Was a time, back in the 90s, when even my liberal Protestant colleagues shied from the late term abortion policies of the Clinton Administration. Now look at where Catholics warming up to the Alt-Left are ending up. Either advocating, or at least turning a blind eye to, something that the most liberal of believers decades ago would reject.
Today, in service to the Left, it turns out even late term abortions have their place at the table of discussion. You've heard the dig about Conservatives blaspheming the name of God among the Gentiles? Well, here's another passage that the New Prolife Movement might want to remember:
And thou shalt say: Hear the word of the Lord, O ye kings of
Juda, and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem: Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of
Israel: Behold I will bring an affliction upon this place: so that whoever
shall hear it, his ears shall tingle: Because they have forsaken me, and have
profaned this place: and have sacrificed therein to strange gods, whom neither
they nor their fathers knew, nor the kings of Juda: and they have filled this
place with the blood of innocents. And they have built the high places of
Baalim, to burn their children with fire for a holocaust to Baalim: which I did
not command, nor speak of, neither did it once come into my mind. Therefore
behold the days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no more be called
Topheth, nor the valley of the son of Ennom, but the valley of slaughter.
Over the years I've learned that the Left is all about censorship, judgmentalism, self-righteousness, absolute truths, absolute values, legislating morality, excusing violence, physical assault, and even hatred based on nationalism, ethnicity, religion or gender.
The trick is, like jumping on a moving merry-go-round, you have to know when to grab the picthfork and charge at the right group for the right reason. Hating on Americans because they have white skin is currently all the rage. If those white Americans have penises, that's a bonus. As white-as-a-sheet-sale Michael Moore makes clear. We need to 'cleanse' privilege of white men, he says. Note the term: Cleanse. As in cleansing something based on race, gender or national identity. After the 20th century, you'd think that word would forever be banished from being applied to a people group. You'd think.
Embracing the Quisling approach, modern Liberals are all about crushing their own demographics. I've heard it called Demographic masochism, and Demographic flagellation.
I'm not sure, but I don't think it has a historical parallel. I believe this is the first time there was a movement in which people went down the checklist, found every identifying characteristic of a demographic with which they identified, and then declared that demographic irredeemably deplorable and worthy of eradication, or at least relegation to second class status.
I have no clue why. Perhaps, like all the liberal men who were assaulting women while decrying men as sexists, it could be a case of projection. That is, perhaps nobody loves their White Privilege more than White liberals, and this is their cover. Just like I sometimes wonder if liberals' anger at racism is a matter of projection.
Maybe it's a variation on the old Pharisee's prayer: Thank you Lord that you didn't make me like whoever else is part of my demographic. They assume that if everyone else in the old demographic is crushed, they will be let alone because of their purity and superiority compared to everyone else in their group.
Or it just might be the old St. Saruman tactic. Seeing the inevitable death of the Western Christian tradition, they're willing to jump ship and help any rising power to exterminate all who aren't as perfectly servile as they are. Given the Left's willingness to go after women, Blacks, minorities and other 'protected classes' when those classes run afoul of the Left, that certainly makes sense.
I don't know. I just know it's a strange development, and one that's tough to deal with.
Oh, and if you think I'm being a bit over the top with the 'ethnic cleansing' dig, just imagine someone using the same terminology regarding Jewish, Black, Muslim or other non-white groups. In that case, I would agree with the outrage. I'm saddened by how few on the Left are saddened by it used in this case.
We watched it (gave school credit to the kids for it - the fun of home school). A couple oddities. One, he began almost immediately pointing out the 'guests.' These are people who usually illicit applause from the whole chamber. Usually they are held until midway through the speech, unless it's some special case. A clever way of forcing unity from the begining.
Two, it was heavy on accomplishments. Since Bill Clinton at least (possibly earlier, can't remember), the SotU has become 1 part 'here's the state of the Union', and 29 parts 'here are all my plans.'
Last night was very top heavy toward 'here is all we've done in the last year', with a fair amount of plans for the future, and many calls to put aside politics and compromise to get the job done. Nonetheless, the speech was big on 'here's where are and here's how we got here.' An actual state of the Union. Apparently, according to at least one non-friendly poll, the majority of Americans approved.
That was certainly better than the rebuttal from Joe Kennedy III, which was simply a variation on "unity through divisions" and "compromise through unwavering demands." With personal attacks and name calling against Trump. We'll see. But it was different, and watching the Dems not applaud when normally the opposition party would applaud, such as at the news of the lowest unemployment among Black Americans in the history of the research, was telling.
Who knows. Perhaps people are getting tired of the divisions, and are beginning to wonder just who is responsible for them. We'll see.
A crisis is calling. Fresh from his attack on 'Fake News', wrapping it around the ever present cause of sin: economic greed, we have this development.
Belgium is part of that grotesque abomination known as the radical Left. Included in this movement is a growing desire to broaden the ways in which we can eliminate the unwanted. Oh, the death penalty, war and torture are all bad. Yet abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide are the hip developments of the day.
The difference in these stances speaks volumes. Traditionalists typically allow for just war, the death penalty (though historically torture was a no-no, something worth returning to). Yet they are typically against euthanasia, assisted suicide and abortion.
Is this because they are hypocrites? No. Anymore than the Church was hypocritical for its teachings on those subjects. It's because they value life, but value the community, society, the defenseless and also tend to see the hereafter as at least on the same level of importance as the here and now.
On the other hand, look at what this new emergent Left opposes and supports. It does oppose war and the death penalty and torture. And yet supports abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide. They even support the State stepping in and telling parents when they can and can't save their children.
Is this hypocrisy? By no means! It's very consistent, too. Because if you look, what they oppose is anything that imposes itself on the all important 'Me'. Death penalty? That's the State doing it to me. War? That's the State or Nation calling upon me to die for something other than Me. Torture? See the death penalty.
But abortion or euthanasia? Why, that's me getting to get rid of pesky people who inconvenience me; who stand in the way of my promised narcissism and hedonism. Because what matters is Me. It's sure as hell not some hereafter rubbish. It's the here and now centered on the all important 'Me.' The 'Me Generation' never really went away. It's just now beginning to bear the bitter fruit.
The New Prolife Movement, that ostensibly is about a 'complete life ethic' seems to miss this. The reasons for the disagreements are based on a clash in world views. One says that there are things more important than the individual. There is the possibility of eternal consequences or blessings. There is a reality other than the here and now to contend with. There is also the demand that we sacrifice for others, or prepare to sacrifice for greater causes than ourselves. Life is sacred, but it comes with penalties for behavior since there are consequences to our actions. And sometimes there is the call to sacrifice the greatest gift we've been given for the sake of others.
The New Prolife Movement calls this evil and hypocritical. Instead, it increasingly aligns with the side that says there is nothing more important than Me. War? Why should I die for anything or anyone? Death Penalty? That's like saying I should be accountable for anything. But don't think for a moment that the last century's notion of human as animals has gone away, for the importance of Me reserves the right to eliminate all those pesky humans who aren't human unless I say, since it's all about Me.
Think on that. I can't imagine a more wrong headed movement than that which calls itself the New Prolife Movement. This isn't even getting into the attempt to make political narratives and philosophies about such things as healthcare and immigration into the fifth Gospel. This is just dealing with the actual issues of human life. If the movement is so blind about these clear differences in dealing with human life, how can I believe they're not just as wrong headed about other issues like the economy?
Peterson has emerged seemingly out of nowhere and caught the latest media trends. For a moment. Most stories are cautiously polite to outwardly complimentary.
A few, however, have chosen to dig in as zealots will, and that has produced reactions like this, at a site called simply Maclean's. It's by a contributor named Tabatha Southey. That's all I know, except what follows is the same type of arrogance, condescension, loathing of non-conformity, intolerance, close mindedness, and general disdain for wrong thinking non-liberals that helped get us Donald Trump.
Running with the new anti-Peterson label ('he's the stupid person's smart man'), Southey goes one extra and decides Peterson really isn't that smart after all. Just a charlatan who knows his base of ignorant, bigoted losers. To that end, he adds a couple syllables to a few choice words and, to any conservative, will suddenly look smart. Of course added to the mix are the usual 'he's against women and minorities (Read: even though I said he's not a neo-Nazi, he really is).
Note to the Left: simply insisting that it is impossible for even God to make a non liberal not stupid and/or evil might be wearing a little thin. Rush Limbaugh showed the Left for the hypocrites they were when it came to respecting diverse opinions and promoting diversity of values. Donald Trump exposed the Left's willingness to allow violence, destruction, censorship, corruption and even torture and attempted murder to at least be discussed as valid if opposing true evil (that is, non-liberal views). Will Peterson expose the Left even more, and perhaps provoke it to finally admit what many are beginning to realize, that the Left simply wants yet another Leftist authoritarian terror state like we witnessed so many times the last century? We have yet to see.
None of this is to say that Peterson is the next messiah, or walks on water, or raises the dead. It is to say that the Left's typical 'go straight to arrogance, accusation, name calling, and open contempt for the losers who don't conform to the Left' approach has, as of now, hit a wall. And that wall is Jordan Peterson.
PC. Censorship. Thought police. One small step toward authoritarianism. Because it wasn't done voluntarily through persuasion. It was done by threat of retribution against non-conformists. Remember, the Left stokes resentment, refusal to forgive, belittles reconciliation and other stupid leftovers from that pesky Christian tradition.
So, for the sake of old times, and to keep what will eventually be banned alive in our memories:
Oh, and also, just to keep up with the trend:
There's no telling how many things will be banned and eradicated by growing scourge of the Leftist thought police. I have a feeling this is only the beginning. And that the majority of Native Americans don't care? Doesn't matter anymore than Native Americans matter. Or Blacks. Or women. By now, I hope we know that.
Was a time when abortion was a non-negotiable, but things like how best to address illegal immigration (something Democrats strongly opposed for years), or how best to help the economic fortunes of citizens, or even the Death Penalty, were issues where Christians of good will could agree to disagree.
Today, abortion has been shoved to the back burner as an unfortunate byproduct of Capitalism and misogynistic men, but the political proposals of Democrats and the Gospel are, in fact, one and the same. It's technically wrong, but who are we to judge [women]?
If it was just Mark, I'd dismiss it as any sane person should. Unfortunately, when you look at developments in the Church, you don't see a vast difference between Mark's partisanship and what comes from the Church's leadership.
Note: This was brought to my attention. This is how Mark does it. I can't account for others. Mark basically has judged the hearts and minds of all who are not liberal, and concluded they don't care about abortions. Being a loud supporter of the Democratic party (he thinks by not officially saying so, his constant support for liberal Democrats means he doesn't support them), he assumes their purest of motives, and scratches his head when it comes to them doing what they always do, and that's fight for the Culture of Death as traditionally understood.
This. Too many on the Left have a very simple outlook: they are simply right, those who don't align with their worldview are stupid, losers, or evil bigots.
Again, there is nothing I can think of today that is less judgmental, close minded, intolerant and self-righteous than the modern Left. It flows like a habit that can't be broken.
Donald Trump could not have won if he ran as a Democrat. The country simply wasn't ready for a man with so much baggage, even if he epitomized everything we've become as a nation.
The problem was, he ran as a Republican. That left, well, the Left to be his biggest critics. And boy did those criticisms ring hollow. Why? Because it was the Left making the most noise.
And what is the Left? A movement that is Marxist based and Bolshevik driven. It seeks its own place as the center of the world to the exclusion of any other conceivable priority. Which makes it just like just about every other Leftist political movement of the last century.
To that end, it has gladly thrown women, minorities, Blacks, religion, the poor or anyone under the bus when needed. For years, women accused Bill Clinton not of having an affair, but of sexually harassing and assaulting them. And those women were skinned alive by the press and Clinton's supporters, both in and outside of the White House. It's likely no coincidence that many of the stories of women harassed by men of power come from the 90s and early 00s.
Women in other cases were also brutalized. Sarah Palin, her daughter, Michele Bachmann, Condoleezza Rice were all ripped apart (with Rice getting a few racially suggestive digs thrown in for good measure). Women concerned about men exploiting the slipshod Transgender bathroom laws were equally thrown to the wolves and called the homophobic bitches they obviously were.
Of course other groups will get it, too. Blacks such as Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain and Ben Carson got their share of racial stereotypes thrown their way. Anti-Jewish propaganda against Joe Lieberman and in the movement to eradicate circumcision was not uncommon. And let's not forget the time in which Hispanic American George Zimmerman suddenly became White because, well, it helped keep the Media's lust for racial disharmony alive.
All of this is to say that the Left gives scant little evidence that it actually cares about such things as poor, immigrants, minorities or even women who were suddenly important because 'Trump!'. When convenient, sure. But otherwise? Not so much.
It certainly shouldn't be surprising that Hillary Clinton, who held the cloaks of those who ripped Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and any other women in the way of Bill Clinton's libido did the same during her 2008 campaign.
But then, it shouldn't' be surprising that a picture has surfaced of Barrack Obama with well known racist hate group The Nation of Islam and its leader Louis Farrakhan. Again, the Left abhors things like antisemitism and racism - when convenient. When not? That's when even Blacks, who should be the most sensitive to such things as racist hatred, suddenly become willing accomplices in keeping it alive. Because, again, the only thing that matters to the Left is that it is convenient to the Left.
Yep. I agree with Nikki Haley. Curious about why Trump won? Watch a rerun of last night's Grammy Awards. That's all you need. The arrogance was matched only by the ignorance. The hubris mixed with a clear inability to be anything but the most close minded and intolerant movement in the West today was enough to suffocate viewers. This was compounded by a room cheering one of the worst presidential candidates of all time. There was a time when the music industry was against the machine, not a slavish yap dog for the machine. Someday the Left might learn. Someday. But I'm not holding my breath.
Quoth my son: The Oscars would be a joke if it wasn't for the Grammy Awards. Yep.
Yes, we all experience guilty pleasure watching Trump as a ringer, being everything the Left has been for decades, and throwing it back at them. The Left, which used traditional Christian values against Conservatism for decades, and then gleefully pissed all over those values with impunity, are up against something they can't stop, and it's killing them.
Nonetheless, Trump is an extremely flawed and fallen individual with much moral baggage. As tempting as it is to look the other way, we can't. We must call sin what it is. Better to lose by standing on Truth than following modernity into the cesspool of ethical void and thinking we can win in the end. We can't.
The Left, like most leftist revolutions of the last century or so, elevates its political philosophies to the level of god, and a jealous god it is. Throwing our values out the window in an attempt to win will only compromise us in the end.
This isn't because it will somehow be a bad witness to the enemies of the Gospel, Truth, morality and decency. Those enemies have no values and play by no rules. Nothing we do, short of divine intervention, will make a difference.
But doing wrong can become grist for the compromise mill. That is, those in the Faith who are wavering under the relentless assaults of modernity against the Faith. From top to bottom, side to side, the Faith is being hit from all sides. From attacking the Bible, its reliability, its historicity, to challenging the very nature of the universe, humanity, divine revelation, to attacking long held notions of morality, decency, truth, values, justice, ethics, it hits along all sides. This is in addition to its more measured assaults on things like the United States or the Western Tradition. It's like being surrounded by ninjas on all sides and attacked at once.
Against this, a growing number of leaders and advocates are wavering. Some, like Mark Shea, have completely abandoned the historic faith of the West and aligned with the forces of darkness emanating from the Left. Others, like Russ Moore or Rick Warren, can see the changing winds, and are trying to find some way to straddle that fence without giving too much.
It won't work. As much as Christians pine for the righteousness that comes from good old persecution the way Rome used to make, in most cases, persecution has done the Faithful little good. In the West, we really don't get being persecuted, because until the last few generations, the Faith has had the upper hand.
In the East, when powers rose that were not in line with the Church's well being, in just about every case, the leadership caved. Whether Tsars, Turks or Communists, there came a point when the leadership simply adopted the St. Saruman approach and found whatever way possible to be friends with the powers that be, even if those powers insisted on advocating heretical or atheistic doctrine. If the Church ever thrived under persecution, it doesn't appear to do so under persecution that follows a state of influence and privilege. It isn't easy fighting the powers of this present darkness when you're used to suffering for the Lord with a six figure income.
In many ways, we can get a foretaste of how the Western traditions will be once the Left gets its way. Despite Trump's somewhat stunning victory, the Left is steaming forward, intending to win at all costs. It already has made strides in convincing even Christian leaders that we live in a post-proof world, where accusations are as good as evidence. In a matter of weeks, we abandoned centuries of due process and presumption of innocence because, well, the Left said so.
This is where it is going. Throwing our values out the window to excuse what is clearly inexcusable will do no good at all. It's wrong. Plus, it won't do a thing for the enemies of the faith. And what's worse, it will become the evidence needed to convince those rats itching to abandon the sinking ship that abandoning ship is the thing to do. It will give ammo to those who want to lie in bed with the powers of the Left, or give excuses to those who long ago sold all common sense and morality to embrace this latest assault on humanity.
If Trump was an anvil judiciously dropped on the head of the Leftist shark, it would do well for conservatives to avoid being tied to it for every long, lets it drag them down to the depths with it.
I'm usually skeptical of this sort of thing. And if it was any other company but Google, I'd tend to think there was some other explanation. Even a hoax. But given Google's 'we'll acknowledge the inventor of toothpicks before Jesus Christ' history of tributes, I'm at least prepared to believe it's possible. And that right there speaks volumes.
Remember, Jesus said the world would hate us because it hated Him first. He did not say that the world would hate Him because of all those other Christians who aren't as awesome as I am. It shouldn't surprise us, therefore, that we see a growing coalition against one common enemy: the traditional Christian Faith.
Ouch. In a finish to beat all finishes, Ohio State struggled back from a 13 pt deficit to tie the game with only 5 seconds left. Then, before the fans could return to their seats after the explosion of cheers, Penn State made a buzzer beater 3 pointer and won the game. It all happened so fast, some of us were in mid cheer when Penn State won.
What a finish. That is what sports is all about. Team work. Never giving up. Giving it all up to the last second. Ohio State's Keita Bates-Diop hit the game tying 3 pointer, despite being sick and under the four fouls. And for about 4 seconds, Ohio State believed we would extend our winning streak.
Ohio State was favored, but this was supposed to be a rebuilding year. When coach Thad Matta was let go last year, after a string of sub par seasons and a crumbling program - he himself was struggling with health and other issues - most didn't have faith in OSU basketball in the upcoming years.
Then OSU hired Chris Holtmann, a name few knew, and fans were willing to give him a couple years to turn things around. And what happened next? They call him the Buckeye whisperer. In his first season, he came out and slammed a massive wining streak including being undefeated in the Big Ten up to this point, with only weeks left in the regular season. A feat not often achieved. There is no real star, save perhaps Bates-Diop. It's simply a team with a coach who knows how to use the talent. Whether OSU can make the playoffs or not remains to be seen. But it's been a season beyond anything OSU fans expected, and for that, as well as making last night's game one to remember, we have much to cheer about.
This. The Gray Lady released a story based on anonymous sources providing evidence they can't cite. And what does it say? That Donald Trump considered removing Mueller from the investigation. Of course headlines were variations of "Trump tried to fire Mueller, White House Counsel Intervened!"
What happened? Apparently, based on the anonymous sources, Trump suggested there were three points of conflict of interest with Mueller and considered removing him - which, I believe, is his legal right. White House counsel, however, did what White House counsel does. It advised Trump not to go through with it. And this is the crazy part: He didn't! He said OK, and moved on. Contrary to late night comedy memes, he listened to his advisers.
In other words, it's no big deal. I realize we live in an era where the postmodern Left is working overtime to turn accusations into proof. It seeks to convince us that all it takes is to say someone is guilty and, depending on the person and the convenience at the moment, that's enough to convict.
But the whole story is one giant insinuation. It plays to the base. It also helps deflect from Trump's immigration deal which, while angering diehards on the anti-Immigration side, will likely be hard for everyone else to reject, if they actually care about immigrants. It keeps alive the 'he's guilty, now all we need is the evidence' movement that yearns to remove Trump from office.
The point of this is that the story is nothing news. It is, to coin the phrase, "Fake News.'" In that it is not news, but an attempt to make not news look like serious news. There is nothing newsworthy about it. This is what Presidents do. "Hey, I think we should do this." "No Mr. President, here is why." "OK, we won't."
I've spent many years regaling my boys with the Life of Dave, and they more or less humor me. As youngsters, or course, they ate it up. As they get older, the stories are replaced by stories of them and my wife and me as our own family makes its little mark on our narrative history.
One thing they love to hear, even now, is how different things were relative to the same things they enjoy today. That is, what was it like having the first VCR, or seeing Star Wars for the first time, or the first time I saw MTV? We live at an age where the generation gap has gone in different directions, and is more tech specific than cultural. Pastimes have merged together, and it's nothing for parents to play video games with their kids, or enjoy hobbies, where when I was growing up there existed a wide chasm between my parents' pastimes and my own.
So as they look at their PS4 or the latest video on YouTube, they often fish to see what it was like the first time I used a personal computer in high school (and old Apple II), or what it was like when I played old Atari Space Invaders.
One thing that emerged with almost fabled status was an old game I once owned from back in what I call the Great Fantasy Renaissance. Kicked off by the out-of-the-box success of Star Wars, suddenly everything was fantasy, sci-fi, or a combination thereof. Spaceships and lasers, swords and wizards, monsters and magic were everywhere, peaking in the early years of the 1980s. From movies to television to toy lines to games - you couldn't move that you didn't see something referencing the fantasy/scifi genre. And all of this was before the prepacked GenCon culture with fanboydom being a billion dollar on demand industry.
Out of that mix came a new type of game: the electronic game. Sometimes no more than little hand held football games, sometimes large and cumbersome devices, sometimes mixing board games with electronics, it was an early attempt at a much more creative expression than we eventually got (mostly 1st person shooters and sports video games nowadays).
The king of these, the creme de la creme, the mack daddy of the new electronic forms of entertainment was a board game called Dark Tower. So impressive was it that they actually got Orson Welles to deliver a memorable monologue for its introductory commercial:
I got it for my birthday in 1980, the year that it was in production. Everyone was blown away. Everywhere I went I was asked to bring 'the game.' Didn't matter who: football players, band members, cheerleaders, geeks, outcasts, class officers - everyone was enamored with it.
And it was fun. Ruthlessly unfair, it didn't matter what you did. The play was hilariously brutal. Basically it was just wondering who would get crushed with bad luck while who else would skip along to the Dark Tower and eventually win the game.
The production was first rate, as Milton Bradley was known for. The playing pieces, the art, but mostly the electronic tower were beyond quality for the day. With each move you waited to find out if doom or fortune was in store, if dragons struck or gold was found, if you were hit with plagues or got lost. Compared to today it seems quaint and simple. And yet in many ways, if you consider historical creativity an exponential thing, many modern entertainments fall far behind.
1980: Fantasy was everywhere
So I told my boys about this little gem. More than anything, it was the fact that I no longer had this that elevated it to legendary status. You see, MB did a bad thing when it stole the idea for the game from its designer. Lawsuits ensued, and the courts ruled against MB. That meant the game was pulled from production and never reissued. More than that, those electronic towers don't last forever. So the number of working, active games with all the pieces was so rare that on Ebay or Amazon it would take a good 350.00 to 600.00 or more to get one you hoped would work.
Out of dumb, blind luck, it was the one game of mine that didn't last. My parents kept every crazy game I had, each in almost in tiptop condition. Except Dark Tower. IIRC, one of the problems was that the tower, once opened, never fit in the box right. It was too big, and the packaging had to be torn up to get it out. Which is likely why not only my copy, but many others, never made it the distance.
So all I could do was tell them of this near mythical game from the days of yore. Until this last year when, through a series of events too long and convoluted to tell, I ended up getting my hands on one for what would have been about the price today if inflation from 1980 was calculated. Apart from the S&H, it would have been no different buying it in a store back in the day. I jumped at the chance. It is only missing a couple non-essential pieces. It is complete with everything, including the owner's manual and original box (save for a couple torn corners). And it works like a charm.
So that was the "Big" gift for the boys from me this Christmas. The problem was, I had built it up since they were born, could it live up to the hype? I mean, as they said, they had heard of this game their entire lives since they were too young to remember. Would it live up to their expectations? Could it live up to their expectations?
The quick answer: Yes. They loved it. My 17 year old declared it entirely awesome and one of the most enjoyable games he knows. Oh, it's not up to the more complex and involved board games of today. The graphics are pictures with light bulbs behind them. It's not of this age. In it's day it was plenty involved. They get that. But for a quick 'toss down a board and hit 'on' and play' game, they think it does't get much better.
What's more, they lament that the creative impulses of that age, which saw attempts to fuse electronics and traditional forms of entertainment, never really came to fruition. They admit to its simplicity, but like the original Star Wars or King Kong, if you imagine it on a scale of creative inflation, there are few games or similar pastimes out there today that hold a candle. Something I've noticed before.
Sometimes I think nostalgia and remembering the past get a bad rap. There's a sort of 'new is always better, get over the past' mentality. As if the new has to be good, and if you find fault in the new you're somehow wrong. Moreover, if you find value in the past there is something wrong, since the past can never be as good as the new. I can't speak for everything, but when it comes to a 1980 board game long out of production that in our home had more build up than the moon landings, it turns out the past isn't always so bad after all. Sometimes, it might just have something to say about the present.
PS. I realize that the game I got is on borrowed time. Who knows how often it was played? And like everyone who bought the game in 1980 knows, once it shuffles off its electronic coil, I will be left with a little collectors piece and nothing more. But a collector's piece that, in only a few games, more than made up for the memories then and now.
This time, a post-battle review. He nails Ms. Newman of Channel 4 for what she is. She is a Marxist inspired post-modern leftist. To that end, there is no truth, there's merely the assumption of my measure of righteousness, anyone who disagrees must be a stereotype. And it isn't just Ms. Newman. That's the biggest problem. Peterson also calls out the fact that Ms. Newman's tactics are all too common. While not unique to any time or place, her approach is pretty much the go-to approach in our millennial age; the post-Truth age where the point is to be affirmed in your awesomeness and contempt for non-conformers, rather than care a lick about getting to the truth.
As I listened to this, I thought of a glaring mistake I made at Patheos. Early on, I assumed commentators commented in good faith. Not sure why, since I've visited blogs for years. But I did assume this, I suppose because it was my blog and I thought I could direct the spirit of the comments. No. I was wrong. Some did in good faith. Many did not. The best Troll of the bunch incarnated the postmodern leftist millennial age and all its problems that we see with Ms. Newman.
Early on I missed that and tried to engage in the spirit of mature discourse. Which led to endless comments of nothing, strings of pointlessness that ended up chasing readers away (by the end, some told me exactly who it was that they dreaded seeing on a comments thread). The wag would use any tactic imaginable - deflection, inconsistency, arrogance, subtle insult, pointless rabbit chasing, insinuation, you name a method of obfuscation - to do nothing other than win, and feel intellectually superior. Any attempts to correct the situation? More accusations, name calling or insults.
Which is why his approach reminded me of Ms. Newman, and much of the postmodern, millennial approach to debate. There was no attempt to get to the point, discover the truth, find an answer, or discover a solution. There was no real desire to understand my point - something I missed for too long. The point was keeping the individual tripped up as long as possible to feel validated and superior. Truth, and reality were completely irrelevant.
The fact that mainline outlets are taking notice and making with the slick 'he's obviously evil, he's not liberal' headlines, is all I need to know to understand how dangerously on the edge we are. Dangerous because it's not just people who need validation on blogs, but actual jouranlism and even our very educational institutions that are in on the act. Here, the Chronicle of Higher Education takes on Peterson. It's more subtle than Ms. Newman, but the obvious suggestions and hints are there. Slate, of course, cuts right to the chase and in typical *Yawn* form, labels Peterson an Alt-Right hero. Alt-Right is quickly becoming 'excuse to root for the extermination of those who don't conform', rather than a descriptive label.
All of which reminded me of the Patheos Trolls, Ms. Newman, progressive millennials, and why we must stop fooling ourselves about compromising with a movement of tyranny, oppression, violence and wickedness resting on lies and calumny and rejection of Truth as its primary tactic. It's not just on Patheos or Channel 4. Increasingly, it is the millennial Left in a nutshell.
The Left has a new cinematic darling over which to gush: Call Me by Your Name. What's it about? It's about a 24 year old male grad student seducing a 17 year old boy.
Wait. Stop! What the hell? Yep, you guessed it. Just off of declaring adults seducing seventeen year olds to be as bad as the Nazis, we have the Left celebrating the same in movie form.
Is it hypocrisy of the highest order? No. Hypocrisy is only possible in a world of standards and truth claims. The modern Left makes no real attempt to suggest there are such things. As I learned a Patheos, there were plenty of people who were willing to suggest anything could be real, anything good, up to the point where systematic genocide to control the population might be the next big thing. What do we think all this MeToo rubbish is? Concern for women? Hell no. That would only be true among a movement with a set of values or standards. Women were just the convenient victims for the moment.
Don't think for a second you can pin them on this. They will, of course, deny anything and everything, including yesterday. Another Patheos favorite. If pushed they'll reach into their college educated hats and whip out some lame, vapid excuse for why what seemed wrong yesterday is praiseworthy today: Of course it would be wrong if you hopped on one foot and yodeled the Peruvian national anthem in Yiddish on the second Thursday of the fourth month with in 'R' in it during a buffalo stampede in a hail storm. But this is obviously different.
Again, the Left is a Black Hole of morality. It is a Void of unreality. It exists only to get its way on a day to day basis. It forgoes notions of ethics, truth, consistency, values, morality, decency, humanity, freedom, or anything. It seeks to get its way for the movement at all costs. Period.
Thus since the Sexual Revolution the basic morality was that where two consenting adults of legal age are, there is no moral taboo. That was eventually expanded to two or more consenting adults of legal age. Then Roy Moore came, and suddenly it was entirely convenient to act as if the previous 60 years didn't exist, and that worse than Hitler was an adult chasing after a seventeen year old for sex.
But Moore's character was destroyed and, more importantly, his political career derailed and a Democrat elected. So it's back to the latest moral truth du jour. Of course anything that promotes decadence, debauchery, sex, drugs or any level of base animal desire is cherished by the Left. The only way you get a nation built on freedom and democracy to sell out to leftist authoritarianism is to turn the population into a bunch of drugged up, sexed up idiots.
Plus it's homosexual. As we learned during the Bishop Robinson era, it's only wrong sexually if heterosexuals are involved. If a man leaves his wife for another woman, he is lower than dirt. If a man leaves his wife for another man, let the angels rejoice with great gladness. Many mainline denominations approved that message.
This is the movement that has found increasing tolerance and allegiance from a growing number of Christian leaders and apologists. Run fast, and run far.
That never made sense to me. I'd think if the Left wants the government intruding into our lives as much as it seems, then those on the Left would naturally consider our government to have been a paragon of perfection, goodness, purity and good will.
Or the Left really does think our government is, and always has been, the most wretched of all human governments, and therefore should work diligently to keep government out of as much of our lives as possible.
I often get the impression that those on the Left don't really think our government is the incarnation of Nazi Germany. They just push that narrative as a way to shake things up and cause dissension and divisions, which are always good for a revolutionary movement. That's the only thing that makes sense, because their actions make it clear they want the government involved in as much of our lives as possible.
Oh, and in the link, it's worth noting that those old timers who bemoaned seat belt laws as the beginning of trouble might not have been so stupid after all.
The transcript makes for more hilarious reading than when you actually hear the interview. John C Wright's little parlor game could easily be turned into a drinking game, whereby you take a chug every time she tries to shove into Peterson's mouth things he has not said. You'd be drunk on the floor in the first ten minutes.
Now the thing is, this is SOP among the press and has been for years. It's just that most non-leftists in recent years either become frazzled and end up saying something that could be twisted about, or otherwise are unable to rebuke the journalist's assault in a way that doesn't conform to the leftist narrative.
Peterson, on the other hand, was calm and collected, never losing his cool, and using actual data and appeals to evidence against her vapid and shallow leftist narratives. When even The Atlantic is taking notice of the obvious problem (though would that The Atlantic admit it isn't confined to the good Brit interviewer in question, or Fox News, or even internet Trolls at Patheos who often write a lot like Ms. Newman), you know something is amiss. It also shows that our modern problems relative to 'fake news' and social media are not confined to social media.
Bonus: The Atlantic even notices the most hilarious part, that Newman chastises Peterson for being a controversialist, when in fact that is what she spends the entire interview being herself.
It seems sketchy, and another case where government can do more damage than good. Hence the reluctance to put all of our eggs into the government basket when it comes to things like healthcare. I hope if the man in question has done right by being here legally that nothing comes back and hurts him. There is no joy in an innocent man harmed by the bureaucratic foibles of the government.
Nonetheless, I also notice that the man is quite white. One of the templates of the Left is that to not be Leftist is to be racist. So the whole immigration problem is driven by White Americans in Red States who hate immigrants because immigrants have dark skin.
Of course this ignores things like African Americans who oppose open borders, or legal immigrants who resent those who came here illegally and flaunted the laws they obeyed. It's a simplistic bumper sticker based on preemptive accusation and slander, but it's effective.
And yet, if Mark is correct, and even now Trumpsters and Christianists are rejoicing with great joy that an innocent man might be destroyed, doesn't that suggest they are at least not in it for the racism? Perhaps they are also against Polish people, too. When you assume sin and guilt in those who disagree with you, I suppose the sky is the limit.
For my part, showing me where the Trumpsters and Christianists are cheering would help, then I could see if they really are loving it because of racism, or anti-Polish sentiment, or something. As it stands, when you make a generic accusation against a vaguely defined group of people with no real evidence, it's doggedly difficult to show you are wrong.
Since the mid-90s, I have never seen the Democrats give in during something like a government shut down. Generally the government shuts down, Republicans are blamed, stories circulate telling of government workers starving and not being able to afford Christmas presents, Republicans cave, and life goes on.
Not this time. This time the Republicans didn't cave, didn't waver, didn't bow down and grovel in the dirt and apologize for not being Democrats. This time Trump came out in Scarface fashion and said, 'Say hello to my little friend!'. He threw it right back at them, blamed the Democrats, and said they were the ones willing to screw Americans and servicemen for the sake of illegal immigration. And the Democrats blinked.
Of course charges of racists and Nazis and evil people who want babies to starve flew about, as they always do. But something in the polling must have told the Democrats that the usual stuff isn't working. And if nothing else explains Trump's appeal to his supporters, it's that last line. The usual Leftist narrative that has proven so devastating to non-liberals has suddenly jumped the track.
I'm not happy that it took a person like Trump to do it, but I am happy to see it done.
I give ol'Russ grief for finally coming around to where many of us were back in our seminary days. He was clever enough to wait until he was more than just some schmuck student to state the obvious: that many in the Religious Right had become too political.
Nonetheless, right is right, and laborers in the vineyard at the eleventh hour an all. His strange sort of fealty to some conservative traditions while taking off the gloves and going after Trump, and also embracing many of the progressive interpretations of our history, has given him a voice where most Southern Baptists have never gone.
This is why he has found quite a following among many post-Conservative Christians, including those in the New Pro Life Movement who sound strangely liberal, except for being against abortion itself. To square that circle, they typically accept the pro-abortion rights template that abortion only exists because innocent women are forced to have abortions by evil, rapist men and Capitalism.
And what do they think about those who disagree with their political allegiance to the Left, yet oppose abortion? Easy. Those old time pro-lifers only care about babies before they are born - if then. Once they're born? Bah. They don't care for mothers or children or families or anything. They really don't care about abortion. They just use babies as human shields for their vile greed and racism and desire to increase human slaughter through war and death penalties and all that jazz. Classic pro-choice rhetoric 101.
So Russ sets the record straight. Well done. It's one of the travesties of our age to see so many millions who have given through blood, sweat, industry and tears to help children, women, families and the unborn besmirched and slandered by those who are trying to shove the square peg of the Gospel into the round hole of the political Left with all its manifold blasphemies and heresies, infanticide and tyranny.
Perhaps those who see Russ as kindred spirit in their march toward the progressive cliff will actually heed his words, even when not convenient.
The basic mantra of the emerging Alt-Feminist movement. See here. Note the term Sexual Terrorism. Expect to hear more of it. Women, of course, continue to be godlike in their moral and intellectual purity, totally honest, innocent, and devoid of any responsibility for their actions. Men are rapist thugs. That is all.
Now, where was all this terror and fear back when women said they were worried about men exploiting the Transgender bathroom laws? All I remember was silence - at best.
This isn't to downplay actual rape or sexual assault, or even boorish sexual behavior. It is to say it would be nice to hear women, especially in Hollywood, say they are sorry for playing up and celebrating the whole T&A culture so many embraced for the last few generations. Even a teensy bit of accountability goes a long way.
The reporter basis most of her questions and accusations on stereotypes, agendas, name calling and deflection from proof and evidence. One thing I learned at Patheos: You can tell a troll by the ones who, when presented with evidence, simply slink away rather than debate. The non-troll, when presented with evidence, will take it and further the debate (or, less likely, concede the point). The troll, of which my blog had no few, will simply walk away until another chance to troll.
In that respect, the reporter is more like a troll, albeit a journalistic one, trying desperately to avoid the very evidence she keeps insisting doesn't exist because it's devastating to her biases.
Mark declared that he would have no pity upon Steve Bannon. Stop. Right there was all you need to know. Anyone with a grain of Christian understanding could see the glaring problem. Even Hitler can be prayed for, and repentance hoped for in the case of Osama bin Ladin. Ours is a Faith thick with the mandate to forgive.
This is a Christian distinctive. Few other faiths or philosophies mandate forgiveness in such a way. A polite suggestion perhaps, but not a command. Hence the problem with Identity Politics, which rests heavily on fomenting resentment and vindictiveness over past and present wrongs. There is no room for forgiveness, reconciliation, mercy, pity. There is resentment and bitterness, hatred and contempt.
Christians who move about in that particular movement would do well to remember this ugly little fact.
Whether he connects the removed post with his recent inclinations I don't know. But Mark saw the clear and obvious affront to the Christian witness that he had posted and removed it. What's more, he has admitted why and asked forgiveness. It's up to Mr. Bannon to forgive, but we can certainly do the right and Christian thing and give credit where it is due.
So my wife was given a promotion. Yay! It was submitted last August. We couldn't wait. One step away from a VP. And our enthusiasm wasn't just because of the title of course, but the raise. I held off and waited to readjust our budget. How much would it be? I didn't want to get my hopes up, so in my typical manner, I assumed low. Nonetheless, I waited to see before making any big plans for the future.
So we waited. And waited. And waited. September came and went. Then October. November and Thanksgiving. Then it was my birthday, her birthday, and the Christmas season! Still no final word on the promotion.
Then came the New Year. Nothing. And we waited. Pretty soon it was going to be the annual review, when the employees are notified every year that they would not be getting much of a cost of living increase.
And then she was in her annual review. And guess what. She was given a cost of living increase! Oh, and her promotion. See what they did? They held out until the annual review, gave her a few pennies more than everyone else for the less-than-cost of living increase, and dumped a boat load of extra responsibility on her, more or less for free. Brilliant. And all of this only a day after her company's CEO was on FOX News gushing over the company's record breaking year.
Again, if this becomes the norm, then kiss the GOP, Republicans, their tax cut, and any hope to resuscitate any fealty to Capitalism goodbye. I know a lot of companies are running around throwing out bonuses here and there. Those are nice. But they're pittance. The proof will be in the long term pudding.
If the market continues to produce crappy products, crappy services, dwindling quantities and all the while CEOS and upper management screw over their employees while pocketing exponentially growing amounts of wealth for themselves, expect there to be a backlash. Not just in the ballot box, but in society's way of thinking. Why do so many youngsters have such a low opinion of Capitalism? I give you exhibits A through T.
Capitalism is merely a means to an end. If the end becomes one of a growing number of people being shellacked for the sake of a dwindling few, then assume its days are numbered. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it's the way of things. If Capitalism fails to deliver on its promises, then it will go the way of any other human idea or movement in history. It's time will come to an end.
Over at Steel Magnificat, a liberal feminist Catholic blog at Patheos, we're reminded that what pro-abortion forces say is likely true: abortion is often opposed because of anything but care for life and the unborn. Mostly a bunch of sexist and misogynists hating on pure and beautifully innocent women.
I'm just stunned at the growing attacks on the Catholic moral tradition by Catholics in the age of Pope Francis. It's as if he opened the floodgates. Whether he meant to or not, I don't know. But clearly many Catholics see the age of Francis as the time in which we can finally throw off the shackles of Christianity's first 2000 years and join with the only magisterium that matters: the modern Left and its dogmas.
For a tradition that prides itself on withstanding the winds and waves of the latest fads, I'm just not seeing the evidence
Who knows the heart of a man? Is it an act? Is it real? It's not for me to say. Given that his legislation, so far, has pointed to his concern for religious liberty and protecting the unborn, I'll at least give him the benefit of the doubt.
Hunker down. Take off the gloves. Put on the brass knuckles. Fight! Demand fealty to the narratives and politics of the political Left. Make its approaches to problems and the Gospel one and the same. Denounce notions of redemption and the possibility of repentance. Insist that past sins forever define you. Who said Catholicism is about forgiveness and mercy! Poopoo this silly notion of salvation apart from the progressive movement.
And go farther than anyone in reminding us that the Catholic Church alone institutionalized a method of torture and violence as a means to achieve the will of Christ. That keyboards and twitter are used rather than swords and racks is of little consequence.
For the One who said love your neighbor also said something about raca, fool, forgiveness and judging others. And that doesn't mean just showing love and mercy to those whose sins align with the political Left.
Sometimes I think the New Pro Life Movement forgets that Jesus was about more than the physical bodies of homo sapiens, but was for the overall being: heart, soul, mind and strength. Hence the harsh condemnations, not just of those who fail to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, but who refuse to forgive, who hurl judgmentalism at others, and who toss about raca and fool as a matter of course (something we can all do well to remember).
But I say to you that every one who is angry with his
brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be
liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the
hell of fire.
BTW, this is not to say I believe someone showing up at a rally suddenly makes everything else right. I just subscribe to what Mark used to say about those on the Left, though they advocate the manifold evils and terrors of the Left, when they would do something good. You give credit where it is due. I believe Mark was right. That Mark no longer abides by what he once said is up to Mark. Hypocrisy being another common target of Jesus' teachings.
As for me? I hope Trump does well. Just as Mark and others insisted we always should, c. 2008. I wish Trump the best. I hope he changes in those areas he needs to change and becomes better than his critics. I don't hope he is diagnosed with Cancer or Alzheimer's. I've seen what those do and wouldn't wish it on anyone, even if I insist it's not what I'm doing. I will pray for him, as Mark insisted we should, frequently citing Paul's admonitions in Romans and his letter to Timothy, c. 2008:
Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all
who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all
godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God
our Savior
That's what I do. And if Trump does well, I give credit where it is due. If he doesn't, or continues acting like a child, I'll certainly not praise him for it. But I won't reduce the Christian Faith to no more than a billboard for the social and economic policies of the Democratic party. My righteousness is not based on who I vote for or what policies I support, but what I do, how I treat others, and whether I love my neighbor as myself.
Oh, and I'll pray for Mark, Simcha, and all the others trying to shoehorn the Faith into the latest worldly assault on the reality revealed by Christ. It's not the first time the Faithful have been swayed away from the anchor of the Faith by the latest royal Child Catcher. It won't be the last, yet there but for the grace of God go I.
The HHS expands to ensure religious liberty. This is a far cry from Obama - adored and celebrated by the New Prolife Catholic movement - who made HHS synonymous with naked assault on religious liberty and, by extension, all liberty and freedom.
It was Obama who shrewdly edged America toward a tyranny, whereby people agreed that religious liberty and freedom of conscience were poor substitutes for free contraception and abortion rights. Along with the Obama eras other assaults on religious liberty and freedom of conscience, such as demanding fealty to the gay marriage altar or facing jail time for opposing non-heterosexual marriage, as well as threatening our children's education funding if his appraisal of Transgender morality is rejected.
This is actually like saying religious liberty is important, and we're going to work to protect it. Again, in stark contrast to the NPLC's friends on the Left who, through the media, turned protecting religious liberty into being synonymous with worshiping Hitler.
So Trump released his big Fake News awards. Stupid really. Just as stupid is the hysteria surrounding Trump's war with the media. Far more disturbing is the media's naked war of aggression against Trump, and all who threaten the Marxist Left. When the news stops being news and becomes propaganda, it ceases being that bulwark of Democracy and freedom.
Nonetheless, we have a media devoted to advancing a particular movement - the Left - against a president willing to don brass knuckles and fight back. This leads the usual suspects to act incensed and outraged at the fact that a president ruthlessly and relentlessly attacked by press fights back.
Donald McClarey, in his usual way, reminds us that presidents pushing back against dissenters in the press is nothing new. Not a couple icons of liberalism were known to wave a threatening finger at the old news media.
I would add that when Obama went after FOX News in the early days of his administration, the news media did push back. Even CNN, IIRC, reminded the president to stay out of the press's business. It was only after the press realized that Obama was a miserably ineffective president that such overreach on Obama's part would not just be ignored, but would be supported across the hallowed halls of journalism.
This is not a Left/Right thing. Nor is it a political thing. But it's an important reminder:
"18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it
to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely,
his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have
been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did
not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their
thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they
became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images
resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts
to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because
they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the
creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable
passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men
likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion
for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their
own persons the due penalty for their error.28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God
gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with
all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder,
strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God,
insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God’s decree that
those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve
those who practice them." Romans 1:18-32
Note that last line. The last part of it. They approve those who practice them. There was a time when Christians, certainly the Christians I first knew, lived seriously the warning God gave Ezekiel. If God says to the wicked 'you shall surely die', and Ezekiel does not speak to warn the wicked to turn from his way, that wicked man shall die in his sins, but his blood will be required at Ezekiel's hand.
In other words, if we who have been given much (adoption by the Living God through belief in the Gospel of His Son Jesus), sit on our butts and don't warn the world of its folly, then God will require their blood from us. Or blood in some spiritual, eschatological manner.
Sometimes I get the impression that there are more than we think within the Church, and the Christian Faith in general, who have jettisoned the basics of all the Church has ever taught. It's like we're worried about being loved by the world, embraced by the world, accepted by the world, or not made fun of by the world, but not so much about what the Scriptures have taught through the ages.
Think on that. Again, it's not a Right/Left thing, though despite the insistence of LGBT activists, it does touch on a particular sin now embraced and advocated by the Left. It can apply to other issues as well. Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them. It's worth remembering. It's also worth remembering that Paul's subsequent admonition against judging does not negate the importance he felt in laying out this moral appraisal of fallen humanity in the first place.
Here, you can feel the rage in CNN's story, almost mocking the doctor in the first lines. Leftist lackey Stephen Colbert, responsible for suggesting to the world that fealty to the sex, drugs and abortion culture is in no way incompatible with devout Catholic living, invokes the VRWC* principle.
It's what Trump supporters see that is the problem. I do fear that conservatives might sell out some of their own principles in order to support Trump against the clear and obvious enemy. Nonetheless, enemy of freedom, liberty, faith and justice it remains.
As for me? I'm glad the president is healthy. I don't wish ill health on anyone. And as one who lived through the hell pit of Alzheimer's disease with my Dad, I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. That so many in the press, leftist political world, and even Christian liberals clearly pine for the day when Trump is declared early onset, to me is a grave and intrinsic evil right there.
And other Christians who don't follow him in bowing before the idol of the Leftist juggernaut. Yep. Here. He does it by parroting the old gay marriage meme that since divorce and reality TV (which many conservatives also oppose), therefore hypocrisy! Because Christians still live in this country, therefore their opinions are null and void unless they conform to the very forces that brought us no fault divorce and sleeping with the neighbor shows in the first place.
He even adds a little extra jab by declaring that those who are concerned about such silly things as the right to not be liberal are not even Christians. Something he once said only rad trads and fundamentalists do.
Mark, who once joined the chorus of outrage at this naked assault on religious liberty and freedom of conscience, continues his march up to the head of the progressive class.
If you ever wondered how Christians in history could so blindly fall into line behind the clear and obvious threats to the well being of humanity in general, much less the faithful of the Gospel, you need look no farther than Mark.
Like Rolfe from The Sound of Music, Mark now brandishes his verbal Luger at anyone who dares remind him of the manifold heresies, blasphemies, evils and sins that he once opposed but now aligns with. And like young Rolfe, Mark is just the type of person such movements of tyranny and oppression yearn for.
In fairness to Mark, much of the Church leadership also appears to be going that direction. And sad to say, it won't be the first time in the two thousand year history of the Church that its best and brightest, or at least most powerful, found it advantageous to sit down at the banquet feast and eat the King's food since the Temple appeared to be a thing of the past.
You might be missing the point. Here, Mark Shea makes a very simple case: Christianists are people who think they are Christian but aren't because they aren't as holy and righteous as Mark Shea, who apparently is never on the wrong side of history. Brought to you on a day celebrating a man who had infinitely more mercy on those who were wrong than Mark Shea does. Another example of celebrating a man while ignoring his message.
Would be to actually do what he said, instead of hoisting him up like a banner on your car's antennae and then going on with business as usual. Or worse, doing the polar opposite of what the man, largely portrayed as the single best person in the last thousand years of Western civilization, actually hoped we would do.
Jeffery Lord is spot on. That the modern Left, which has replaced Jesus and God with MLK, so flagrantly ignores and mocks the memory of what Martin Luther King stood for is merely one more brick in the Left's wall of hypocrisy and duplicity.
So as the country honors the last acceptable religious holiday our nation can celebrate, try listening to what he said about a post-racial society, and then live it.
"Mess is the president's diplomatic term for what U.S. intervention left behind in Libya; privately, he calls it a 'shit show.'"
Now, this is making its rounds in an attempt to show something about the press's or liberals' hypocrisy. But here's the thing. The Left doesn't care what you say, as long as you say it about the Christian West or America. Or any opponents of liberalism. So it's not like pundits and activists of the Left will see a problem with this, for it's being applied to a mess that either America or Europe ostensibly created, whereas Trump was speaking as if there might be problems with the countries just because - not because of America or the West.
That it wraps its clear and obvious agenda driven biases and double standards up in faux values and principles is the problem. The Left pushed F-Bombs and vulgarities of every sort into our living rooms, praises foul mouthed comedians at Democratic fundraisers and high fived people who call female politicians the C-Word. During the transgender controversy, women expressing concern were called homophobic bigots - when things were polite. When Biden dropped the F-Bomb, liberals and journalists gushed with pride and approval.
This is a movement. It cares about advancing the movement. For reasons not clear (or perhaps too clear), it doesn't really say what it's trying to achieve. Rather, it looks for whatever morality or truth that will help its cause at the moment. It's greatest tactical achievement has been to convince people - including not a few Christians - that truth is a 'here today, gone later today' proposition. That wherever and whatever it beneficial to the Left itself is the only real moral or principle worth claiming.
Not a bad achievement I'll grant you. Deadly for the future of any society, but on a tactical level, not bad. Which is why those who see clearly the evils of this brand of amorality would do good not to emulate it.
And the Left as Nurse Ratched and the Institution.
Yep. One of the great modern hypocrisies is that the Left, which spent decades and generations mocking and tearing down the very notion of common decency, now invokes the idea of common decency to attack Trump.
If people haven't figured it out, most who support Trump are merely happy that someone is using all the dirty tricks, lies and cheats that the Left has used on them. Just as the Left exploded at Rush Limbaugh for doing what SNL, HBO, the Daytime Talk Shows, Academics and Hollywood in general had done to traditional, conservative America for decades. So Trump, in the presidency, is simply attacking the Left with everything that the broad, institutionalized Left, has used for years.
It might not be pretty. Trump, being Trump, will do and say things that anyone with a common sense of decency should find offensive. But here's the thing. Only those conservatives who have clung to the idea of common decency have a right to be offended. Those on the Left who have essentially pissed all over the notion can't simply turn on a dime and insist we have to have decency because, all of a sudden, it's convenient.
Charlton Mcllwain, professor and dean at NYU, represents the Yes vote. Yes, it was a racist comment. Drew Liquerman, of Republicans Overseas with apparently no other qualifying credentials*, represents the No vote. No, it was not racist.
My verdict (at last based only the two arguments): The Liquerman and the No Vote wins.
Why? Because he appeals to the substance and context of what Trump was saying, and matching it with his statements and concerns about the immigration system. Whether you agree with Trump's notion of only allowing quality immigrants in our nation, such a view is clearly not racist. Saying I'll take qualified candidates from anywhere is no more racist than banning travelers from countries that happen to be Muslim, but allowing people from other Muslim countries the right to travel here.
Mcllwain's Yes vote, on the other hand, invokes the liberal narrative that the only reason Europe decided to exist was to be racist. That everything in Europe is racism. That - and I've loved this for years - every reference to blackness or darkness as an evil or dangerous or negative is only a giant racist plot to be racist because racists. Or that any nod toward whiteness as pure or good is equally subtle racist propaganda hoisted on the world by evil, racist, evil Europeans and Americans, who are racist.
That other cultures often associate darkness or blackness with night, and that people across the cultural spectrum through the ages, see white as pure (kinda a Bible thing ((Isaiah 1.18, etc.), before there was Europe) seems lost on people who insist Europeans invoked the ideas just to be racist, because racists.
If you base your argument on something that is demonstrably false, and requires a tremendous amount of Orwellian doublethink in order to believe, there's a strong chance I won't give you the vote for best argument.
*An old trick during the heyday of the Daytime Talk Shows was to stuff the panel discussions. For the liberal side you would have scholars and professors and experts with no end of degrees, awards, positions of prestige and influence. For the conservative side, it never failed that they would find some variation on 'Billy Bubba of Bubba's college of Taxidermy'. Not s
This might be mean, but when I saw Michael Wolff defending his bombshell book:
I immediately thought of this:
He just seems too - zealous; too excitable in his portrayal of the madness of Donald Trump. It's like he desperately wants his book to be the one that brought down the president, ala Woodward/Bernstein, and hopes it happens before we ask too many questions.
To me, he's already received one hit to the credibility when he said he met with Trump for three hours. Three hours is a decent enough time for an author or crack journalist. But Trump fired back and insisted he did no such thing. Wolff then clarified that he had met with Trump for around three hours 'over the course of the campaign.'
Now, that's a little different than the idea that he was in a room with Trump for three hours for an interview. I could "meet with" a VP of a corporation for three hours over the course of many months, and it would amount to no more than routine snippets of 'odd weather we're having, how is the family?, how's that diet going?, how many oranges have you eaten in life?'. It takes more than what Wolff said to suggest you have inside info on the president.
If Trump is guilty of something illegal, or has a serious (and verified through proper medical channels) issues, then I except him to be removed from office. It isn't as if Trump doesn't do his best to add credibility to the book when otherwise it might have gone away:
Uh huh. Like, smart.
But the Left is pushing our nation to one of lawlessness and post-due process vendettas against any and all who resist its dictates, and using the idea that Trump is so bad, it doesn't matter what is done to oppose him. I'm not ready for our nation to become another leftist revolutionary cesspool just so liberals don't have their feelings hurt from having lost another election.
