to be as discerning as possible.

Example:

“October surprise! October surprise!” says the news.

You think, “Next!”

Got it?

Power Vs. Acquiring Power

Trump is about to be the man who defeated the first female nominee and the first Black female nominee. I do not come across many, if any, comments on this fact of the election cycle.

It seems to me that there is a continuum of reasons why this is not discussed. On one end, there is the noble (and therefore extremely unlikely) notion that the formerly fun “men vs. woman” schtick is so abhorrent to us woke folks that it is unworthy of our time. On the other end, there is the sober fact that leadership in Republics has never been about sex.

Leadership, I propose, is about power. And while there are many different types of power, there is only one way to gain power: you must take it.

Hillary Clinton did not take the power. Kamala Harris’ entire political career seems to be defined by accepting power.

As for Trump? His career, his notoriety, and his very real power comes solely from his constant belief that there is a power vacuum and he is the man to fill it.

We’ve all seen the clip of 30-something Trump declare he just may have to run for president. And whatever he was thinking until 2008, by the time he saw Obama’s lack of power, Trump obviously convinced himself that there was more power for the taking—and he took it. Who can forget Obama’s smug, “At least I will go down as a president”? Would a powerful man say that?

So ladies, take note. In not having been president, it has never been about you being women. People care that you are weak, just like Obama was weak. And people want power in the presidency. That’s all it is about.

On Musk’s Hype, On Authoritylessness, and On Homeschool; Or Marriage Advice from Pete

This gets old for me, but I am happy to do it. Here goes: Don’t believe the hype! Even when the world’s richest man is behind the hype, it is still hype. Do not believe it.

The world isn’t at some precarious moment. Democracy/America isn’t at a precipice. Do not believe the hype.

****

A friend and I who were in college (super small liberal arts college) together and had the pleasure of seeing Clarence Thomas speak were discussing the smear campaign the other day. Today my friend sent some WSJ op/ed about it. Let me be clear: there is no “authority” anymore. There is no news organization who can clear a name, nor one who can condemn a name. They have all lost all respect, and consequently lost all authority. You’re all suckers if you believe any of them or believe in any of them.

****

I have wanted to homeschool my children for around a decade now. First, my 14 yr old, H-. And now my two toddlers, A- and J-. Divorce ended the first marriage. And this second marriage is to an Ethiopian who quite literally cannot imagine homeschool. I didn’t quite think through the profound ignorance regarding the field of education which Ethiopians have when I married her, but even had I laid out the entire plan, I am certain she would have been agreeable until she changed her mind—like every other woman.

The charter school my step-son just enrolled in (pretty sure affirmative action on some level got him in) is actually one of the good ones—ie has a “classics” education. And so while I still believe homeschool—by me, for my kids—would best set them up for success in life, I can also see that in some twist of fate, the two toddlers will be able to easily bypass all normal gate guards into the desirable charter school since their “black” (not really, but whites can’t tell the difference) brother already attends.

When I mentioned this somewhat change of heart to my wife she was ecstatic. She was most ecstatic, I was most sad.

I bring things the kids into the world and all anyone wants to do is take them from me. I lose my first daughter to the first, worst person I have ever met. And now, even when I have met a regular woman and married her and made babies with her, she cannot wait to give them away to strangers. It’s fucking messed up. And makes me sad. I have this goofy schedule where I am home every other week for the entire week. In other words, I am gone half the year for work. The flip-side is I am home, no work, half the year. If the kids are in school full-time, the amazing schedule I have is of no value. And it actually is a shitty schedule because now I am gone half the year and additionally miss my kids while I am home.

I didn’t have kids to be alone. I had kids to raise kids. Fuck. It is not that complicated. Why else would anyone have kids?

With everything we are watching in the news, with every event from the bullshit pandemic (can’t be worldwide if most of the world is too stupid to know it is sick with a new disease), to the wars, to the election, to the faggots, to those who want to let children cut off their dicks, to the childless cat ladies who think they should have a say regarding someone else’s kids’ education, to the women who want to kill their children, I just wouldn’t have guessed there was anyone still around who thinks, “less time with our children” is the answer. I just wouldn’t have guessed the selfishness (get the kids away from me so I can shop!) and belief in groupthink had spread to all corners of the globe.

So here’s the lesson, for any young readers. Selfishness is everywhere because selfishness is childish. It is immature. Don’t be selfish. And don’t marry selfish people.

Groupthink is everywhere because groupthink is childish. It is immature. Think for yourself. And don’t marry people who can’t think for themselves.

Puppet vs. Man, Two Doozies—You Decide

Ladies first:

“That’s how — that’s how we came into being, because the people before us understood that one of the greatest expressions for the love of our country, one of the greatest expressions of patriotism, is to fight for the ideals of who we are, which includes freedom to make decisions about your own body; freedom to be safe from gun violence; freedom to have access to the ballot box; freedom to be who you are and just be, to love who you love openly and with pride; freedom to just be.  And that’s who we are.  We believe in all that.”

(That’s from whitehouse.gov, by which I mean to highlight that they do not know how to punctuate her utterances. The semi-colon is for sentences, equivalent to periods and conjunctions. They should have been commas. But that would make it seem like a long sentence. Or that’s the best reason I can figure besides incompetence.)

****

The Donald:

“They’re eating the dogs! The people that came in. They’re eating the cats! They’re eating, they’re eating the pets of the people that live there.”

****

The question is not, “Which of these quotes is true and which is false?”

The question is, “Which lie (they are both lies) is the BIGGER lie?”

I have already indicated that eating wild animals that Americans typically don’t eat, like geese from the local hangout spot lake, is okay by me. But that isn’t what makes Trumps claim a lie. It is that no one in Springfield, OH (or anywhere else likely) has eaten someone else’s pet. So that’s a doozy for sure, on account of scale.

But! But, but, but! Kamala’s lie contains many, many lies and confusions and deceptions. I have time and so have listed them.

  1. The antecedent to “we” slips from “Harris/Walz” to “Americans” without comment. Which “we” does she mean, for example, when she says “that’s who we are” at the end? That’s who “Harris/Walz” is? Or that’s who populates America?
  2. “The people who came before us” could mean “previous democrats” or “founding fathers”.
  3. Abortion, as the issue it is today, wasn’t on the minds of either early Democrats or the Founding Fathers.
  4. Gun violence, in the contemporary sense, wasn’t on the minds of either early Democrats or the Founding Fathers.
  5. Access to ballot box, in the contemporary sense, wasn’t on the minds of either early Democrats or the Founding Fathers.
  6. Sodomy (“love who you love”) was definitely on the minds and deemed immoral by early Democrats and the Founding Fathers.
  7. Vagrancy (“just be”) was also definitely on the minds and deemed immoral by early Democrats and the Founding Fathers.

Taken together, what began as a history lesson turned into a party paper and yet no one can say for sure what Kamala said or meant. This actually undermines the lies she told, and yet she is the winner, in my book.

Kamala, puppet that she is, told the bigger doozy. What do you think?

Another Example of the Rewards of Reading in General, and Reading the Great Books of the Western World in Specific.

I have written or implied here that it is my belief that the Great Books of the Western World set is nearly as inspired as the books of the Holy Bible. No one cares.

But I care. And so I persist. Here, then, is another example of the rewards of reading them. I am currently in Vol 4 “Religion and Theology” of the companion guided reader set “Great Ideas Program”. After Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound, there was some Old and New Testament passages and now St. Augustine’s (aw-GUSS-tinz) Confessions.

Some backstory (“Learning is a change in behavior based on experience”) is relevant.

While at Seminary, studying the Bible in its original languages (which truly means being told aloud in English that translators fear “Yahweh was hot” will sound too human ((ergo, not separate—or the Holy in “Holy Bible” (((The “separate book(s)”))))) and so they have opted for the supposedly more esoteric and divine sounding “Yahweh was angry”), I persuaded myself that these early humans were exceedingly (and uniquely) concrete in their writing. And I still believe this to be true, the following reward notwithstanding.

For example of what I mean by this unique “concreteness”, I believe when Moses would tell the Genesis account, he would sweep his arm over his head, from horizon to horizon, as he said, “In the beginning God created the heavens” and then sweep his arm under his feet, from horizon to horizon, as he concluded, “and the earth.” Get it? In other words, I believe that he pointed at the night sky (in my mind I can never shake that all the Old Testament stories were told only after darkness near a pleasant campfire) as he said “heavens” and then the ground as he said “earth”. In short, I believe that Moses did not try to trick anyone or talk about anything unseen in order to talk about the unseen Yahweh. Put one other way, I don’t believe there are two steps of belief. It’s not “Let me explain one unseen. Got it? And then, stick with me, you’ll get God!”

No. For me, my theology—based on content of Bible, to include when it was written—all that the Bible authors ever did was use material world to explain spiritual world.

That backstory complete, let’s get to the heart of the post.

Augustine has a book (chapter) which translators subtitle, “Augustine proceeds to comment on Genesis 1:1, and explains the “heaven” to mean that spiritual and incorporeal creation which cleaves to God unintermittingly, always beholding his countenance; “earth,” the formless matter whereof the corporeal creation was afterwards formed…”

Like you’re undoubtedly thinking, I also thought, “That is an intense sentence. I had to read and re-read it too much to want more.” But I pressed on.

And as I read, with my gesturing Moses in mind, I couldn’t help but notice something. Augustine was spending a lot of time defining formlessness or describing how he couldn’t wrap his mind around it—despite wanting to understand it and then explain it to others.

Then it hit me.

My gesture theory is flawed, in one sense. At the stage of creation in verse 1 of Genesis, a careful reading reveals that this “earth” that Moses points to CANNOT be Planet Earth (however little Moses and mankind knew of it at the time) because the next part of the story is, “formless and void”. Planet Earth is not, formless and void, so something else MUST BE meant. But what?

I still say Moses gestured (and meant it) while he spoke. But I am now forced to clarify that he definitely added a clarification that means he does not believe he is talking about Planet Earth and the rest of the material universe when he gestures.

The new question on this Sunday of Sundays: According to the text, what did God create, by creating “the heavens and the earth”, because it certainly can’t mean material/corporeal/measurable bodies beloved by physicists?

Augustine wrote down his ideas. I have some reactions to those. Others have recorded their ideas. The idea here is not to suggest we can know what Moses meant. The idea is that we can live richer lives knowing that we don’t know what he meant.

“Learning is a change in behavior based on experience.”

In short: the reward for my reading from the Great Books of the Western World is that I learned, that despite my previous intentions and best efforts, that I was wrong. And the “right”, oddly enough, was plainly written and right in front of me for all this time, too. Fascinating.

Brief Excerpt from Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables from which to Compare Personal Experience with Children

“That Cosette continue to love him! That God would not prevent the heart of his child from turning to him, and remaining his! Loved by Cosette, he felt healed, refreshed, soothed, satisfied, rewarded, crowned. Loved by Cosette, he was content! He asked nothing more. Had anybody said to him, “Do you wish for anything better?” he would have answered, “No.” Had God said to him, “Do you want heaven?” he would have answered, “I would be the loser.”

****

Before H- was born, we chose not to know the sex of the baby. As a military man, I feared a son, because he would naturally want to follow in his dad’s footsteps and leave home for war. So when H- came into the world, I said, “Good! She can live with us forever!”

Then divorce; essentially weekends only; moving away for work, which was sold to H- by her vindictive mother (and gee-ma and gee-pa??) as her father abandoning her (to full applause of society, including professional counseling sessions for problem of “abandoned by father”); moving back, only to be ghosted by H- since last December.

It may seem that one could reasonably conclude that my “she can live with us forever” was uttered in the same manner as Jean Valjean’s sentiment.

It was not.

As I explained above, my sentiment was about being frustrated with the result of my war-seeking and not wanting it to define the rest of my time on earth, ie, I didn’t want to pass on military service to my son as if it was a genetic disease. The better option seemed to have a girl, since obviously war is for boys.

To conclude, unlike Jean Valjean, noble hero that he is, I am not made content or discontent by one of my child’s feelings toward me—especially while they are a child. There’s really no one on earth who affects my “contentment”, let alone is sufficient for it. I regard the idea as a character flaw. But in a romantic novel of novels, it is perfect and Jean Valjean is perfect.