Tagged: philosophy

Midwestern Perspective on the Chauvin Trial

This post is a time capsule for me. It will convey two distinct but related thoughts. The first is why folks like me do not see the death of George Floyd as “murder, plain and simple.” The second is why folks like me want Chauvin to be found not guilty.

As to the first, decapitation kills every human. Every human. Every time. Drowning kills every human. Every human. Every time. A certain amount of blood loss kills every human. Every human. Every time.

Does a knee to the back and/or neck of a person kill that person, every person, every time? The fact that it can be argued or needs some kind of demonstration to determine it proves my point. But to be clear, no. No, Derek Chauvin’s knee to the neck does not kill a human every time. No it doesn’t. Not with certainty. So it’s not “murder, plain and simple.” Next point.

Why do I want Chauvin to be found “not guilty”? To help you understand, let me relate how I felt in 2016 when the NY Times election meter showed Trump was winning. I was excited at a level that was out of body for me. Why? Because I wanted Trump to win? No. I couldn’t care less if Trump won or Hillary won. I was excited because Trump was not supposed to have a chance. Everyone who thought that they had a brain, every expert, believed they knew for sure—evidence-based—that Trump had no chance. But I knew that almost all the people I knew where definitely voting for Trump. Either I was wrong or the experts were wrong. In short, when Trump won, I won.

Same thing on this Chauvin trial. Why do I want the jury to declare him not guilty? Because I believe he’s not guilty? No. I couldn’t care less if he is guilty or not guilty. But I know that the majority of people I know are saying that it is just “obvious” that cops are racist and that cops are killing unarmed blacks by the droves. “It is a theme of existence in America,” they would have me believe. But when the jury votes “not guilty”, then I win. Because in the court of law, the evidence and arguments presented to the jury is what matters—not mob rule. And the mob—BLM—needs to disperse and go home.

America is not racist. America is not based on or built on racism. A “not guilty” verdict will help end the BLM lie. It will help disperse the mob. BLM is a joke, always has been, and it will be forgotten as a #trending “huge movement of the teens and twenties” by teens or those as mature as teens, like stonewash jeans and braided leather belts of yesterday. BLM is already getting tired. They are already fearful. They have no plan for the “not guilty” verdict. Their plan for the “guilty” verdict is to wait for the next video of an unarmed black man being killed by a policeman. And it is long past time for them to quit like their kind always does. BLM is built on sand. The “not guilty” verdict will reveal this to the world. That’s why I want it. I am right. I will win. These events will be remarked by historians as the time when rich people got really mad that bad things happen.

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.

Remaining Unmolested in the Time of Perversion

My title comes from the fact that I’m an Eagle Scout. I was in the Boy Scouts of America since 4th grade, and I was awarded the highest rank shortly before my 18th birthday.

This achievement is probably the biggest reason I was accepted into USAF pilot training—plenty of fellas have good grades and a pilot license. Nowadays, if I’m at work and in front of a television set I can’t help but be struck by the amount of commercials having to do with how the Boy Scouts were apparently the second worst organization in human history as measured by how many little boys the adult men in charge molested.

I was never molested. None of my friends were molested.

Also all over the news right now is the Oprah interview. Hopefully it’s Oprah’s last. I refuse to watch it, but am confident the folks at Charlie Hebdo have summed it up quaintly.

We live in the time of perversion.

Meghan and Harry are not royalty any more than LeBron is king.

Oprah didn’t “conduct an interview with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex”, anymore than Trump “incited the January 6th insurrection.”

America is not a democracy—nor an oligarchy—anymore than Somalia is under rule of law.

When my friend and I had cars and driver’s licenses, we were sure to enjoy the newfound and rare freedom to linger whimsically after Monday night Scout meetings ended. The rest of the boys were picked up by their parents in timely fashion with little say about the matter. Most leaders were themselves parents, but there often would be one thirty year old single dude who just liked camping and giving back to the organization that formed him so strongly.

One night, this thirty year old and my friend and I were chatting in the parking lot. The Scoutmaster came over and stood for a bit—almost seeming impatient. Finally he did seem impatient and I said, “We’re okay. You don’t have to stay.”

I’ll never forget the feeling in my gut when the Scoutmaster gave me a look that said, “How stupid can you be?”

As we turned to get in our respective vehicles, in an attempt to save face with my friend, I think I overcompensated and actually said, “I still don’t understand why we have to have two adults,” even though I knew darn well that child molestation was a thing.

For this post, the aspect I’m drawing attention to is the silent shame that I was made to feel for being stupid, for ignoring reality, for trying to pretend there are no patterns in life.

My life is overflowing with men and women who made me feel shame for being stupid.

And my-unmolested-self couldn’t be more grateful.

How about you? Feel like you learned anything here today?

Re-Engaging With the Study of Politics

I’m working through a guided reading of the Great Books of the Western World, as you know. Sometimes, not often, certain passages are not compelling. The author’s divisions feel forced and the destination blurs.

Because of my high literacy, I began noticing that the more I read the more I learned. And the more I learned the more I began wondering, more clearly than ever before, why am I studying this so fervently? I don’t want to be in politics. I don’t want to be a politician. It’s an interesting field of study, but there are many others just as interesting that may prove more practical, I couldn’t help thinking. But I kept coming back to the fact that Locke said that man first existed in the State of Nature on his own and only later, when it benefited him, gathered into political society. Aristotle, on the other hand, had started with man as a political creature. There was no isolated man. For Aristotle, no man was an island.

Obviously, Locke is right. But whichever side you come down on, the reason to study politics as a hobby is that everything (except religion) is post-politics. Your politics influence your decisions in every other facet of life (except religion). And the only thing that influences your politics is your religious beliefs.

Want to chat about the weather? Me too. But that’s not half as interesting as why you believe America is or should be a democracy. And it’s not one hundredth as important as why you believe that Qu’ran:Bible::Black Ink:Red Ink.

Will my study of politics help me in any measurable form or fashion? It might. That’s why I do it.

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.

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’m Over Conservative Pundits. Off Button, Please.

Two days ago, I looked at the world through the eyes of Bill Gates. What I saw was not quite that he wanted to turn humans into batteries—Matrix-style—but that he (as an inventor of a powered tool) valued perpetual energy over human liberty. Today, I want to look at the conservative pundits through the eyes of a marketer. Why? Because my YouTube “feed” makes me feel shame before my maker.

Whether Shapiro, Prager, Tucker, or Elder (not to mention Knowles who I click on most for some unknown reason), when viewed from a marketing perspective, they all contribute more to the Left’s publicity than anything pushed by the Left. If ratings are to be trusted, this observation is even more damning.

I would never know that “chestfeeding” is a term or that the “classics” are being banned if I didn’t read and listen to the conservatives. Why wouldn’t I know? Because the Left doesn’t market themselves. Instead, the Left marches along, shaming any dissenters. The Left doesn’t shout, “We’re changing the language!” Instead, they change the language and shame dissenters. The Left doesn’t shout, “we’re banning the classics!” Instead, the Left bans the classics and shames the dissenters.

I’ve already written that if conservatives are not writing to incite war, then they’re wasting their time. Here again, I’m writing that if you’re calling attention to the Left’s actions, you’re simply acting as their marketing team. There’s no such thing as bad publicity. I’m saying here that I now believe that the conservative pundits help the Left, or, in other words, I’m arguing that conservative pundits are out of alignment with their own goals. You don’t put McDonald’s out of business by creating ads that tell people how cheap (in price or quality) their burgers are.

If the Left (or pure evil) understands anything better than the conservatives, it is that we do not live in a world of ideas. We live in a concrete world, a world where action matters most. “Raising awareness” is not action. And the Left, despite its claims to the contrary, never raises awareness. Instead, they shame dissenters. Shame is not an idea. Shame is the targeted illumination of specific actions for the purpose of conformity. Ben Shapiro revealing that the Left just passed another evil law does nothing but advertise that the Left is winning.

In any case, I’m done with conservative pundits. I own too many unread good books to waste time reading and listening to conservative pundits, now known to me as the Left’s marketing team.

Good day, Sir!

Eureka Moment And Vent About Bill Gates and IT Attitudes In General

At work recently I feel like I have been unceasingly finding IT to be in my way. Anyone else feel like this? I find myself venting, “IT holds our work hostage,” in an effort to describe how unproductive the action of “including them” in a project can be. Just this morning I said, “Name one other area of life where the professional level is worse than personal level.” I was serious.

Pilots fly much better planes in their professional endeavors than their personal lives. If I want to drive a race car, then by definition it is going to be better than my Nissan. Unless you’re me, the piano you play for a professional gig is going to be better than the one you own. And on and on. But the internet? Worse at work. The hard-drive? Worse at work. Getting IT to help? Worse at work. IT departments hold our work hostage.

Anyhow, the eureka moment occurred as I read about Bill Gates in the WSJ today. Classic puff piece. Really, more than that. More than a puff piece, more than a book advertisement, it was propaganda.

But it got me thinking, why does Mr. Gates think that a private citizen can understand the following?

“The planet must reduce the amount of greenhouse emissions being pumped into the atmosphere, currently about 51 billion tons per year, to zero by 2050. Nothing less, he says, will prevent a catastrophe, and he is calling for a full-scale technological revolution to make it happen.”

I like to believe I am very well read, and I simply can’t understand it. For example, what is a “greenhouse emission”? What is “pumped”? Where does the atmosphere start and stop for this claim? What tool is capable of measuring “51 billion tons per year”?

And I have a question of my own: Does Gates understand the meaning of “extrapolation”? Because I suspect that he is extrapolating at some point. And that’s no tool. And this leads me to believe that I don’t think he has such a measurement tool.

These days in my own attempts to understand everything, I fight off the notion that it’s impossible. But the fact that the notion (‘it’s impossible’) is in my mind, I take to mean that it is impossible to understand everything. Bill Gates doesn’t seem to have this inner debate. He thinks we can understand everything and then solve every problem. Why? What evidence does he have? None. Zero. So he changes the game. It’s not about solving every problem. It’s about solving his problem. And he cons us into thinking his problem is our problem.

Here is something that helps me understand his perspective. And this is the eureka moment. He thinks everything and everyone is just a data point to be counted. And when someone thinks this, their goal shifts from traditional human goals having to do with quality of life, to new goals—counting goals—like, keeping on the power to the counting machine. (Inverse way of describing his fight to stop climate change and the end of the world.)

Put another way, the man who invented the biggest, fastest counting machine thinks we should do everything we can, sacrifice anything, and pay anything in order to keep his counting machine powered.

It’s ridiculous. But I finally see it.

Get it? I do. Hopefully you can see it even if you disagree. (Or even if you agree with his priorities—clarity is a small goal of mine here.)

As for me, I’m just happy to have achieved some level of understanding regarding the man and his motivations (and also understand those of you who want to likewise be viewed as smart). And I’m happy to be a religious man (not a droid). And I’m happy to know the secret to stopping him—turn off the computer.

Mr. Gates will be seen as the nutjob that he is when 2051 happens uneventfully. (Anyone claiming that they are speaking coherently when they talk about “measuring 51 billion tons per year” qualifies as nutty.)

Are you going to celebrate with me? I sure hope so.