Tagged: relationships

When It Comes to Israel, Please Try to Focus

Terrorists—not some internationally recognized State military—executed a terror attack on Israel.

How does the en vogue question, “Whose land is it?” relate to the war?

Debates are being had across the world regarding some idea of “a two-State solution”—has Hamas made such a demand? Have they suggested that they will cease hostilities if only…? Moreover, is anyone in Hamas actually in possession of enough integrity to believe, even if they have?

Some heavy hitters in academia suggest that the claims of Israel’s tie to the Land—especially as it regards the Messiah—within the books of the Bible are irrelevant, having clearly lost out to publicly recorded statements and votes by nearly all leaders, on nearly any level in favor of a two-state solution. Is any Israeli earnestly citing scripture in an attempt to denounce Hamas or secure their country?

Then we come to my personal favorite of the many distractions from the issue, being the cries against violence upon innocents. “But the IDF is killing innocent people!”, they wail.

When it comes to Israel, please try to focus.

There is a difference between an academic discussion, or put concretely, a classroom discussion, and war. By my thinking, the only people who don’t seem to understand this might be thought of analogous to the two apparently ugly and old flight attendants at United who are pissed because they haven’t ever been selected to work as supermodels on Dodger’s charter flights.

Talk that is focused on the war sounds like a yes/no answer to this question: should Israel have your support (indirect as it might be) in their war?

I say, “Yes.”

You may disagree. That doesn’t revoke your US Citizenship. Just please don’t skip to the nuanced reasons for your position before stating it. That’s lazy and cowardly. The question of war is not answered by debate. Focus. Answer the question. And stop pretending that “reasons” are the answer. Please, if you fancy talking about the topic, focus and answer.

Tragic, Mostly True, and Wildly Naive (Even for Minnesotans), A Review of “In The Dark S1”, by Madeleine Baran

Despite the war in Israel, we all still have to work. And my new job happened to require my taking a heroic 12-hour road trip across this great land. For obvious reasons, I asked my family and friends for podcast recommendations.

The only one that came in was, “In The Dark”, by the New Yorker. It is a “True Crime” podcast. In other words, it is very similar to the, “The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill,” podcast that captured our attention a few years ago. If you’re uninitiated, then just think “long form journalism”. These types of podcasts are probably more easy to listen to at length than audiobooks, but that likely depends on the genre. In a word, they are binge-able.

This particular season, as it turned out, was all about a crime that occurred in Minnesota, the state I have been living and working in for the last four years. I immediately had a visceral reaction. It almost made me sick to my stomach. I felt like I knew exactly what this young, passionate, and indignant female investigator was about to bring to light.

For context, in case you live under a rock, there is a thing called “Minnesota Nice” up there. It’s surely unique and deserving of a unique name, but mostly it is similar to passive-aggressive behavior—nice-to-your-face-but-will-not-hesitate-to-viciously-cut-you-down-behind-your-back. (Naturally this is not limited to political boundaries of Minnesota, but the folks up there have perfected the art.)

The real “Minnesota Nice”, however, is far more annoying. The singular “Minnesota Nice” manifests itself most plainly when the Minnesotans play the part of perfect victim. They portend to not want attention or any ruffled feathers, but they will meticulously lay out all the perfect steps they took and “don’ cha know?” it didn’t stop the tragedy that those steps should’ve stopped. It’s like they’re seeking to be known as simultaneously the smartest and most unfortunate people on the Earth.

Remember, though! They did everything perfectly the way the system is designed to work, but “darn it”, they just couldn’t see the future after all! Who can?!

Like I said, it’s annoying.

(If you need a contemporary example that far outweighs the paltry example of this podcast, just consider the Minnesota Lutherans who specifically invited the Somalis. It’s a nightmare—but “we just were trying to help those who needed it most”.)

Back to the podcast. It clearly passed the time. I was cruising through episode after episode without even noticing the mile markers or the minute hand. So good work Miss Baran.

But my overall critique is that it was unduly unfocused.

In a long form magazine writing class I took several years ago, the professor taught us that when writing and reading long form pieces, we should be able to answer, “What is it about about?” For example, a long form article about the process of making french fries is not just a detailed recipe, but about a community that is dying or some terrible working conditions or climate change.

This doesn’t mean it isn’t about french fries. It just means that it is truly—if written well—about the other thing.

The trick, to be sure, is to just have only one about about.

And that’s the biggest criticism I have of this podcast. It’s about a notable missing child case that went unsolved for twenty plus years. But the about(s) about is a myriad of things to include a. the morality and effectiveness of publicly accessible national sex offender databases, b. revenge, c. punishment, d. role of law enforcement, e. grief, f. illusions of safety in small towns, and easily a few others.

The most pointed line which I believe she would agree summarizes her about about (for my thinking) was, “…and there is no government program responsible for making sure Sheriffs do their job!!” (Paraphrased.) Miss Baran more than once suggests that peer review and/or boards like other professions have are long overdue for law enforcement.

For my thinking, however, the most compelling storyline (and she did spend so much time on this that I thought it was her about about for a while) was how this one case was so pivotal in creating the sex offender database, and that by all accounts and measures, those databases are meaningless and ineffective—not to mention overly mean-spirited.

Then there was a possible about about regarding the fantastic incongruence that the kidnapping in question—which spawned the public databases—wouldn’t have been prevented by the database because the kidnapper wasn’t a known sex offender. That’s a doozy to contemplate.

And there were others.

And that’s my point. There were too many. So many, in fact, that the podcast fails.

Where the podcast fails, where it falls flat on its face and reveals that it is a far cry from real-deal quality reporting, is in its basic, and naive, presumption that the terrifically inept small town law enforcement departments have something to so with deterring criminal behavior.

The boy was murdered within the same night that he was kidnapped. No amount of police work can prevent a crime like that. And the experts on child kidnapping which ends in murder (whom she interviewed) said as much.

The sequence that would’ve had to happen to prevent the boy’s death is as follows:

1. Boy reported kidnapped by friends.

2. The “government” workers who were tasked to help then know to disregard all answers to their questions except the one neighbor who claimed to see a blue car turn around in his driveway.

3. The “government” workers somehow think to call nearby towns in ever expanding concentric circles to see if any weirdos have blue cars.

4. The “government” workers who answer their phone that night in a town 20 miles away happen to recall there is a man in his town that never breaks the law but is weird and drives a blue car.

5. Now that “government” worker tasks others in his town to go to the weirdos home and ask anyone there or nearby where he is.

6. When no one knows, they ask, “Is there anyone who knows where he liked to take boys to molest them?”

7. Then the “government” workers orchestrate a plan to travel to every single location listed—but especially the correct one.

8. As they approach, the “government” workers in their “government” cars keep their sirens and lights off. (The killer confessed that he decided to kill the boy when some cop car spooked him.)

9. Then the “government” worker who happens to pull up to the killer and boy somehow doesn’t themself break the law (can’t just shoot him) but prevents the killer from killing the boy (which he did—so he says—because he got spooked by a nearby “government” vehicle).

10. And all this before cell phones and within a couple hours of step 1.

Ten easy steps. And, had they been followed, Madeleine Baran would have nothing to do.

In case you missed it, this lengthier than normal blog post of mine is supposed to be a mimic of long form journalism. And my about about is the illogical, though trending for most of the Anthropocene, position of suggesting government problems can be fixed by more government.

My Favorite Part of the New War

My favorite part of the new war in the Middle East (totally serious—this is a new thought for me and I think it is worth your consideration) is the part where the bad guys take time to translate their words into English.

Hahahahahaha.

It’s like they secretly know what we all know (which is, “No one agrees with you!!”), but they can’t admit it. But if they don’t translate to the lingua franca, then they feel it too strongly. And that sucks. So instead they go ahead and neuter themselves with as great an effort as possible rather than die insignificantly.

Too funny.

The Special Psychosis Behind AI Fear Mongering

The “threat” of AI is no more and no less than the threat within the act of “texting while driving”.

I mean to apply this analogy in both the case of you texting while you’re driving—a risky endeavor which can end in tragedy for you and a few others if you cause a wreck—and also in the case of you (not texting and driving) being struck by someone else who was texting and driving.

That’s the “threat”—no more, no less.

Everyone calling for concern at the level of atom bombs and armageddon is suffering from a special psychosis.

In other words, ignore them.

Better yet, put down the phone. Focus on the road.

Two Random, Intriguing Thoughts on Friday

I realized this morning while sitting at the hotel breakfast that all the wonky Dr. Seuss characters (the Zeds, Noothgrushs, Tweetle-Beetles etx.) are actually not wonky but exact replications—in 2D—of people.

Secondly, and more importantly if you’re on a quest for meaning like me, I realized an important fact. Those of us with “guardian” personalities—I’m talking military, police, first responders etc—are frustrated and angered as a rule, almost necessarily so, because we see (from our perches as “guardians”) folks wasting our efforts. As in, “In post-armageddon dystopias, where rule-of-law is only foreign scribbles on the pages of unread books, you’d be able to dye your hair blue, but you choose to do that while I’m on shift? And in response to having to eat oatmeal instead of a smoothie for breakfast as a kid? Ahh. What am I even doing here?!”

Can You Tell the Difference Between the Ideal Government and Ideal Christianity?

This should be a simple test, no? Here goes.

Is the following an ideal of government or of Christianity?

A. You will never die.

B. You can live forever after you die.

A. No consequences to decisions.

B. Consequences to decisions.

A. End of crime.

B. Justice in the afterlife metered out by the perfect judge.

A. At-will termination of unwanted pregnancy.

B. Care for orphans.

A. End of bodily suffering.

B. Learn from those who suffer.

A. Free food for all.

B. Thankfulness for food.

A. Free housing.

B. Thankfulness for shelter.

A. Student debt cancellation.

B. Definition of morality including “self-control”.

A. Harmony of all people groups everywhere.

B. Hope for the coming Kingdom of God to usher in new Heavens and new Earth.

****

Don’t be a sucker, folks.

The point of this little exercise, which we could continue, is to highlight the truly ridiculous claims of government (and those who want more government) against the backdrop of the supposedly ridiculous claims of the Bible writers.

The exercise should also serve to clarify to any parties actually interested to know what is meant when their Christian neighbors are “anti-government”. It’s not actually “government” that we see as the problem. Lies are the problem. Christians are anti-lie.

Two more examples.

You want me to stop believing that there is life after death? Gotta try a lot harder than suggesting that someone-not-named-me can solve “death”.

Want me to stop believing that abortion is wrong? Gotta try a lot harder than suggesting that someday soon children will only come from perfectly demographic’d couples and thoroughly thoughtful (yet passionate) sexcapades.

And on and on.

Government could be okay. But the lies would have to stop.

PS – All “A” are government. All “B” are Christianity.

Today’s My Birthday

My mother-in-law is currently living with us. Five days in. Hasn’t been terrible. I have chosen the strategy of pointing out every time I do something that husbands/men/fathers typically don’t do. (She doesn’t speak English, so my wife has to translate. It’s fun.)

Just now I started to wash my favorite La Creuset pan, their 11×13 attempt. I told my wife to tell her mom that on my birthday I still do the dishes. My wife responded that she had already told her mom that this was my favorite dish and that’s why she used it to make breakfast.

I said, “Ha. Probably shouldn’t tell her the real truth. The truth that I trust no one with my stuff. The truth that I have been hurt before, and so I wash my own dishes.”

I have been hurt before, and so I wash my own dishes.

Sounds like a pretty great opening line to a novel, if you ask me.

Commentary on the SCOTUS Affirmative Action dissent by Sotomayor

“The result of today’s decision is that a person’s skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection,” dissents Justice Sotomayor (italics mine).

To what is she dissenting?

“In the wake of the Civil War, Congress proposed and the States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that no State shall ‘deny to any person … the equal protection of the laws.’ Amdt. 14, §1,” as opined by Justice Roberts (the Court).

Can you see the disagreement?

To help, let’s consider another document’s claim regarding race.

St. Paul wrote, “For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Forget, if you must, that the claim comes from an exclusive Christian teaching. No proselytizing here. But I want you to ask yourself if you can understand how Paul can list sets of two very real groups and then suggest that the very distinctions are abolished/overcome. Can you understand this concept of Paul’s/Christianity’s?

Good.

Justice Sotomayor cannot.

Justice Roberts can. But Justice Sotomayor cannot.

Justice Sotomayor writes over and over that because the constitution and its amendments and other SCOTUS opinions use words like “white” and “Mexican” that the law of the land is “race conscious”. This belief of hers is over and against the concept that the law is colorblind.

But I return again to the question I have posed. Is the simple use of words which delineate some people from others enough to transcend the otherwise transcendent belief that under some higher perspective, the delineations do not exist? Put another way, can the forest be lost for the leaves? Can the bigger point be missed? Or even, should the country have federal laws at all? Or should each dispute be brought before some local judge and the judge decide whatever they please?

The point Justice Sotomayor is pressing isn’t semantic.

When the border patrol is allowed to observe that some man around the border between the US and Mexico is Mexican-looking and subsequently act with suspicion towards him that they wouldn’t use with a “white” man, real people are involved. And when Harvard admissions folks are not allowed to ask, “Brown?”, real people are likewise involved.

The question, then, is are the two situations meaningfully the same situation when viewed from the perspective of “the Law”?

The answer is, “No.”

The reason for “no”, the reason they are distinct (despite both being similar in “gaining entrance” theme) is the constitution applies to US Citizens, not to any person, which is the very question the Border Patrol is tasked with helping to sort out in the first place.

Finally, as probably all of you know, the only question on my mind when I read Justice Sotomayor is, “Is she serious?”

If she were serious (and honest), then her sentences would read, “The result of today’s decision is that [all persons-of-earth-regardless-of-national-citizenship’s] skin color may play a role in assessing individualized suspicion by the US Border Patrol, but it cannot play a role in assessing that person’s individualized contributions to a diverse learning environment. That indefensible reading of the Constitution is not grounded in law and subverts the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection” (italics mine).

For that is her argument. And it is a serious argument, despite being flatly wrong as the 14th Amendment does not apply to every swinging dick which finds itself within the borders of this great country.

In Brief: The Similarity Between the Bible and the US Constitution

Released a couple days ago, Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion says, “Though I do not doubt the sincerity of my dissenting colleagues’ beliefs, experts and elites have been wrong before and they may prove to be wrong again. In part for this reason, the Fourteenth Amendment outlaws government-sanctioned racial discrimination of all types.”

Released a couple thousand years ago, St. Paul’s letter to the churches of Galatia says, “I marvel that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ for a different gospel, which is really not another, only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is proclaiming to you a gospel contrary to what you received, let him be accursed!”

For my dad: the similarity is that Justice Thomas and St. Paul defend received wisdom. That, and the fact that both passages breathe life and manifest hope.