Tagged: Writing
Point/Counterpoint: Will the Influx of Africans to the West Work? (3)
No.
The influx will not work, at least not for the first few generations (and deeper, the longer they segregate).
There has been too much “foreign aid” to their homelands, and not the requisite amount of humble (which is inherently also wise), “Say, how do you get to a place where your ‘cup runneth over’?” for the Africans to ever get out of the mindset of thinking manna falls from heaven and transition to contributing.
The Look of the Debate
For posterity sake, I want to tell you what stuck me most about the debate. I have seen many other reactions to the debate that discussed some of what I am going to say, but none have centered on it.
During the infamous 15 seconds, the camera showed Trump look over at Biden. He seems to have been in thought, likely preparing whatever he would say next (but who knows?) when he then genuinely noticed a pause and uncontrollably turned to see what was going on. Trump’s expression made him look human. Made him look likable. Made him look normal. Made him look like we all think he really is—a man who will do anything to win (and many other things too), but a man who is very aware that he is putting on a show. Perhaps he is a horse in a department store, as I once read him described, but more than that too.
Biden, on the other hand, did not ever have a redeemable moment.
Oh, and I still can’t stand teachers. (See EdD Jill’s ridiculous encouragement clip.) These people are a joke. Yes, yes. I know she meant “answered every question” as opposed to “dodged”-every-question-in-favor-of-repeating-rehearsed-talking-points, and she did not mean “competition award”. But the man failed with every breath and certainly didn’t need anyone lying to him, let alone in such pandering fashion.
Reaction to Sir Niall Ferguson’s “We’re All Soviets Now”
You can find the article here. I don’t know much at all about that site, “The Free Press”. Seems like a normal site for its ilk.
Here I am going to react to his article paragraph by paragraph until I get bored or my points become redundant. A friend sent the article to me—a good friend. My criticism must be harsh then. Otherwise he’ll think I was lazy and didn’t read and consider it.
****
P1 “the cold war we’re in—the second one”
-the very problem with the Left is they believe they can “manifest”, like Yahweh. Thankfully, they cannot. Are we in a second cold war? For that to be true, I, ol’ Pete, would have to agree. And I don’t. My most killer point is that there really is no “we” in the sense that there was during the real Cold War which we could read about if we so chose. Even in Bari’s intro to this article, she mentions that Niall is a voice in the “cultural battle”. If there is an actual cultural battle within America, then America cannot be a coherent enough group to partake in a cold war.
P2 “back in 2018”
-how much of my day shall I sacrifice to you, O Knight!? Hyperlink’s are fun and easy, but seriously, I have read many books and many articles. It is possible to just plainly write what you mean now, today and for it to be clear and tenable. Please do so.
P3 “[China] is a military rival”
-I will not fear. And, even within the non-we, I trust Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, and most other states of the Union to produce warriors that can win more than I trust China.
P4 “in this new Cold War, we”
-you haven’t persuaded me on either point here. I don’t see a cold war, and there is no “we.” Now I have to peruse at least one of your links, otherwise there is no point in continuing since I don’t buy your “definitions”. Back. The two linked articles are on pay sites. Oh well. I’ll do my best to continue as if I was informed and undecided.
P4 “the immortal question”
-the immortal question is moral. “Bad” is a moral semantic domain. That’s why the clip is funny. The question is, “how do I know that killing this man is the moral thing to do?” The question has nothing to do with observation and nomenclature. Also, Sir Ferguson, perhaps you have written it elsewhere, but what exactly is gained by this naming convention “cold war two”? I actually kinda cared to learn some history and even through college we didn’t get past WW2. So while I know the phrase, I am certain that hardly anyone alive in the “we” has a clue what the Cold War was and now you want to persuade us/them to adopt Cold War 2? What you’re asking is worse than a copy of a copy. You are attempting to name a copy of a blank sheet of paper. This article itself contains little more than debatable content about the Cold War which can then bolster your claim about Cold War 2. Sand. It’s all sand.
P5 “two American Sailors”
-so, big difference between the SS and the US Navy is the US Navy is not immoral.
P6 “I know”
-let’s find out.
P7 “world of difference”
-so…you don’t know. The joke in the clip you link to is about WW2 bad guys being surprised, upon consideration, to conclude that they were immoral—something which many believe should be universally announced by one’s own conscience, and before the kill.
P8 “resources…consumer goods…equipment”
-these nouns are too general. They do not persuade. A bait and switch could be right around the corner.
P9 “quintile”
-i don’t understand. Are you educated or street? Sometimes you use a common vocabulary, but here you switch to a very pointed statistical term, and then qualify it further, before bringing up a new measure (infant mortality) which you do not pin down—late Soviet Union” vs. 2021. Huh? And Mississippi Delta and Appalachia are identical? You’re asking for far too much trust. I don’t even know you.
P10 “risible”
-who can define this word? (comment below if you didn’t need to look it up)
P11 “closer look”
-not really interested, thank you.
P12 “system?”
-a question mark is necessary for a question, but it doesn’t automatically make clear what you are asking. At this point I am over it. Whatever you are doing, whatever your goal, it isn’t written for me. Try again some other day, maybe when you have something to say.
In sum: 37 links. I once chatted with an excitable old man who had a book “with a bibliography over one hundred”. Before I knew it, I had accepted his gift of the book—for the low price of $10 to cover, the, you know… When it arrived, I gave it the old college try. It was like he thought a long bibliography was what truth was based on. In reality, the opposite is likely the case. The masses are duped, ignorant, lazy, common, and uninteresting.
Nothing in Sir Ferguson’s article redeems the false premise. No, we are not in another “cold war”. That phrase was a one-off and will not apply ever again. Furthermore, we are not the Soviets. This is mostly because America is an incredibly difficult thing to “be” anymore, and also because, and I have learned this the hard way, the “land” does have something to do with the question. And this isn’t Russian soil that I live on.
Reaction to a Couple Obituaries, to Include the First Ever (for this blog) Mildly Approved Sentiment
“(Person) loved his family and he spent his life in service of their welfare and happiness. Most recently, he found great joy in being a grandfather, investing an enormous amount of time and love doting on his dearest (two named grandsons). He also cared deeply for the larger community around him.”
– What is being hidden here? A “lifetime in service of their welfare and happiness”? That kind of lie can only mean bitter, bitter relationships and it also evinces a total misunderstanding of language. Sorry, it was rough being in his family folks, but a few words in the Sunday paper after he’s dead is not going to “manifest” anything pretty, let alone reach back into the past and fix the issues. And why is it wrong to pick out one or two people (from the billions) to love? Ever since whites learned the power of the phrase “black community”, they feel guilty if they don’t use part or all of it during supposedly momentous occasions. Just stop. We don’t live as members of some group which needs fancy and false descriptors any different than T-Rex or George Washington did.
****
Onto the first ever approved, if mildly, obituary assertion.
“He got a black lab puppy last year in April named Oslo. She was the best thing that had happen to him in quite some time. He never went anywhere without her, and they spent hours every day playing fetch with the tennis ball. He loved telling jokes and always had a smile on his face, despite away being described as grumpy ass sometimes.”
– What makes these sentiments worthy is they are fearless. Do you see? This dude lived a kinda shitty life (if a dog is the best thing to happen to you, then you’re having a “sour go”). I love the use of “tennis” to describe the ball—like anyone really cares what kind of ball it was. So quaint. I could do without the “ass”, and I wonder why no “air quotes” around “grumpy ass”, but the beauty is that whoever wrote this had some respect for the dead. I repeat: whoever wrote this respected this man. And the dead man obviously had threatened, or lived in a way which threatened, haunting whoever lied about him after his death.
So good work. This pairing of deceased and writer can teach us all a thing or two.
Reaction to Kiefer’s Sentiment About His Father’s Passing
Kiefer Sutherland said, “He loved what he did, and did what he loved. And one can never ask for more than that.”
I disagree. I can ask for far more than that.
I have felt bliss. I want instant bliss.
I want more time than I’m slated for, and when my body was twenty-one.
I want sane women.
I want a job that requires no concern about “pleasing people” or making people “happy”.
I want my daughter.
I want every human on earth to have discernment.
I want every human on earth to acknowledge and live according to their strength of memory and speed of thought.
I want pizza on a rotating schedule from all my favorite restaurants served at a place of my choosing as I feel, and new types coming out according to a timeline of my fancy.
I want to be adored.
I want to be listened to.
Back to the time thing; I want time enough to flesh out this post and have my afternoon coffee stay hot until I say so.
In short, Mr. Kiefer Sutherland, you’re wrong. No. Doing what you love or loving what you do, or both, is not all anyone can ask.
Instead of failing at sounding wise, please just tell us how you feel at the news that your father died. Or don’t.
People: we must do better at this death thing.
America’s Husband 2, Plus Bonus Coverage of Ongoing Kidnapped Daughter Drama
A constant dripping on a day of steady rain And a contentious woman are alike; He who would restrain her restrains the wind, And grasps oil with his right hand. -The Bible
“Sling a paddle with the next and starve as contentedly as Job. Go for’ard when the sloop’s nose was more often under than not, and take in sail like a man. Went prospecting once, up Teslin way, past Surprise Lake and the Little Yellow-Head. Grub gave out, and we ate the dogs. Dogs gave out, and we ate harnesses, moccasins, and furs. Never a whimper; never a pick-me-up-and-carry-me. Before we went she said to look out for grub, but when it happened, never a I-told-you-so.” -Jack London
Holy Writ accounts for the italics para about nagging wives. But what can be said about Jack London’s fantasy blurb from his short “Siwash”? Is it not the Proverb we all believe to be the Word of God simply put in the positive?
In the ongoing arguments with the wife, I throw out, “Why doesn’t scripture warn wives about nagging husbands? Did the LORD forget that? Is it because he is sexist? I think there are more difficult issue within Scripture than what it would mean to suggest that maybe He legitimately forgot. I’d run with that.
In any case, it’s a conundrum to nagging Christian wives.
****
I have mentioned that nearly everything reminds me of my kidnapped daughter. Well, this summer I’m back in Colorado. Trying to get back into regular contact with H- was primary goal, but others include the mountains. As such, I have been doing inventory on the camping gear as A-, J-, and I are going to hit the campgrounds soon. In so doing, I discovered—of all things—toothbrushes and toothpaste from the last time I went camping. And that would’ve been with H- some 6+ years ago. Sad.
Anyhow, the other kids and I are having our own fun in the mountains and I can only hope suicidal social media and general neglect isn’t taking it’s toll on H- as she is taught about how to normalize darkness by her mother. I only know she is alive because she hangs up rather than lets the calls ring through to vm. I probably should be grateful.
Here I just want to capture one undeniable fact: as her dad, I never did, have, or would’ve kept H- from her mother.
I feel shitty on the regular because I know I should’ve never married H-’s mom. It’s not a good feeling. But what to do? Best I can come up with is try to warn others.
Boys: Don’t marry whores. Just don’t do it. Nothing to do with scripture. Not talking true love waits. Just don’t marry whores. Take it from ol’ Pete.
Point/Counterpoint: Will the Influx of Africans to the West Work? (2)
Counterpoint: Yes.
Recall that by work we mean “rule of law” is retained. And by fail we mean “might makes right” resumes.
In response to the naysayers who think that the cultures are just too different, that it’s a bridge too far, I say, “But I am part of the welcoming committee.”
The reason this fact (my participation) gives me hope is that my number one American quality (important as America is leader of the West) is laughing while calling out BS, no matter the consequences.
And the only way forward is within the realm of the “Truth”. And one key element of “truth” (I’m teaching here—pay attention Africans) is you gotta be able to laugh at your own mistakes.
At least all you Pente have heard that love does not brag?
Was that meant only for the White Devil?
No, the answer is, “No, it was not.”
So it’s time to get over yourselves.
Are you unsure how to admit weakness and save face at the same time?
The West knows the fix. Laugh about it. Then hit the books.
Point/Counterpoint: Will the Influx of Africans to the West Work?
Today I’ll start with point.
****
Point: It will not work.
By work, of course, we mean “rule of law” holding.
By fail, of course, we mean “might makes right” resuming.
One immediate reason we are on the way back to “might makes right” can be understood by a brief one-liner.
The joke isn’t funny if you have to explain it.
What I Would’ve Told Myself About Getting Married a Second Time Had I Known Then What I Know Now
Besides the Vindictive Little Hussy Tamar from Genesis story, during our last spat, my wife also asked if I knew what a “Phrase” was and recommended that I read about “the prostitute women bring her to Jesus.”
Again, you have to really want to understand the speaker—it’s my wife; I do—in order to figure out what the hell they are saying in moments like these, but if you work within the given context, “Phrase” can be a heavily accented “Pharisee”.
Unlike the account of VLH Tamar (which is on the whole depressing and kinda embarrassing to the patriarchs of our faith—let alone Scripture itself), I could imagine why my wife would think the LORD in heaven would use the infamous “cast the first stone” story to convict a wretched sinner like me (America’s Husband) and hope that, in so doing, she will create marital bliss in the form of an unquestioned matriarchy.
My wife states plainly that “I accuse her” all the time. (I would say that I speak with truth. Can I get a witness?!)
Naturally, then, she reads about the “Phrases’s” bringing a woman caught in adultery to Jesus (keep in mind, I am not 100% that this is the correct passage. But I think it is. Also informing my guess is the international megachurch’s absolute love and reliance and incessant preaching of this account) and sees the action of accusation and puts two and two together and here we are.
A careful, objective reading of the story, however, does not persuade me (and does not include) that it has anything to offer humanity as regards interpersonal communication or family dynamics or nation building.
After the accusation (apparently uncontested), the text has:
They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have evidence to accuse Him.
If there is one aspect of the Gospel that preachers and teachers looking to cherry-pick “scriptural applications” from the text miss whole-heartedly all the day long, it is that the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead!
How these men (and now women, #metoo) always miss this, considering the Pharisees did get their way and have him killed, is incredible, but miss it they do! And when you don’t teach what the Bible says, when you don’t do your job and help people to focus on the text, you end up screwing up a whole lot more than just one little pericope (that’s “purr-i-co-pee”, long o). You end up messing with my marriage! Marriage supposedly based in the Judeo-Christian worldview, no less.
Yes, yes. I am currently accusing. I am doing the very thing I am defending myself against.
But I am right.
How can I be sure? Because I have some special power? Not special in extraterrestrial or mutation, but yes, I have a special as in precious or rare power. I can read!
And literacy leads to other things, like answering relevant questions like,
Does Jesus, Lord of Lords and King of Kings, want humans to stop “accusing” each other of mistakes and wrongdoings?
My answer is, “How would we determine such a thing? I mean, for example, I can imagine that we could read up and discover whether he ever forbids the making of accusations. (He does not.) Then we could, if we cared to, read with an eye out for whether biblical authors themselves accuse or offer stories where the protagonist accuses—and are lauded for it. (Text doesn’t have much to offer on either side of this perspective, but Titus 1:6 hardly makes sense if all accusing is to cease.)”
Over and above my literacy power, though, is something simpler. We could simply ask, “What are your intentions, my wife? Because mine are to be head of the best family I possibly can. And yours do not seem to align with mine.”
****
But this post is truly about warning myself regarding a second marriage and especially a second marriage that makes new babies.
The warning is this: Pete. You have had the worst divorce in human history—your ex steals your money daily and has kidnapped your daughter. I’m not telling you “don’t do it”. But please consider that this “felt experience” is going to feed into a heavy dread of the same thing happening again. And this means that there will be informed and resultant overreactions to the normal(?) downs of associating with the weaker sex. In short, you are entering into what may, at times, feel like a hostage situation, your kids as the leverage. A veritable, “Want to keep seeing your children? Then do as I say!” Only this time, you know all too well that everyone, including the guys (and gals, #metoo) with guns, will take her side against you.
Consider yourself warned.
****
And had I known this, I would’ve proceeded as I have, optimistically, perhaps blindly, because, as the story goes, Jesus did not come to condemn people. If my wife has the Holy Spirit inside her, as she professes and I believe to be the case, then Jesus isn’t coming for me.
Want to take my kids (#metoo)? Good luck! You won’t find any fight from me. Instead, you’ll find yourself fighting the living god.
Wait, what? It’s not about the kids? What’s this? You merely want me to change my thinking? Good luck! All you have to do is remove my ability to read (or burn all Bibles—better make it all books), wipe my memory of scripture, and drop me off anytime after, say, 1900 AD when women have decided they are head of the family. I think if you pray real hard for that, the LORD will give you that good gift. (And you’ll also get that book deal and your “healing” and “blessing” along with the thousand other attendees at your “church”.)
Lord, if you’re listening (I know, I know), do not tarry.
Some Thoughts On Vindictive Little Hussy Tamar in Genesis, the One that Played the Harlot (Not Absalom’s Sister Who Was Raped).
My wife uses the Bible to argue with me. Anyone else have a woman like this at home? It’s wonderful.
Just this morning she brought up “Judas son of Jacob”, from which I can only assume she meant (talk to text doesn’t work well for those with heavy accents) Judah. We’re already in funny-land with this, as it clearly demonstrates why surnames ever came to be. Who? Judas? Which Judas? NT Judas? Iscariot? Oh, Jacob’s son? Oh, Judah. You mean Judah? Judah, son of Jacob? Judah Jacobson. Judah Ben Jacob. Ha.
Anyhow. So the story has it that Judah’s first son, Er Judah-son, is killed by Yahweh for being evil. Par for the course. And his second son, Onan, is unwilling that his biological son become his older brother’s heir and so he will not consummate the deed. Yahweh kills him, too.
Only then do we learn the full nature of the issue. It seems Judah has this idea, perhaps divinely inspired, perhaps not, and holds to it like his last breath, that Tamar (Er’s wife) is owed a son by one of his (Judah’s) sons. So he promises Tamar that when Shelah Judah-son grows big, he can donate his seed to the common cause.
Here’s where the story gets interesting, and not just in Azeem’s, “How did your uneducated kind ever take Jerusalem?” sense.
Er’s widow Tamar (Tamar has no surname, so “Er’s widow Tamar” will have to suffice…for now) hears that Judah Jacob-son is going on a trip. It is this moment of the story that deserves grave attention. Here is the focus of this exegesis.
So she removed her widow’s garments from herself and covered herself with a veil and wrapped herself. And she sat at the entrance of Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah had grown up, and she had not been given to him as a wife.
“For she saw that Shelah [Judah-son] had grown up, AND she had not been given to him as a wife.”
“Vindictive little hussy” Tamar sounds more appropriate than “Er’s widow Tamar” at this point. But let’s read on.
Judah, now a widower and past the time of mourning, apparently still gets the itch. So when he sees a harlot on his trip, he begins to negotiate. Unlike, or perhaps exactly like, men from every corner and age of the planet, he didn’t think ahead and so now he is stuck. “1. Get laid but have to give her my ID to hold until I can find my darn credit card.” Or “B. Don’t get laid.”
He gives her his ID.
She takes it, gives herself to him, and then runs, never to be seen again—even after he finds his credit card.
But this, to most illiterate preachers, is still merely the setup for the punchline of the story.
(Let’s pause here for an apropos Uncle Remus saying: “You can hide the fire, but wha choo gunna do bout da smoke?!”)
Vindictive Little Hussy Tamar is soon “showing” and the affronted Judah Jacob-son wants her burned.
She wants to live and so offers Judah Jacob-son his ID back.
The next killer-line is:
And Judah recognized them and said, “She is more righteous than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.”
Oh, the qualifier.
We almost had a perplexing, a-historical, fantasy account on our hands. Without the qualifier, we might have real evidence that scripture is flawed, uninspired, and not the Word of God that we all believe it to be.
So thank the LORD and his precious son, Jesus, for the qualifier.
Judah Jacob-son does not elevate Vindictive Little Hussy Tamar unreservedly, no. That would be the work of the uninspired Woke mob, post-#metoo and George Floyd and all.
Instead, since we’re reading the Word of God—which was written by men who lived thousands of years ago at a time before Jesus fulfilled Yahweh’s plan—there is a qualifier.
Nowhere does the story suggest that Vindictive Little Hussy Tamar was righteous full-stop, but it does convey that Judah Jacob-son now recognized that he hadn’t fulfilled his vow. Or as Apollo Creed says, “Some people gotta learn the hard way!”
Granted, I still have no idea why my boo brought this up in the argument over the kids’ clothes today. And granted I honestly am not 100% certain I analyzed the right story, since “Judas son of Jacob” is not certainly “Judah Jacob-son.” But these are some thoughts on Tamar, the eency-weency-bit-more-righteous woman than the John, Judah Jacob-son, little horn-dog that he was.
Captain’s Log 