Tagged: relationships

Quick, But Essential, Note On Stopping Islam

Firstly, the best perspective to take on contemporary life is that Islam and the CooRahn need to be relegated to the “myth” section of bookstores and libraries—no different than Greek Mythology. This perspective stands in opposition to any others who would aim for something more, like “I will erase your name from history!! Muhahaha!!”

Secondly, as faithful readers know, my initial realization that something was grossly wrong with the world occurred while at an Evangelical Christian Seminary after I thought I saw something odd and subsequently discovered that the sentence, “We (Christians) need to stop doing (one nuanced type of apologetic), while simultaneously start doing everything we can think of to relegate Islam to the the myth section of bookstores and libraries,” and then observed that it DID NOT RECEIVE IMMEDIATE AND TOTAL AGREEMENT from other students and professors.

This leads to the point of this post.

Thirdly, mark today as the day that you will work with me to stop Islam by implementing the following rule: Accept any and all ideas put forward by those who likewise wish to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries.

In other words, I do not believe this effort can succeed, this effect can occur if the typical hypercritical (and usually useful) methods of group dynamics are applied.

Here are some test questions to ask yourself which will demonstrate whether you understand this post and my “ask”.

  1. Should there be any limit to membership into the group who wants to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  2. Is it possible for someone to come up with a bad idea in the effort to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  3. Is it possible for someone to have a better idea than others in the effort to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  4. Should I be dismayed if I am the only one who sees my idea regarding how best to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  5. Should I be jealous that everyone is using someone else’s idea, which I cannot imagine working, to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  6. In the situation described by point 5, should I stop trying my idea about how to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?
  7. In the situation described by point 5, should I try to stop or work against those who are applying someone else’s idea regarding how to relegate Islam and the CooRahn to the myth section of bookstores and libraries?

(The answer to all of these is resoundingly “NO!”)

The Final Paragraph of 11th Edition Encyclopedia Britannica’s Entry “Gunpowder Plot”

(For purists, this is also the infamous 10th Edition’s entry; the 11th is the 10th with three extra volumes.)

Just now I was catching up on my CBS Psalms study from last week, where I date the Psalms as I read them—a new habit to illustrate to myself and others how much of the Bible is actually ever read—when I saw the date and mechanically uttered V for Vendetta’s, “Remember, remember the fifth of November.”

I then moved to teach my 3 yr old, J-, the poem. During this, my conscience showed its face and I thought, “What even was the big deal? And was it successful or not? And did V really like the plot?” Etc.

Here’s the aforementioned conclusion (keep in mind the “Brit” of “Britannica” were the victims of the plot).

So ended the strange and famous capital Gunpowder Plot. However, atrocious its conception and its aims, it is impossible not to feel, together with horror for the deed, some pity and admiration for the guilty persons who took part in it. “Theirs was a crime which it would never have entered into the heart of any man to commit who was not raised above the lowness of the ordinary criminal.” They sinned not against the light but in the dark. They erred from ignorance, from a perverted moral sense rather than from any mean or selfish motive, and exhibited extraordinary courage and self-sacrifice in the pursuit of what seemed to them the cause of God and of their country. Their punishment was terrible. Not only had they risked and lost all in the attempt and drawn upon themselves the frightful vengeance of the state, but they saw themselves the means of injuring irretrievably the cause for which they felt such devotion. Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime. The laws against them were immediately increased in severity, and the gradual advance towards religious toleration was put back for centuries. In addition a new, increased and long-enduring hostility was aroused in the country against the adherents of the old faith, not unnatural in the circumstances, but unjust and undiscriminating, because while some of the Jesuits were no doubt implicated, the secular priests and Roman Catholic laity as a whole had taken no part in the conspiracy. (Philip Chesney York, an Oxford man.)

****

A post-script for my dad who says he struggles to connect what I see as the “obvious” connection within my posts.

Beyond the bald facts (as presented here), the following questions remains, “What particular training did the Britannica author have which allowed him to make his claim? Was it secular? Or support of some branch of Christianity? And how does the Bible study I am engaged in influence me? Towards sinning ‘against the light” or “in the dark’? By what measure can that be answered?”

For me, the true “Christianity” prevails. “Nothing could have been more disastrous to the cause of the Roman Catholics than their crime,” being the key notion. Fighting may be part of the road to prevailing. But if the fighting causes Christianity to lose, the sin was designed in the dark.

“Low IQ”, Review of “House of Dynamite, by ZDT Chick

Who can forget Hurt Locker? And I have commented elsewhere that Zero Dark Thirty is genuinely remarkable. It’s not a secret that I generally despise movies made by streamers, but for these two portfolio-ck reasons, I held out hope that House of Dynamite would be excellent.

To be sure, it passes the time. That’s the main requirement I have for movies these days. And it succeeds in passing the time divertingly. I’m actually surprised how late it got without me noticing.

But in the time that passed between when the project started to the time it was released, we have seen a tremendous shift in the decisiveness of American leadership at the top. So the whole movie feels less than excellent.

There is a fairly viral video of candidate Trump, and his team at the time, watching the DNC Harris speech together, wherein we got to see an intimate portrait of these people at work. If you haven’t watched it, here’s a link to one dude’s clip of it.

The overall point is, politics aside, the man running the show is decisive. Sure, TACO is a real criticism on some level, but it’s difficult to measure because it is reasonable that many TACO events are only TACO-narrative-feeders if the timeline is the incorrect length. Not to mention, TACO is more about matching talk to walk, not walk as opposed to stay still. Or “paralysis by analysis” as some pilots would say.

For this movie review’s point, which is inescapably a review of the concept of reacting to a nuclear attack on America, President Trump and his team—again, regardless of the politics—will be decisive and with a speed that impresses even “high functioning” people. This belief was actually comforting during the film.

In short, while Bigelow’s movie intends on illustrating that Earth truly is a house of dynamite—the description is not merely a metaphor—it fails. This is because the leaders—metaphorical fathers?—in the film are portrayed as “indecisive and low IQ”. (Except the interrogator guy from ZDT. He gets my vote for who should be in charge.)

Put another way, could someone please make a movie based on the exact same scenario, but show how it would play out when decisive leaders are in charge? That version would be far more interesting to see. And it would naturally offer an actual answer to the still-compelling question, “Do we live in a house of dynamite?”

“I Can Fly. I’m a Pilot” Movie Review of F1, Starring Not Tom Cruise

So Brad Pitt really wishes he was Tom Cruise? Is that what we’re to understand?

He explains that there are exceptional moments during a race, which in fact drive him to race beyond all barriers, when he “feels like he is flying”.

And apparently this is supposed to be confusing to everyone else in the racing business, who is only motivated by money.

Ridiculous.

And what’s more, I can happily report that flying feels nothing like what he describes—something he has no reason to not know, given he flies on planes all the time and has surely asked his pilots.

As I pilot, I can tell you the main two reasons “feels like flying” does not in fact feel like flying, are, “human vision isn’t bird-like,” and “there are others flying through the air too”.

Please indulge me as I re-write the script.

****

“Then why do you do it?” she asks.

“My dad was a mechanic. He gambled. He got me into racing. When I’m out there,” Pitt pauses, eyes impossibly seeing triply turn 4, the entire track, and the Redeemer God, Jesus, at once, “when I’m out there, on the track- it’s a controlled environment. There is no oncoming traffic, no intersections, no work, no family, no teachers, no law, no disease, no death, no surprises. Or at least that’s how it feels ehhhhhhvery once in a while. And ehhhhhvery once in a while, I am in complete control of this shitbox we call ‘life’. Those moments of life?” here, another perfect Pitt pause, his eyes being led by his soul over to her eyes where they stop, as it were, in victory lane before continuing, “They’re my favorite.”

Modern Prayer, From One Modern Dad, In One Modern Marriage

Of late, especially due to participation in a CBS (Community Bible Study) study of the Psalms, I have been hearing Metallica’s lyrics (as sung by James) more and more as prayers. If the reader can understand this concept, then they can understand that the following cryptic glimpse into my marriage is likewise more than a blogpost.

“In six years you haven’t learned that giving the kids snacks right before dinner ruins their appetite for dinner and sets in motion a painfully long pleading to finish, but you’re going to learn how to get rich at a three day everyone-knows-its-a-(un)Christian-scam conference on day trading?”

Using Nebraska-Corn-Fed Boobies in 2025 and Beyond

This is mostly intended to entertain international readers who find themselves daily longing for Americana. But the wisdom herein is universal just the same.

I grew up in the suburbs of Kansas City, KS. Picture an endless, rolling sea of clothesline-less backyards in neighborhoods of single-family homes. Try and imagine that the size of the houses and yards grows proportionately to their distance from the city. Got it? Good. That should give you some idea of it.

Our perspective on girls was probably exactly that of any group of boys anywhere on earth. There were hot ones, “doable” ones, and ugly ones. Also similar to any group of boys, these designations were perfectly harmless as no boy was actually going to approach a girl, no matter her place on our assessment.

After highschool came college. I chose to go to a small, private college in a small town of the neighboring state of Missouri. This was the first time I heard the description “townie” as applied to the citizens of that small town. These townies were, as expected, totally different than us college kids. It was fascinating to me. Also fascinating was how the girl situation suddenly changed and its vocabulary too. It was here that kids from all the across the midwest and bread-belt of America gathered, mostly on-scholarship, and it was here that I first noticed, what I quickly learned were colloquially known to rural boys as, “Nebraska-corn-fed boobies”.

The concept at once made me chuckle. My mind was flooded with questions. Was such a thing really possible? If so, why did Nebraska’s corn, in particular, produce big boobs? Why had I not heard this before? How many other people knew? Why wasn’t Nebraska’s population booming? Was Nebraska’s population booming? What else about our world do I not know?!

Okay, hook over—expect a return of concept. But here comes the wisdom.

About two years ago, as I discussed the merits of homeschooling with my brother and his wife, I noticed something that I hadn’t before noticed. They continually shot down every benefit of homeschooling, while also agreeing that the weaknesses of public school I identified were real. Finally, and proudly, I said what I thought was the fairest thing I could, being, “Here’s the thing. You’re sniping everything I say, but you haven’t made one positive claim. I know what you’re against, now I want to hear what you are for.”

That was the last line and last conversation on the matter. I still have no idea what they would do with their kids, which, as should be expected, is moot because they don’t want kids anyhow.

The other day, Scott Jennings was doing his thing, the topic being the No Kings events. He said the exact same thing to his co-panelist. “Okay. But what are you for?”

This is very sad to me. It is sad because I believe we, those in the right, should be able to make a dent during conversations. If we can’t make a dent, then the new question and problem is, “Why even try?”

So when I listen to the current, only critical mind-set of the Left, I would say that it can be fairly summarized in some relevant sense by, “DJT is the source of all my problems.”

In my most empathetic attempt at understanding them, I say to myself, “Just give them this as a fact”. So I do.

I concede, not just for argument’s sake, that it is gospel truth that Donald J. Trump is the source of all their problems.

There.

I said it.

Truth be told, it wasn’t as hard as I expected.

Okay. What happens next?

Because while Trump is the source of all your problems, Donald J. Trump is not the source of all my problems.

And this is where “Nebraska-corn-fed boobies” re-enter the picture.

Like Archimedes, Newton, and Gauss before us, we have two sides of an equation in apparent inequality. Who among us can find the missing variable?

Symbolically, we can write [DJT➡️p] ~ [DJT,p] = 1.

Spelled out, “IF -Trump-THEN-I-have-problems is relationally equivalent to Trump-unrelated-to-problems EQUALS UNITY”.

Put plainly, how can one person, one man, simultaneously be and not be the source of problems?

I submit to you that the variable is Nebraska-corn.

Now, you might be tempted to generalize and say, “I think I see. You’re saying, Pete, that the variable is ‘internal’ to the person—nurture, though, not nature. Something like ‘the way someone is raised inescapably equips them for life, and these people for whom Trump is the source of their problems weren’t raised right’, correct?”

No, I mean Nebraska-corn. 😘

Western Civilization vs. Blacks

Steven Crowder, bless his heart, put out a two-part barbershop conversation with the topic “Black and White on the Grey Issues”. That was his first mistake. It’s not “Black and White”. It is “Black and Western Civilization”.

The reason I insist on this is because there are too many “white-looking” people who are not in Western Civilization and too many “black-looking” people who are not Black.

It is an ongoing conflict, and it is the conflict of our day.

Crowder learned, and demonstrated to all who want to see, the same feeling any of us members of Western Civilization have felt when around Blacks: the realization that “there is no common ground.” One soldier in my recent Vietnam War readings said it best when he described that they (Vietnamese people) are not from a different country, they are “from a different planet.”

It is at precisely this point that Crowder and others need to improve their game. Get over the shock. Quit being shocked. There is nothing in Western Civilization which came easily, came without tremendous work. Nothing in Western Civilization was or is “intuitive”. One of the distinguishing marks of Western Civilization, one of the reasons its foundation is so strong, and its power so lasting, is the sheer effort it took to build it. I want to be sure not to say “will” because I am not talking “will power”, I am talking actual work. Will power might help me lose weight, help me not get angry enough to hurt people, and might help me finish college. But will power is not “work”. And Western Civilization (which I would consider the actual and only ‘civilization’—the rest of people are in chaos, and the entire population, Western Civilization included, is therefore in chaotic need of leadership vis-à-vis civilization) is the result of work.

The above is ground-level fact. It is the given. It is the axiom from which anything that follows is derived. And what follows is not the axiom. What follows is opinion. And my opinion is that conversations which merely highlight the seemingly different planetary origins of Westerners and Blacks are not work. To use wordplay, the reason I believe this is in my experience (to include listening to converts) these conversations do not work.

Work, in the meaning I am attempting to promote here, is not merely illustration or illumination or revelation that the given is given. Work is not some ‘raising awareness’ to the fact that there is no common ground.

What is this work, then? Well, according to the great tradition of the men who bestowed Western Civilization upon the occupants of Earth, work is the creation of common ground.

By way of example, take Western Civilization’s conception of the Universe as heliocentric. It wasn’t always so. But even in the beginning, Western Civilization was working to prove the Earth was the center and likewise to prove the regularity and order of stars and the moon etc. Furthermore, you can read the work for yourself—it is readily available. And due to this work—inaccurate as it proved to be—other members of the West looked around and allowed themselves the freedom to think, “Hmm. But that isn’t what I see.” And then the shift in understanding began. This is until Newton thought, “I want to measure rainbows.” Do you know how much work is required in measuring rainbows? I know you know because neither you, nor nearly anyone else, has ever done the work! But Western Civilization’s premiere member Isaac Newton did. And here we are, being slung around the Sun (at least until someone who wants to work even harder comes along and re-orients us). I could go on.

And yet, admittedly, this is where my wisdom peaks. I do not know how to create common ground. I have some ideas how not to create it, though. I mean, if gently pressed, I could teach how to create division. For example, it is assuredly not creating common ground to have no interactions with Blacks. But it is also not creating common ground, as I said, to have interactions or relationship with Blacks which hinge on the fact that we’re different from each other.

Most of you know that my efforts lie in church world. But I can imagine other avenues. The main thing, of course, is that before you attempt this “create common ground” lifestyle, you need to know with certainty into which group you fit. And, for today, my provocative send off is, I can tell you confidently that if you fear losing the conflict, then you are not in Western Civilization. (Don’t read this to indicate that I believe living without fear is the only or even the sufficient requirement for membership in the West. It merely is required.)

I’m sure I’ll have more to say later. Exciting times.

It’s Pilot vs. System, and I Hope Pilot

I try to make things simple for my mom (not because of anything other than her desire to cut through the crap) after any aircraft crashes—especially if they are of the kind of aircraft or type of flying that I do. As most of you would know, this simplified rationale was again needed due to some recent crashes out west.

My effort was, “As dark as it sounds, if you want to know my thoughts, I hope we learn that ‘pilot error’ was the cause. That’s far easier to live with than the idea that one day the helicopter is just going to kill me.” The reader can see in this dichotomy the split that every pilot learns from the start of pilot training. Crashes are either pilot error or mechanical. And 80% of crashes are pilot error according to the data. It also makes sense. And it also keeps aviation functioning. Why would anyone want to hop into or fly an aircraft that cannot perform its function reliably?

After chatting with a couple mechanics recently, I was reminded that they bear the heavy cross of “I sure hope it wasn’t mechanical”. This coheres with other offhand comments aircraft mechanics have uttered over my career, being, “That’s what I lose sleep over.” These mechanics do not want to find that some unfinished or inept work of theirs got people killed.

There is a sense which the pilot and mechanic can be said to be “of a kind” on crashes then. They (we) both want flawless aircraft and flawed (if only very infrequently) pilots. But this is not what I meant when I simplified things to my mom.

The reason for the post, the complex version of my thoughts on the matter, is as follows. It isn’t simply man vs. machine. Or even man and machine. It is man and system. Or man vs. system. I mean to draw out that if the aircraft had a mechanical problem which the pilot was unable to handle, the “problem” that now needs to be addressed is enormous and multi-tiered. It’s a question of quality of engineers, quality of materials, quality of parts, quality of QC, quality of maintenance program, quality of individual mechanic who performed the work, and quality of pilot who preflighted (which also includes his or her training and all of the people and processes involved there). Depending on the mechanical failure, there is also a possible new data set regarding deficient training for the pilot regarding Emergency Procedures. A, “I didn’t know what to do because we never saw that fail before.” So all that is what I mean by “system” in my “pilot vs. system” framing. This is to say, no, it’s not just “mechanical”. It’s actually a ding against the whole aviation system.

On the other hand, if the pilot caused the crash, then there is just one pilot who didn’t perform his simple task of perform the same number of landings as takeoffs. And that can happen to any pilot for a variety of reasons—though, being the best pilot ever (best of the best to be more clear), it naturally won’t happen to me.

In the end, the result is the same. I believe in the aviation system. And I believe that I should be the pilot which demonstrates how the system is truly remarkable. This is why, when considering pilot’s who crash have families and are possibly injuring passengers who have families etc, I can admit that it would *feel* good to attribute the crash to, essentially, “fate” or anyone else’s fault, the simple fact is and will always be that part of the motivation to be a pilot is the consequential nature of the job. If I didn’t believe in the system and my ability to lead it, I wouldn’t strap the aircraft on time and time again.

PS – Even the Huntington Beach one which YouTube seems to show was a pure part failure (‘system’ according to my point) can’t yet be chalked up to “system”. We do not yet know if the system failed or the pilot didn’t perform an adequate preflight and forms review etc.

Yesterday Was A Good Day

Took A- and J- on probably their longest hike and highest summit yet (4.2 miles/8000’). Sausage, cheese, crackers, and a cutie at the top.

Stopped at Crumbl for cookies on drive home.

Watched Starship 11 test flight (success).

Ate at Freddy’s.

Traditional Archery club at night, before driving in to work.

“Thanks for Nothing, Idiots!” The Iowa Superintendent Headlines Have Some Super Embarrassing Conclusions That Aren’t Being Discussed

Charlie Kirk said college was a scam. This fraud in the great state of “Idiots-Out-Walking-Around” proves Kirk correct, at least among these derecho-blown-cornfield-surrounded morons, for two main reasons. Firstly, if a formally uneducated man can fake being educated—TO FORMALLY EDUCATED PEOPLE—then wtf are we even talking about? Formal education is a scam. In other words, I believe people could fake being a pilot to non-pilots, but people could not fake it amongst actual pilots. Even newbie student pilots who think the world of themselves are easily distinguishable from the real deal, to the real deal. Secondly, if formally educated people are willing to outsource their brainpower and pay others for things such as education level background checks, then wtf are we even talking about? Formal education is a scam. In other words, I believe in outsourcing tasks/work (this is fundamentally “division of labor” and absolutely essential to civilization). But there is a point at which, say, paying a surgeon to perform a surgery on me, only to learn that he merely pays another surgeon to perform said surgery on me, is disingenuous, if not stupid.

With me?

But wait! There’s more.

Now, thanks to the “I-Owe-the-World-an Apology” citizen-educators, every BIPOC employee has verifiable good reason to fear what they have always feared and what they have been told will always be the true nature of things: They are not respected by Whites. They are being handled with kid gloves by Whites. Whites are two-faced. They (back to BIPOC) are viewed as inferior by Whites. They are unequal—window dressing at best—in a White world.”

Truly, this situation’s tragedy is far greater than ICE or lawsuits can reveal. And all parties, especially those who immediately rallied around the fraud/criminal/illegal alien, should be ashamed of themselves and shamed by us to the degree it takes to right the orbit of the earth around the sun.