Why bother with this? In order to answer that, consider where Western Civilization is going. It is getting more and more secular, is it not? If so, then what is driving it? Isn't it some sort of spiritual force that is causing people to fall away from Christianity, and to embrace this secular humanism?
Now consider this-- the denial of hell. Clearly, this is not Christian. It appears to come from the Pope himself. Yet, the Vatican denies it.
Furthermore consider this as well --- the bishop ( later archbishop) Fulton Sheen prophesies the coming of the Anti-Christ. The quote therein seems to describe the current Pope, who denies hell, and then, through his spokesmen, denies the denial. In the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ says that Satan is the Father of all Lies. Somebody isn't telling the truth with respect to the subject of Hell.
There has been discussion of Revelation on this blog. Believe what you will, but I believe that something is definitely up in our culture. But that isn't news, now, is it?
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, March 31, 2018
Does the Pope Believe in Hell?
Does the Pope Believe in Hell?: By Patrick J. Buchanan
"Pope Declares No Hell?"
So ran the riveting headline on the Drudge Report of Holy Thursday.
Drudge quoted this exchange, published in La Repubblica, between Pope Francis and his atheist friend, journalist Eugenio Scalfari.
Scalfari: "What about bad souls? Where are they punished?"
Bad souls "are not punished," Pope Francis is quoted, "those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."
On the first Holy Thursday, Judas betrayed Christ.Read more on Buchanan.Org...
comment:
The article continues with the Vatican statement that claims to deny this as a true quote. The denial is worse than the quote itself because of an attempt to hide the truth, if the quote is truthful. The dude said it or he didn't say it.
An "oops" won't do, as Buchanan points out.
"Pope Declares No Hell?"
So ran the riveting headline on the Drudge Report of Holy Thursday.
Drudge quoted this exchange, published in La Repubblica, between Pope Francis and his atheist friend, journalist Eugenio Scalfari.
Scalfari: "What about bad souls? Where are they punished?"
Bad souls "are not punished," Pope Francis is quoted, "those who do not repent and cannot therefore be forgiven disappear. There is no hell, there is the disappearance of sinful souls."
On the first Holy Thursday, Judas betrayed Christ.Read more on Buchanan.Org...
comment:
The article continues with the Vatican statement that claims to deny this as a true quote. The denial is worse than the quote itself because of an attempt to hide the truth, if the quote is truthful. The dude said it or he didn't say it.
An "oops" won't do, as Buchanan points out.
Friday, March 30, 2018
On management
The earlier repost dealt with the subject of Anger Management. It was also a
joke. Perhaps as a way to return to seriousness, which is always a hazard, because
seriousness leads to somewhere, but that somewhere may be nowhere. It's nowhere
if you are lost. Which leads to navigation, another form of management--- or so
I think.
Well, let's try not to get lost. To stay on course, so to speak, one needs to be
aware of time management. How to spend one's time will definitely determine how
one's life goes. You may be what you think, but what you do is the outward
manifestation of your thoughts.
Now what is it that Suze Orman said? Be careful what you think, because what you think, you may do. Be careful what you do, because what you do determines your destiny.
Note how it all starts with one's thoughts. Marcus Aurelius said something like
that: Our lives are what our thoughts make it. Thus, it all starts upstairs.
By the way, did you ever read "Four Witnesses"? It was about the early Christian
church. One of the witnesses tried to appeal to Marcus Aurelius with respect to
the Christians, who were being persecuted. History refers to Marcus Aurelius as
one of the "Five Good Emperors" of Rome. But even during this period, the Christians
were persecuted. Actually, one of the witnesses was condemned to death in the
arena, as entertainment for the people of Rome--- during this time. Think of
the Christians being fed to the lions right there. So, it was still ongoing during
the time of the last good emperor--- Marcus Aurelius.
Today is Good Friday, so I don't want to forget one of the most, if not THE most
important days of the Christian calendar. It's that time management thing. One
gets absorbed into other matters, and one forgets.
Why does one believe or not believe, then?
Do you believe that you are nothing more than the molecules that make up your body?
Or do you believe that you are something more than that?
You can certainly divide up your thoughts into the temporal, which is the things
of this life, and the hereafter. Talking about time management, there you go.
If you believe that there is nothing after life on this Earth, then what are the
consequences of that belief? Is it not that life on this Earth is all there is,
and death is to be avoided at all costs? Because once you die, that is it.
Once confronted with death, what do you do about it? Beg for mercy? What price
do you pay for continuing this life? Anything, just so you don't die, because
once you die, and you believe that that is all there is, then it is over?
Or do you believe that death is the end of all things, and nothing happens
afterward? It may determine what you do about death-- to fear or not fear it.
If fear is so, then how can you have anything that overrides your own life and
its continuance? Nothing would be worth giving it up because your life is the
highest possible value, is it not?
If there is nothing more, then why would Jesus allow himself to be crucified? It
seems such a useless gesture. After all, Jesus could have saved himself by just
denying being the Messiah. Nobody would have had a reason to want him dead if he
saved his own life. But Jesus didn't do that.
Whatever you think of that, you have to say it is remarkable.
Who is lost then? Those who think that this life is all there is, or is it
those who believe that Jesus' sacrifice meant something?
Because that is what determines your destiny-- no matter what you believe.
As for myself, I always believed that there was something more. Lately, I have
come to believe it a bit stronger because of the sacrifices of others who
believed it so much, that they gave it all up for His sake. It would have been
easier for the martyrs not to take such a path. The easier path is not necessarily the
better path, though. Indeed, it may be the worse. The better things have to be
earned.
It is a better way because if you have to give it up for something, why not let it be
something more than the continuance of this life on Earth. Could there not be a
better bargain than that? Especially if you believe that there is "something more".
I Feel Pretty ( repost )
Updated,
3.30.18 :
Any time things get a bit too serious, it may be time for a joke. Oh, what the hell. A joke is good any old time.
9.16.13:
Note:
I went to the doctor today, and she asked "do you feel angry?" I said yes, a little. She asked me what I did about it. I told her usually I keep it in, but when I really get mad, I start yelling. So, she said "don't get mad, find a better way to handle it." So, I've been thinking about that all day today. Finally, I resolved to laugh it all off. Humor works. Here's a video repost of a scene in Anger Management.
I don't think I try to sing this song in a traffic jam, though. This is Texas, you know.
Uploaded by adamsandlerfan3 on Jul 5, 2008
A funny film, but there were one too many scenes. The last scene in the movie could have been taken out. It wasn't a bad scene, but it may have been slightly better if it wasn't in there. Kinda like overkill.
Note: the clip below ain't that scene. But you probably already knew that.
3.30.18 :
Any time things get a bit too serious, it may be time for a joke. Oh, what the hell. A joke is good any old time.
9.16.13:
Note:
I went to the doctor today, and she asked "do you feel angry?" I said yes, a little. She asked me what I did about it. I told her usually I keep it in, but when I really get mad, I start yelling. So, she said "don't get mad, find a better way to handle it." So, I've been thinking about that all day today. Finally, I resolved to laugh it all off. Humor works. Here's a video repost of a scene in Anger Management.
I don't think I try to sing this song in a traffic jam, though. This is Texas, you know.
Uploaded by adamsandlerfan3 on Jul 5, 2008
A funny film, but there were one too many scenes. The last scene in the movie could have been taken out. It wasn't a bad scene, but it may have been slightly better if it wasn't in there. Kinda like overkill.
Note: the clip below ain't that scene. But you probably already knew that.
Mueller's last stand?
Maybe he is like Custer in the movie "Little Big Man". Surrounded by Injuns, he orders an attack, but an attack is impossible. His men have been wiped out.
The movie paints Custer as an obsessively vain man, who is also a bit nuts. Fits Mueller to a tee.
The movie paints Custer as an obsessively vain man, who is also a bit nuts. Fits Mueller to a tee.
Dick Morris: Is This Finally the End of Mueller? https://t.co/fFXLcr39q5— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 30, 2018
Thursday, March 29, 2018
Tech Experts Say DNC Emails Were NOT Hacked, But Leaked – Lunch Alert!
Originally posted 8.29.17, updated
3.29.18:
Once again, it looks like this discredited story is being recycled. Mueller wants to use this to press forward with his phony and absurd "investigation".
11.4.17:
So, Donna Brazile feared for her life because of the Seth Rich murder. But we are still talking about "possible" Russian collusion in the 2016 election, and no crime has been identified in connection with that allegation. Not even after a year out from said election.
Beam me up, Scotty!
the original post follows:
Tech Experts Say DNC Emails Were NOT Hacked, But Leaked – Lunch Alert!
comment:
What did I tell you long ago? Take this a bit further, and you may get a reason for the murder of Seth Rich. Will anybody in the government look into this? I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.
3.29.18:
Once again, it looks like this discredited story is being recycled. Mueller wants to use this to press forward with his phony and absurd "investigation".
11.4.17:
So, Donna Brazile feared for her life because of the Seth Rich murder. But we are still talking about "possible" Russian collusion in the 2016 election, and no crime has been identified in connection with that allegation. Not even after a year out from said election.
Beam me up, Scotty!
the original post follows:
Tech Experts Say DNC Emails Were NOT Hacked, But Leaked – Lunch Alert!
comment:
What did I tell you long ago? Take this a bit further, and you may get a reason for the murder of Seth Rich. Will anybody in the government look into this? I wouldn't hold your breath waiting.
Rusty Staub, dead at 73
This hasn't been a sports blog, but I could write a bit about sports. When I was a kid, I used to love baseball. Both to play it, and to watch it on TV.
Of course, I was an Astros fan, being almost a native Houstonian. ( not native?) The family moved to Houston when I was real little. I was born "in the valley". Rio Grande valley, that is.
That was even before Houston had a major league team. Major league baseball came to Houston in the 1962 season, and they played in a smallish park called "Colt Stadium". That's because the Astros didn't become the Astros until 1965, the same year the Astrodome opened. In 1962, they were called the Colt .45s. Most people just called them the Colts for the first few years.
Dad would take us to games. We'd sit in the center field bleachers, and I remember the mosquitoes.
We didn't ever go to day games, but there were not many day games after the news that people passed out because of the intense heat of the city.
Now for the Rusty Staub story. Well, us little kiddies never met Rusty, but we sat in the bleachers cheering for him. We tried to get his attention by making a lot of noise. Like yelling"Hey Rusty!". One time, he turned around. I don't remember if he waved or not. Maybe he thought we were all nuts or something.
Rusty went on to have a good career. May he RIP, doggone it.
BTW, baseball season was set to start today...
Of course, I was an Astros fan, being almost a native Houstonian. ( not native?) The family moved to Houston when I was real little. I was born "in the valley". Rio Grande valley, that is.
That was even before Houston had a major league team. Major league baseball came to Houston in the 1962 season, and they played in a smallish park called "Colt Stadium". That's because the Astros didn't become the Astros until 1965, the same year the Astrodome opened. In 1962, they were called the Colt .45s. Most people just called them the Colts for the first few years.
Dad would take us to games. We'd sit in the center field bleachers, and I remember the mosquitoes.
We didn't ever go to day games, but there were not many day games after the news that people passed out because of the intense heat of the city.
Now for the Rusty Staub story. Well, us little kiddies never met Rusty, but we sat in the bleachers cheering for him. We tried to get his attention by making a lot of noise. Like yelling"Hey Rusty!". One time, he turned around. I don't remember if he waved or not. Maybe he thought we were all nuts or something.
Rusty went on to have a good career. May he RIP, doggone it.
BTW, baseball season was set to start today...
BFR rocket
It's filler material, I know. Not exactly news. Musk announced it back in the fall. Now, it is spring. Nope, not news.
But, I have some thoughts on it.
My understanding of the rocket may be inaccurate, so my apologies in advance.
It looks like a 2 stage rocket, with the first stage returning to base. The second stage is supposedly reusable as well as the first stage. Landing the first stage appears to be a proven technology now.
Musk hasn't tried landing the second stage yet, so this is new. It hasn't been demonstrated, but the Space Shuttle ( and others ) proves that it could be done. Big difference though is in how he proposes to do it. He wants to land vertically, as opposed to landing like a plane. Perhaps this idea from the sixties may be feasible way to do it?
The Russians land their capsules, so they have done something similar, but it is not a powered landing.
Musk wants to do this in the next five years, but his timetables are not always kept. Plus, he wants to put all his marbles in on the BFR concept. Seems like a risk to me.
My guess is that his concept could work for large rockets, but sending a hundred people at a time to another planet seems like something far-fetched at this time. He could build a cargo ship with this technology, and the second stage would not have to be reusable. He could build a tanker for refueling, and try to reuse it. He could afford to lose several of these as practice for landings. But the landing technology would have to be well proven before he could put people on board.
Suborbital flights with passengers might be another way to test the tech before graduating to orbital reentry procedures.
There's an opportunity to do a lot of testing, but a five year window is pretty tight.
Just saying.
But, I have some thoughts on it.
My understanding of the rocket may be inaccurate, so my apologies in advance.
It looks like a 2 stage rocket, with the first stage returning to base. The second stage is supposedly reusable as well as the first stage. Landing the first stage appears to be a proven technology now.
Musk hasn't tried landing the second stage yet, so this is new. It hasn't been demonstrated, but the Space Shuttle ( and others ) proves that it could be done. Big difference though is in how he proposes to do it. He wants to land vertically, as opposed to landing like a plane. Perhaps this idea from the sixties may be feasible way to do it?
The Russians land their capsules, so they have done something similar, but it is not a powered landing.
Musk wants to do this in the next five years, but his timetables are not always kept. Plus, he wants to put all his marbles in on the BFR concept. Seems like a risk to me.
My guess is that his concept could work for large rockets, but sending a hundred people at a time to another planet seems like something far-fetched at this time. He could build a cargo ship with this technology, and the second stage would not have to be reusable. He could build a tanker for refueling, and try to reuse it. He could afford to lose several of these as practice for landings. But the landing technology would have to be well proven before he could put people on board.
Suborbital flights with passengers might be another way to test the tech before graduating to orbital reentry procedures.
There's an opportunity to do a lot of testing, but a five year window is pretty tight.
Just saying.
AGW discussion 108
Looks like the NOAA is cooking the numbers in order to show global warming.
Stunning, or shocking, the headline says. ( But it doesn't surprise me. )
Previous discussions on this site should be enough to question the premises that increasing the concentration of any kind of gas is not likely to produce much of a change in the global temperatures.
It's the oceans that store the sun's energy and thus warm the planet. An atmosphere will enable the oceans to exist, but they cannot store energy for long enough to make a difference.
If you say otherwise, then you have to believe that a few parts per million will have an out of the proportion type effect. As for me, I find that almost an absurd proposition.
But then again, people will believe what they will believe.
Stunning, or shocking, the headline says. ( But it doesn't surprise me. )
Previous discussions on this site should be enough to question the premises that increasing the concentration of any kind of gas is not likely to produce much of a change in the global temperatures.
It's the oceans that store the sun's energy and thus warm the planet. An atmosphere will enable the oceans to exist, but they cannot store energy for long enough to make a difference.
If you say otherwise, then you have to believe that a few parts per million will have an out of the proportion type effect. As for me, I find that almost an absurd proposition.
But then again, people will believe what they will believe.
Wednesday, March 28, 2018
Gladiator ( film )
A bit of a surprise here. The Wikipedia article says that the Gladiator character was actually loosely based upon a real general, who had Emperor Marcus Aurelius' confidence. He was even offered the job to be his successor by Marcus Aurelius, before that Emperor died from the plague in 180 AD.
Interesting, as it might have altered history if a competent Emperor had been at the helm at that time. However, this general lived only a short time longer than Commodus, who was Aurelius' son.
But there still was a lot of artistic license in the movie. It isn't exactly historical, but comes a bit closer than I thought.
Come to think of it, I saw a video on YouTube, which shows yet another angle to this story. Perhaps this version linked here isn't correct either.
Update:
Yes, both stories are correct. The latter incident is explained here.
Interesting, as it might have altered history if a competent Emperor had been at the helm at that time. However, this general lived only a short time longer than Commodus, who was Aurelius' son.
But there still was a lot of artistic license in the movie. It isn't exactly historical, but comes a bit closer than I thought.
Come to think of it, I saw a video on YouTube, which shows yet another angle to this story. Perhaps this version linked here isn't correct either.
Update:
Yes, both stories are correct. The latter incident is explained here.
Cheap, abundant, clean energy is environmentalists' worst nightmare.
More worried about overpopulation, article says.
comment:
It is never about what they say it is about. It is not about overpopulation, either. It is about white man's overpopulation.
Nuclear energy is fine, just as long as nobody white does it.
comment:
It is never about what they say it is about. It is not about overpopulation, either. It is about white man's overpopulation.
Nuclear energy is fine, just as long as nobody white does it.
Alice In Chains Rooster (Lyrics) Repost
Originally posted on 7.7.14 updated on,
3.28.18:
Does the Rooster live? Bwah, hah, hah!
6.29.17, 18:30 :
Nothing changed! Still the same around these parts.
NOTE:
As I wrote in the previous post, this blog is unique. If I am the only one doing something, I am perfectly okay with that. In other words, I DON'T NEED YOUR APPROVAL. Yes, that is "flaming". I did that to emphasize that I DO NOT FOLLOW THE CROWD. You can follow me if you wish. But don't expect to be entertained. If I am the last American standing when this entertainment-obsessed non-serious country implodes, I will be okay with that, too. I now know what the it was about this song.
The original post follows...
Something about this song. Don't know what it is, but there's something there. A feeling, perhaps.
3.28.18:
Does the Rooster live? Bwah, hah, hah!
6.29.17, 18:30 :
Nothing changed! Still the same around these parts.
NOTE:
As I wrote in the previous post, this blog is unique. If I am the only one doing something, I am perfectly okay with that. In other words, I DON'T NEED YOUR APPROVAL. Yes, that is "flaming". I did that to emphasize that I DO NOT FOLLOW THE CROWD. You can follow me if you wish. But don't expect to be entertained. If I am the last American standing when this entertainment-obsessed non-serious country implodes, I will be okay with that, too. I now know what the it was about this song.
The original post follows...
Something about this song. Don't know what it is, but there's something there. A feeling, perhaps.
Flaming Chicken
Not exactly the Col. Sanders would have it.
This was said to be meant as a compliment to Trump. But it may not be taken that way. Doesn't matter. Peace and prosperity works. That is, if you can deliver it.
 |
| The Last Refuge |
Researching ideas for posts
It has been a long road for this blog. It began as a full time activity in 2010,
and continues today. At this time, it is something of a full time "job", in that
I am now too old and decrepit to work for a living.
A problem for yours truly is what to do with all this new spare time that I have.
Since working for a living is no longer feasible, what do I do with myself? It
seems like blogging is a good thing to spend my time, but on the other hand, it
often leads me to places that do not satisfy me.
Such as current events. The course of modern civilization seems to be a recurrent
theme of this blog, but to write about it, it often involves my emotions about it.
So, the result is that I lose my peace of mind when I see things that I think are
not so good about current events, and the course that it appears to be taking us.
What I am researching is a way to be constructive about the situation, so at the
very least, I can feel good about what I am doing with this blog.
It is not a good feeling to watch the world going to hell, and feel absolutely
helpless about what to do about it.
People, when confronted with this, may turn to escapism. But that is not my way.
I'd rather face things as they are, as opposed to running away in some fashion.
Running away, as in escapism. Escaping into fantasies, or escaping into total
denial of anything being wrong.
But that creates a tension. If you really cannot stop the world from descending
into a worse condition, then what?
You can try to fight it, but then it could be totally futile, and frustrating.
So, what to do in order to stay involved, while at the same time, maintaining
some sense of balance?
This is what you call a "good question". A good question is one that isn't answered
easily.
And so here we are.
This morning, I picked up on the movie ideas again. Instead of Raspberries, I
looked up some Academy award winning movies.
What got my attention is some movies based upon books that I have read. I
determined that at least two of them did not strike me as being as good as these
people said.
Rather than point these out as examples, let me just say that I realize that I
am probably a pain in the ass sometimes. I can be real critical I suppose. It
has been said before.
Maybe I will leave it as that for now. But wait. Let me mention why I started
writing about movies all of a sudden.
I was watching a movie, which was a Star Wars movie, in which Anakin Skywalker
turns to the dark side. The movie was not believable to me. I did not believe
that Skywalker would turn to the dark side so he could save his wife from dying.
Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but I don't believe it. The story should have
been about Skywalker's fall from grace, but it cannot be depicted as an cause
for pity. A villain has to be a villain, or he isn't a villain.
So much for that. The movie sucked. But Lucas made a bunch of money off of it.
Does it matter then that it sucked since it made so much money for Lucas? Would
a better movie had done better at the box office? Maybe not. But then again,
maybe I am just being a pain in the ass again.
Okay, that's enough.
But it isn't, because the blog goes on until it doesn't.
What is the moral here? Another good question. Okay, that is definitely enough
for now.
Bye for now.
and continues today. At this time, it is something of a full time "job", in that
I am now too old and decrepit to work for a living.
A problem for yours truly is what to do with all this new spare time that I have.
Since working for a living is no longer feasible, what do I do with myself? It
seems like blogging is a good thing to spend my time, but on the other hand, it
often leads me to places that do not satisfy me.
Such as current events. The course of modern civilization seems to be a recurrent
theme of this blog, but to write about it, it often involves my emotions about it.
So, the result is that I lose my peace of mind when I see things that I think are
not so good about current events, and the course that it appears to be taking us.
What I am researching is a way to be constructive about the situation, so at the
very least, I can feel good about what I am doing with this blog.
It is not a good feeling to watch the world going to hell, and feel absolutely
helpless about what to do about it.
People, when confronted with this, may turn to escapism. But that is not my way.
I'd rather face things as they are, as opposed to running away in some fashion.
Running away, as in escapism. Escaping into fantasies, or escaping into total
denial of anything being wrong.
But that creates a tension. If you really cannot stop the world from descending
into a worse condition, then what?
You can try to fight it, but then it could be totally futile, and frustrating.
So, what to do in order to stay involved, while at the same time, maintaining
some sense of balance?
This is what you call a "good question". A good question is one that isn't answered
easily.
And so here we are.
This morning, I picked up on the movie ideas again. Instead of Raspberries, I
looked up some Academy award winning movies.
What got my attention is some movies based upon books that I have read. I
determined that at least two of them did not strike me as being as good as these
people said.
Rather than point these out as examples, let me just say that I realize that I
am probably a pain in the ass sometimes. I can be real critical I suppose. It
has been said before.
Maybe I will leave it as that for now. But wait. Let me mention why I started
writing about movies all of a sudden.
I was watching a movie, which was a Star Wars movie, in which Anakin Skywalker
turns to the dark side. The movie was not believable to me. I did not believe
that Skywalker would turn to the dark side so he could save his wife from dying.
Sorry to be a pain in the ass, but I don't believe it. The story should have
been about Skywalker's fall from grace, but it cannot be depicted as an cause
for pity. A villain has to be a villain, or he isn't a villain.
So much for that. The movie sucked. But Lucas made a bunch of money off of it.
Does it matter then that it sucked since it made so much money for Lucas? Would
a better movie had done better at the box office? Maybe not. But then again,
maybe I am just being a pain in the ass again.
Okay, that's enough.
But it isn't, because the blog goes on until it doesn't.
What is the moral here? Another good question. Okay, that is definitely enough
for now.
Bye for now.
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Golden Raspberry Awards
These are like anti-Oscars, as a counterpart to the scientific concept known as anti-matter. An Oscar is an award for excellence, so a Golden Raspberry is for the opposite. Question: If you take an Oscar award and bring it into contact with a Golden Raspberry award, what would happen? ( imitating Carl Sagan): Would it buh-low upppp? Would it spawn billions and billions of new movies?
Anyway, while reading these, I noticed some interesting things. Some of those interesting things included such items as: who won the award for worst actor, what movie won the award for worst picture in such and such a year and so forth.
For example, the Golden Raspberry for worst picture in 2016 was a picture by Dinesh d'Souza, which was a hit piece against Hillary. I was somewhat amused by that award, because it seems to reek of anger at Trump's victory. The lefties just can't get over it. It makes 'em crazy! They should send their therapist's bills to the Russians.
If the movie really was that bad, it wouldn't have made a difference in the election because nobody would have watched it. Or so I think. There are plenty of bad movies out there.
As for my own nomination, one of the worst pictures ever had to be one of the Batman movies, in which Schwarzenegger played the Ice Man. I could only watch a few minutes of that one before I had to turn it off, it was so bad. But I don't recall seeing it on the list. Now look at the Terminator. He is going to sue the oil companies for premeditated murder. Hmmm. Hasta la vista, baby!
As I wrote before, however, you cannot necessarily go by what the critics say.
As for d'Souza's work, well, he's probably on to something with respect to the Democrats. They do smell worse than Hemmingway's bit about the smell of death in one of his novels.
Anyway, while reading these, I noticed some interesting things. Some of those interesting things included such items as: who won the award for worst actor, what movie won the award for worst picture in such and such a year and so forth.
For example, the Golden Raspberry for worst picture in 2016 was a picture by Dinesh d'Souza, which was a hit piece against Hillary. I was somewhat amused by that award, because it seems to reek of anger at Trump's victory. The lefties just can't get over it. It makes 'em crazy! They should send their therapist's bills to the Russians.
If the movie really was that bad, it wouldn't have made a difference in the election because nobody would have watched it. Or so I think. There are plenty of bad movies out there.
As for my own nomination, one of the worst pictures ever had to be one of the Batman movies, in which Schwarzenegger played the Ice Man. I could only watch a few minutes of that one before I had to turn it off, it was so bad. But I don't recall seeing it on the list. Now look at the Terminator. He is going to sue the oil companies for premeditated murder. Hmmm. Hasta la vista, baby!
As I wrote before, however, you cannot necessarily go by what the critics say.
As for d'Souza's work, well, he's probably on to something with respect to the Democrats. They do smell worse than Hemmingway's bit about the smell of death in one of his novels.
Gun control hocus pocus
Former justice of the Supreme Court says to abolish the Second Amendment. He
says he believes that this will make schools safe.
Always challenge the premises.
Are schools unsafe? What is a sufficient standard of safety? If total safety
is required, what price are you willing to pay?
Total safety cannot be achieved. There is more than one way to kill people. The
removal of guns may make schools safer than they are now, but that doesn't eliminate
all risk.
That was number one on the list of premises.
Number two is the one that says mere gun possession makes schools unsafe.
But the rhetoric doesn't match the deeds. If gun- free zones make schools safer,
then why don't the gun-grabbers screen everybody before they are allowed
on school grounds? It would be the same kind of procedure that is used for airports
and courthouses. Only when you enforce a gun-free zone do you have a gun-free zone.
If the anti-gun people really believed gun-free zones are safe,then why don't they enforce
their own gun-free zones?
In other words, if it is good enough for airports and courthouses, then why is it
not good enough for schools?
No, the real point is to disarm everybody else. They won't enforce their own
self-imposed gun free zones. This they could do by themselves without having to
disarm everybody else in the country.
Then they might say the entire country could be safer without guns. Unfortunately, you
cannot guarantee that all guns will disappear and that all situations can be controlled over a territory of over three million square miles. If you won't enforce a schoolyard, then why should anybody believe that you would enforce it over such a vast territory?
At least this judge is honest enough to admit that an amendment to the Constitution
would be necessary first. Also, that the effort is not to make schools safe, but
to disarm the entire population. Quite the sleight of hand, that.
Updated later today, 3.27.18 @ 6:17 pm:
Looks like Lindsey Graham wants to strut on the stage as a prominent pro- Second Amendment man's man kind of guy. Trouble is, I don't believe these guys, especially this one.
But if wants to, he may want to explain some of the anti-gun legislation in the most recent omnibus bill. Did Graham sign off on that one?
says he believes that this will make schools safe.
Always challenge the premises.
Are schools unsafe? What is a sufficient standard of safety? If total safety
is required, what price are you willing to pay?
Total safety cannot be achieved. There is more than one way to kill people. The
removal of guns may make schools safer than they are now, but that doesn't eliminate
all risk.
That was number one on the list of premises.
Number two is the one that says mere gun possession makes schools unsafe.
But the rhetoric doesn't match the deeds. If gun- free zones make schools safer,
then why don't the gun-grabbers screen everybody before they are allowed
on school grounds? It would be the same kind of procedure that is used for airports
and courthouses. Only when you enforce a gun-free zone do you have a gun-free zone.
If the anti-gun people really believed gun-free zones are safe,then why don't they enforce
their own gun-free zones?
In other words, if it is good enough for airports and courthouses, then why is it
not good enough for schools?
No, the real point is to disarm everybody else. They won't enforce their own
self-imposed gun free zones. This they could do by themselves without having to
disarm everybody else in the country.
Then they might say the entire country could be safer without guns. Unfortunately, you
cannot guarantee that all guns will disappear and that all situations can be controlled over a territory of over three million square miles. If you won't enforce a schoolyard, then why should anybody believe that you would enforce it over such a vast territory?
At least this judge is honest enough to admit that an amendment to the Constitution
would be necessary first. Also, that the effort is not to make schools safe, but
to disarm the entire population. Quite the sleight of hand, that.
Updated later today, 3.27.18 @ 6:17 pm:
Looks like Lindsey Graham wants to strut on the stage as a prominent pro- Second Amendment man's man kind of guy. Trouble is, I don't believe these guys, especially this one.
But if wants to, he may want to explain some of the anti-gun legislation in the most recent omnibus bill. Did Graham sign off on that one?
Monday, March 26, 2018
Star Trek episode coming to life?
First of all, let me deny that yours truly is a hopeless "trekkie". Secondly, the idea here is to get people to think outside the box. Thirdly, just to add a bit more confusion, the current situation is like the Cheech and Chong comedy in which the teacher repeatedly tells the class to "shut up"!
Yeah, shut up and listen.
Now, the Star Trek reference is about the hostility that is being generated in order to feed upon itself. An entity lives off the hostile emotions of others, you see. You can regain control of the situation by refusing to participate in the hostility being thusly generated.
Just sit down, shut up, and ignore the invitation to fight, argue, or just get inordinately pissed off.
Or just pray.
After all, the most likely thing here is that the situation is being manipulated so you can be manipulated as well. Don't go along with it.
That is all.
Yeah, shut up and listen.
Now, the Star Trek reference is about the hostility that is being generated in order to feed upon itself. An entity lives off the hostile emotions of others, you see. You can regain control of the situation by refusing to participate in the hostility being thusly generated.
Just sit down, shut up, and ignore the invitation to fight, argue, or just get inordinately pissed off.
Or just pray.
After all, the most likely thing here is that the situation is being manipulated so you can be manipulated as well. Don't go along with it.
That is all.
Sunday, March 25, 2018
Rebel without a cause...
An idea just popped up while I was stewing over the latest "news" on the web.
Earlier today, I googled Grand Funk Railroad. It seems that there have been some
changes in the group's lineup, which I have known for quite awhile. But I was
wondering if they produce any new material?
Back in the old days, Grand Funk was quite prolific. They would put out a new
album about every eight months or so. This lasted about seven years, if memory
serves.
But why discuss Grand Funk?
Well, the concept with Grand Funk was basically this: they were the basic teen
rebellion against the critics. Critics hated Grand Funk. It was true, too. There
was stuff that made me cringe, and I was a fan. But as I grew older, I came to
see all that differently. It was a marketing gimmick. For example, band manager
Terry Knight believed that there was no such thing as bad publicity. So, if the
critics panned a new album, that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The teens could
buy the albums because the critics hated it, just like the parents hated it.
Now, I am older, I can see that this has wider applications. The current
conventional wisdom is that Trump is a bad president. But, this is due to PC.
The point is we can all rebel against the critics and the "parents" who know best
by continuing to support Trump. We can rebel against the PC.
Is that all there is to it? Not exactly, but I think the these go together somehow.
Allow me to tie in AGW, for example. AGW tells us to believe the scientists. But
why? Because the scientists know best? It is almost like your parents again, and
the critics.
What about thinking for yourself as to what you will believe or not believe? Why
do we need somebody to tell us what to think or believe?
I can do another AGW post, you know. I can do it based upon experience as a
driver. I know that because I spent the minimum of ten hours a day inside a
van, which has glass windows. I know how heat is trapped inside of a vehicle.
I have lived it. I KNOW IT. How many of those people who believe in AGW actually
spend much time out in the weather? How many of these people actually work on
their own cars, and therefore understand air conditioning? How many of these
people know even a little about science? Yet, if you hear them, they claim to
be the experts. They claim to KNOW, but what do they actually KNOW?
Show me that you know something, then we can talk.
I know I started with teenage rebellion, and segued into something that probably
seems unrelated. But it is related in one sense. Thinking for yourself. Don't
let someone else do your thinking for you. And try to talk about a subject on
the basis of what you understand about it. Don't tell me Grand Funk is a bad
band, when you don't know music. Don't tell me that Trump is bad, if you only
listen to what is politically correct. Don't tell me to believe in AGW when you
don't want to listen to any other point of view.
Try to formulate your own opinions based upon your own knowledge. Otherwise, why
should I listen to you?
Earlier today, I googled Grand Funk Railroad. It seems that there have been some
changes in the group's lineup, which I have known for quite awhile. But I was
wondering if they produce any new material?
Back in the old days, Grand Funk was quite prolific. They would put out a new
album about every eight months or so. This lasted about seven years, if memory
serves.
But why discuss Grand Funk?
Well, the concept with Grand Funk was basically this: they were the basic teen
rebellion against the critics. Critics hated Grand Funk. It was true, too. There
was stuff that made me cringe, and I was a fan. But as I grew older, I came to
see all that differently. It was a marketing gimmick. For example, band manager
Terry Knight believed that there was no such thing as bad publicity. So, if the
critics panned a new album, that wasn't necessarily a bad thing. The teens could
buy the albums because the critics hated it, just like the parents hated it.
Now, I am older, I can see that this has wider applications. The current
conventional wisdom is that Trump is a bad president. But, this is due to PC.
The point is we can all rebel against the critics and the "parents" who know best
by continuing to support Trump. We can rebel against the PC.
Is that all there is to it? Not exactly, but I think the these go together somehow.
Allow me to tie in AGW, for example. AGW tells us to believe the scientists. But
why? Because the scientists know best? It is almost like your parents again, and
the critics.
What about thinking for yourself as to what you will believe or not believe? Why
do we need somebody to tell us what to think or believe?
I can do another AGW post, you know. I can do it based upon experience as a
driver. I know that because I spent the minimum of ten hours a day inside a
van, which has glass windows. I know how heat is trapped inside of a vehicle.
I have lived it. I KNOW IT. How many of those people who believe in AGW actually
spend much time out in the weather? How many of these people actually work on
their own cars, and therefore understand air conditioning? How many of these
people know even a little about science? Yet, if you hear them, they claim to
be the experts. They claim to KNOW, but what do they actually KNOW?
Show me that you know something, then we can talk.
I know I started with teenage rebellion, and segued into something that probably
seems unrelated. But it is related in one sense. Thinking for yourself. Don't
let someone else do your thinking for you. And try to talk about a subject on
the basis of what you understand about it. Don't tell me Grand Funk is a bad
band, when you don't know music. Don't tell me that Trump is bad, if you only
listen to what is politically correct. Don't tell me to believe in AGW when you
don't want to listen to any other point of view.
Try to formulate your own opinions based upon your own knowledge. Otherwise, why
should I listen to you?
Data, data, data-- why is everybody turning into a data hog?
This Vivaldi browser shows how much data is being used to load a webpage. What is galling is how much data it takes to load up a page that doesn't say all that much.
It's getting to the point where this internet thing may not be usable. I'm not kidding.
Can't people just do text based messages without all the ads and superfluous junk?
It's getting to the point where this internet thing may not be usable. I'm not kidding.
Can't people just do text based messages without all the ads and superfluous junk?
Dr. Strangelove
With respect to the omnibus bill, you people should just stop worrying about it. Things could be a lot worse.
Yeah, it could be raining.
That was a joke, btw.
Hint: There is no congressional oversight of omnibus bills, or so I hear. However, there may be lawsuits if Trump veers off-course, but we will have to wait for developments on that.
Wait and see, I say. Besides, why worry? It could be worse.
Yeah, it could be raining.
That was a joke, btw.
Hint: There is no congressional oversight of omnibus bills, or so I hear. However, there may be lawsuits if Trump veers off-course, but we will have to wait for developments on that.
Wait and see, I say. Besides, why worry? It could be worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)