Tagged: love

Week In Review—Shotgun Style

My daughter’s school district sent out the anonymous “don’t be ashamed” but “your child has to go into quarantine” email yesterday. This is the second time. Education should erase fear, not promote it. Public Schools must be abolished.

****

I have officially passed the tipping point. I do not think earthly happiness can be achieved without owning a Rodecaster Pro podcast production studio.

****

I usually feel pretty smart. Okay, I usually feel very smart. But these days I think I feel how geniuses must feel. You see my oldest daughter is 3/4 round-eye, the other 1/4 being Asian. And my youngest daughter is 1/2 DFPWHTSSTACSO (Descended From People Who Have The Same Skin Tone As Colonial Slave Owners) and the other 1/2 Habesha or never conquered or—to your eyes—black (which is the same). So I think I’m one of the good guys—just like my ancestors used to be.

****

As far as Megan Rapinoe, I only want to share what a stripper told me one night as we critically, but casually, surveyed the other Independent Professional Entertainers on the floor. (Don’t ask me. Something to do with taxes.) She said, “The hair color we were born with adorns our body as beautifully as possible. It matches our face and skin and complexion perfectly.”

****

Lastly, some hope. I overheard an elderly patient on one of my flights this week lament upon hearing that she still had to put on a mask when we landed at the gaining hospital. “But I’ve had both of my vaccinations,” she declared irritated. In this case, like most, the customer is always right. As the hospitals return to normalcy, the public will too. And hopefully we’ve learned to never again trust health experts while we have our health. Or Democrats.

Morning Motivation

Two quick thoughts that make me smile:

Firstly, if you stop reading political columnists/pundits (as I recently have), flipping through and, subsequently past, even so-called news headlines is a breeze—as apparently there’s hardly any actual newsworthy events to report. And no news is good news.

Secondly, as a pilot I have to take flight physicals. These used to be a breeze mentally because I was a twenty year old in excellent shape. Now, double that age, the last few (still passing of course) have been mentally stressful because I’m not a twenty year old in excellent shape. To alleviate this, I’ve started a fitness routine to handle and control that stress. The motivational point is this: I am probably half way through this life and have never had to run for exercise, beyond a few tests for school and the Air Force. Never. Are you going to tell me that after 40 I will start running? After 41? How about after 50? Think I’m going to develop a habit of running after 50? No sir. Take that to its conclusion and that means that I will have made it through life on planet earth without running. That’s something to marvel at.

Two Things I Learned Today By Watching a Ten Year Old and a Seven Month Old Eat

If you want to get a ten year old to eat his cold cereal to the point the bowl is dry, then have his day begin with him having to rewrite his previous three days’ mistake-ridden writing assignments.

If you’re still unclear the meaning or origin of the popular, “You can’t have your cake and eat it too,” then you haven’t watched a seven month old eat with her hands. She grabs the wafer just fine. Her mouth opens. Her hand goes into her mouth. Her tongue touches the wafer. Then her hand and the wafer come back out. Boom. Unlikely as it seems, we now know that a baby’s hunger gave birth to the adult’s sad truth.

If You’re Angry, Then You’re Cain (And They’re Abel)

Here’s a post on practical application of the Bible. Why? Because it’s Sunday and because today I found myself looking up what the word “anger” meant as far as the Bible writers were concerned because I didn’t want to believe that I was angry—because I didn’t want the Word to apply to me.

Recently, my stepson and I have been reading some ol’ timey stories and the characters often say, “Be careful! Or I’ll warm you!”

Contextually, we knew this was a threat to fight, but we also knew that we didn’t quite understand it. Then, in one of the stories, an author took time to explain that “warming” someone has to do with how your opponent (the one about to be ‘warmed’) is presently calm and cool, but after a fight will be hot and sweaty—or warm. (“Painting your cheeks red” has similar meaning, again depending on context.)

Suffice it to say that this is what the biblical writers meant by “anger.” And this is still contemporary anger, too. Anger is being hot.

Cain kills Abel. He kills him after the LORD warns him that there is no reason to be angry.

How to cool off? Transfer the heat via radiation, convection, and/or perspiration. But I don’t know if this is the right question.

If you’re angry, then you’re Cain. Instead of cooling off, maybe don’t get angry. How to not get angry? Total perspective change. Here’s mine.

I’ve now come to be happy that the LORD has chosen my ex-wife to parent our daughter.

Why does it work? Because I have no fucking idea why He chose Abel; and His choice in this matter is likewise mysterious. (And because I’m not Cain.)

.

And Another Thing

The other day, I read the same type of argument I have been hearing for many years now. In this case, it was Rich Lowry who did the writing. He wrote, “A key difference between the Greeks and Romans and the rest was that their writers critiqued and lampooned their own societies. This willingness to engage in self-criticism became one of the hallmarks, and strengths, of Western culture.” He wrote this within a piece which lamented the removal of the “Classics” from curriculums around the country.

At first blush, anyone who makes the same lamentations as Mr. Lowry might find his statement to be true. But ultimately it is not true. A key difference is not that the Greeks and Romans lampooned and critiqued their own societies (though other societies may, no doubt, have accomplished less of this). The key difference is that we, the West, conversed with our own societies.

Make no mistake, the Left believes it is carrying out the staunch and noble tradition of “criticizing and lampooning its own society” that Mr. Lowry mentions. But they, the Left, were never the West.

The West is something you choose to become, not something you’re born into. You’re not the West because you’re white. Or because you’re an American. Just like you’re not a man because you’re male. Or a woman because you’re female. Do you see? The West is built of men and women of a certain quality. But the Left never learned this. (This, too, can help explain why they behave like children.)

Regarding the activity of criticism and lampooning, the Left believes that when they remove the classics, they are doing what Copernicus and Galileo did to the geocentric model of the universe when that pair introduced the heliocentric model. The Left believes that when they revise history, they are continuing the tradition of replacing superstitious falsehood like Darwin. Don’t miss this point: Mr. Lowry would have us think that the West’s great tradition and singular tradition is to “critique and lampoon” itself. If that was accurate, the Left is surely in the right. But it’s not accurate.

The tradition is to converse, to discuss, to ask each other uncomfortable questions. And this is certainly not what the Left is doing.

So stop. Stop pretending that there is any other reality unfolding than shaming, that there is any other fix than violence—and most don’t seem to care to take it that far.

If the Left was the West, they’d talk to us. They’d debate us. That they don’t, even as they believe they are continuing the progress begun by the West, simply teaches us that we need to elevate our strategy.

To conclude, the question is not, “Are the Classics Racist?” as Mr. Lowry and his ilk like to express. The question is, “Should the Left be stopped?”

I Don’t Know Why It Evokes Such Emotion

Yesterday as I listened, I kept thinking, “If you’re not careful, you may end up highlighting who really incited the demonstration…yourselves,” as the Left made its case.

Today, when I watched the opening statement and the barrage of montage highlighting the utter hypocrisy of the Left, I cried.

Apparently I can take the dose from the Left when offered daily.

Apparently I am overwhelmed by the administration of many of the Left’s daily doses into one five minute period.

Oh. And the rest of the “very fine people” response now seems like the most sensible sentiment he ever uttered. Anyone else find that to be true? Separation makes the heart grow fonder, I guess.

Serious Question About Citation Conventions in 2021

No joke, I’m really struggling here.

I want to unite with you and all others who support the unity that Biden just called for. But I don’t know if I should say, A. “Gosh. I got goose pimples when Biden quoted Abraham Lincoln, who apparently said, ‘something something ‘my whole soul is in it’?” (Which of course will appeal to blacks on two levels: firstly, they were freed from slavery by the Lincoln, secondly, they only know a few words like, “soul”, “brother”, and “sister”.)

Or, can I cut the boring part and just say, B. “Gosh, it was like an orgasm—wasn’t it—when Biden said, ‘My whole soul is in this: bringing America together, uniting our people and uniting our nation?’”

Quickly now, please. Comment below. Our union needs to start, like, yesterday. A or B.

Midwestern Thoughts on Impeachment 2

Maybe it’s just that I enrolled in some logic courses in college, but, to begin, I want to say that I am more and more surprised how many particular expressions of logical fallacies are put in play in formal American political debate. Then again, logic is just one part of rhetoric.

However, the main reason for this post is to say the following. There are at least two separate ideas in play at the moment. The first is whether President Trump used some sort of indirect, latent, or *wink wink* vocabulary and phraseology known by supporters and which somehow commanded them to “storm the capitol.” This post is not about this idea, however interesting it may be.

The second idea in play during today’s debate is that the United States of America can be irreversibly conquered in a time period of less than seven days, whether the next seven or some other grouping. This is what I want to write about.

The USA cannot be conquered, irreversibly or not, in seven days. If you disagree with me, then this doesn’t mean that the USA can be conquered in seven days. Instead, it means that you do not believe in the concept of National Sovereignty. By this time window talk I mean to quantify that you already don’t believe in America. This is fine! Just admit it.

There are other options than National Sovereignty. Believe as you please.

But I’m here to say that the USA is not going down in seven days—not if Trump wanted it to happen, not if you feared that it could happen. Give me a break. That’s as clear as I can be to explain why I don’t care about anything he or you say or do this next week.

Should the president be impeached? If I understand political process, it cannot be completed much earlier than seven days from now. So the question is not whether the president should be impeached. The question is whether the effort is merely symbolic. If not, then as my question’s time window decreases to six days, five days, four days, etc. as time goes on, my question’s clarity increases.

Finally, if it is symbolic, then what is the benefit of the symbolism?