Tagged: love

Everyone Is Christian

Did you know? I had no idea.

But, apparently, it took the enforcement arm of the Law’s killing only two people for the entire world to assert Jesus Christ as all-powerful being and ruler of the time-space universe.

I’m also not sure if I should welcome them or they should welcome me.

“Let him take your garment also.”

A tip for the communists: your favorite verse for the current scene in Minnesota is “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your garment also.”

That’s much more difficult teaching for the White Christian Nationalists to deal with than the temple cleansing incident.

You’re welcome.

What Fascism Looks Like When Carried Out By Mankind

Faithful readers and new readers alike: The point of sharing lists of how many deportations past presidents and administrations carried out is not the illustration that both political parties have done what Trump is doing. Neither are the lists particularly indicative of the character of past politicians. In other words, it isn’t news that politicians change their policies or blatantly lie at times.

The point of the lists is to definitively give absolutely conclusive and damning evidence that Trump and his administration are not behaving like fascists while they enforce the nation’s—every nation’s—established Laws.

For a glimpse of fascism, read this blurb from back in October of 1938. Pay careful attention to the twin facts regarding there being (a) a new agreement and (b) no protection.

To be sure: Trump et al are not enforcing some new law. And there is no law (being enforced or left unenforced) in which protection is withheld or unconsidered.

Current events across the land are not evidence of fascism. Not even close.

Time to Revisit Immigrants and Bananas

The main line is sung in a memorable scene in A River Runs Through It, but it took me decades to actually google it.

With absolutely nothing derogatory towards liars, Somalis, or loose band-aids in mind, and instead offered in the spirit of legal immigration, here ya go. You’re welcome.

Yes! We have no bananas!

There’s a fruit store on our street
It’s run by a Greek
And he keeps good things to eat
But you should hear him speak!
When you ask him anything, he never answers “no”
He just “yes”es you to death, and as he takes your dough
He tells you
“Yes, we have no bananas
We have-a no bananas today
We’ve string beans, and onions
Cabbageses, and scallions
And all sorts of fruit and say
We have an old fashioned to-mah-to
A Long Island po-tah-to
But yes, we have no bananas
We have no bananas today.”

Business got so good for him that he wrote home today
“Send me Pete and Nick and Jim; I need help right away.”
When he got them in the store, there was fun, you bet
Someone asked for “sparrow grass” and then the whole quartet
All answered
“Yes, we have no bananas
We have-a no bananas today
Just try those coconuts
Those walnuts and doughnuts
There ain’t many nuts like they
We’ll sell you two kinds of red herring
Dark brown, and ball-bearing
But yes, we have no bananas
We have no bananas today.”

Yes, we are very sorry to inform you
That we are entirely out of the fruit in question
The afore-mentioned vegetable
Bearing the cognomen “Banana”
We might induce you to accept a substitute less desirable
But that is not the policy at this internationally famous green
Grocery
I should say not. No no no no no no no
But may we suggest that you sample our five o’clock tea
Which we feel certain will tempt your pallet?
However we regret that after a diligent search
Of the premises
By our entire staff
We can positively affirm without fear of contradiction
That our raspberries are delicious; really delicious
Very delicious
But we have no bananas today

On the Whole “Effin’ B’” Comment

I would be stunned if my dad has ever uttered that phrase—stunned. Is this because he has never been around “effin b’s”? Or is this because he doesn’t get rattled?

I don’t recall ever saying that phrase, certainly not earnestly. I prefer the “c-word” if I am grump about the fairer sex AKA “ex-wives who steal from me”.

I doubt many of you have ever walked away from a female and audibly declared, “Fuckin’ Bitch.”

But I say that learning that our LEO kills the woman and then utters, “Fuckin’ Bitch” changes the tenor of the scene.

New question: does it change it to “more complete” or “less complete”?

From early high school I grew up in gym locker rooms and loved the honesty I witnessed. For whatever reason, I never quite joined the cursing crowd. And I didn’t really harbor hate towards anyone or any group. But the colorful stories were enchanting.

Nowadays, I spend tons of time around beloved “First Responders”. I don’t exactly consider myself one—pilots like me, to me, are a class above. But these people see things. And what they see is far more “locker room” than “civilization”.

And time is of the essence. So inappropriate jokes still bubble up from time to time—though, unfortunately, professionalism rues the day these days.

Back to the killer LEO. He kills a woman and walks away declaring, “Fuckin’ Bitch.”

Out of the two options I have laid out, the phrase seems to change the tenor to “more complete” in the sense of “more accurate” by my thinking.

These women are out there, folks. My suggestion is try not to be one.

“The Law Must Win”

The law must win.

This is timeless wisdom. This is the proper perspective. This shouldn’t be controversial.

If someone you know, or if you, find this controversial, that does not surprise me. It just means that their (or your) position is anarchy.

Those of us who believe the law must win do not owe the anarchist a Covey-esque attempt to understand or empathize, anymore than we owe thieves or murderers the same.

It should not surprise that criminal behavior and criminal minds exist. It should not be surprising that people disagree that the law must win.

There is no world where we all exist to follow the law. That is the point.

So, the law must win.

Agent K vs The Protagonist, A Joint Review of Men in Black and Tenet

I’m kinda loving my life right now. I recently rewatched Men in Black and just now finished Tenet. What do these two Science Fiction thrillers have in common, you ask? And is it true, Pete?

They both repeatedly make the point that the general mass of humanity doesn’t want to know how close the total mass of humanity is to annihilation at any given moment.

Who tells us this? And on whose authority?

Agent K and The Protagonist. Because they are the engines of hope.

Finally, are they right? Is it true? Is the world on the brink of annihilation and do people, generally, not want to know it?

Yes, with the caveat that “the brink of annihilation” can be taken to mean the whole enterprise OR simply one person’s death.

In other words, from the perspective set forth by Jesus’ Good Samaritan story, which includes the claim: “I am neighbor”, it doesn’t matter what happens to the world’s occupants once I am dead. What matters is that my ability to contribute to the world died. Here I mean to enlarge the defense of the concept of “not wanting to know” to include “because people, generally, also are not wanting to neighbor”.

Full-circle: Agent K and The Protagonist are certainly engines of hope for life, just as is the Good Samaritan. The key behavior among all three is proper action despite desperate circumstances.

The new question is, “Is there any reason to believe life extends beyond death?” And, if so, should we act according to that belief?

The Natural Response to Seeing Clearly: Thankfulness

Sight has aways been important in my life. For whatever reason, from the youngest age, whenever I took a vision test and had 20/20, people told me I could be a pilot.

These days, as a pilot who often flys with night vision goggles, I can’t help but wonder how different life would be if the ancients had NVGs available as they searched the sky.

Of course, the fact that they didn’t is because of their own ridiculous beliefs about motion and rest and circles and spheres.

I remember a childhood friend who had recently got a better prescription telling us how different the world looked. She said something like, “It’s like the trees now have individual leaves.”

How did she react? Obviously she was thankful and happy about her new glasses.

Why, then, is this not the case when we use telescopes and microscopes to see more than before?

Why would seeing more somehow make us angry?

Why would seeing more somehow make us give up beliefs, like Christianity? It’s not like Christianity said, “There are three hundred stars, and the smallest unit of material is a grain of sand.”

If we can see more, I think the appropriate response should always be the same—and limited. We should be happy and thankful.

It says more about your heart, or more broadly “you”, than it does about the “data” (what is now seen) when you react otherwise.

On Somalis

The best thing, if you ask me, about what’s happening in Minnesota regarding the Somalis is, wait for it, the Somalis have literally no idea what is happening!

They don’t know what Minnesota is. They don’t know what America is. They wouldn’t care if they woke up back in Somalia. They, by every measure, are utterly ignorant people who also are illiterate. Their only path in life is following the herd. Can they even commit fraud if they don’t know how to commit fraud?

It’s great to actually ponder these facts at the deepest level and significance.

What is man?