And flat Earthery and geocentrism rear their hydric heads...

Was listening to a short talk online about Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It was interesting at first; a little bit of history, some claims about the apparition being an answer to the Enlightenment, and then...the usual stuff I hear about Genesis when someone who doesn't understand Genesis or his interlocutor's opinion of it blindly tries to disprove everything in it.

This makes me sad.  As Catholics, we have nothing to fear from the truth, no matter its apparent source, no matter its apparent meaning.

The priest giving the talk went on about how the Renaissance may have uncovered a few good things that ancient pagans had come up with that had fallen into obscurity with Rome's political might, but it ended up glorifying a lot of garbage also, like humanocentric philosophy.

All right; seemed a bit of a stretch from "mankind is the pinnacle of creation and what God made He saw and proclaimed was good," but the seeds of modern evils were clearly germinating, so it didn't seem fitting to debate the point.

Then he takes on Copernicus.  A Catholic in good standing who had apparently come up on his own with an idea the ancient pagans had considered:  Earth went around the sun and did not have pride of place in the universe.

At least Galileo was a jerk about the idea, but how are you going to pull at this thread without unraveling all the bishops and philosophers who weren't suckered by you're-not-specialism but still recognizes that the different senses of scripture didn't have to agree even while they were consonant?

He (the priest giving the talk, again; not Galileo) took a crack at relativity, conflating it with relativism, and then went to quote some modern atheistic astrophysicist-types (one of whose quotes referred to Darwin, so we get a dig at evolution too) who liked to talk about how humble a home we have.

To be fair to the priest, these scientists do have jobs that lead them to face the wonder of creation on a daily basis, so while perhaps we should give them a little bit of slack for waxing philosophical, we should also keep in mind that they are not philosophers, and that the holes in their lives left by the forsaking of religion will tend to let idols of a sort rush in to fill the vacuum.

Before I say what's wrong with all this, I want to say again:  We have nothing to fear from the truth.
So if it looks like we are clever apes who had slime for grandparents and occupy an obscure planet orbiting a disregarded yellow sun swinging around the unfashionable arm of some galaxy, then there is nothing wrong with saying "Yep, it sure looks like that."

Because it does look like that, regardless of whatever it actually happens to be.  Spiral galaxies are not rare.  The sun is not large--neither are we compared to the nearest tree, a man once said, but so what?

It is not wrong to say "Epidemiology is a branch of applied evolutionary biology that allows us to get vaccines for the right strain of influenza most of the time," because that happens to be true, whether  we were made from clay directly or via trillions of transitional states.

If we're honest and not fearful, we can say "Sure, the state of the biological arts suggests that modern organisms exist because of the variety of selection pressures on disparate populations of organisms, but if a flat reading of Genesis 1 is true, we should eventually find a way to reconcile them."

Insulting the intelligence or impugning the integrity of people who happen to specialize in the fields you don't is not charitable, honest, or helpful.

An honest scientist will admit that all theories based on empirical data (or completely whiteboard-and-imagination theories; I'm talking loop quantum gravity rather than Pythagoras, here) are conditional, that they describe reality to a degree of accuracy but cannot be proven true in a lab the way the square root of 2 can be proven to be irrational or the way God can be proven to necessarily exist.  But he may deserve an explanation from you for how, if he's so wrong, everything based on his work hangs together like he's really not wrong.

GPS units work.  Flu shots work.  Does God mess with the orbit of Mercury to maintain the appearance of gravitational time dilation?  Did God give man and ape similar DNA because He wanted us to think we came from the same place, and apes didn't just come from the earth in Genesis 1:25 in much the same way as we did in Genesis 2:7?

That last part may be an important theological matter.  In the Incarnation, Jesus became man via a woman, not just to fully share in our human experience, but so He would actually be one of us in kind.  This is getting outside of my wheelhouse, but philosophers in the past have posited that it would not have been sufficient or appropriate for the Son to simply construct a human body directly from clay again or straight from nothing and hypostatically unite with that; much like how each angel, having been created directly by God, is its own species.

But back to my point:  beware your own preconceptions when you have to fall back on the "whom are you going to believe, me or your own lyin' eyes?" argument.  That way lie reversed Jack Chick tracts when impressionable believers of immature faith find out that some scientists are atheists but in their day jobs generally are not talking at all about the same things you are even if they're looking for excuses to shore up their unbelief, and at their first crisis of faith reject everything you taught them, bathwater, baby, and all.

An honest scientist can even say "Well, we can't disprove a mathematically consistent model of the universe, but it leads to distasteful questions I want to avoid," although maybe he's leaning over the line there, but if you add enough layers of epicycles, you can't really disprove that all heavenly bodies have perfectly circular orbits of a sort, either, and is that really where we want to go?  Insisting that your pet theory can't be disproven even though it's so complicated it looks almost exactly like something else we're already using to great effect?  At what point did you stop saying "as scientists get more data and construct better models, the truths of Canaanite cosmology and Hebrew biology will become obvious" and start saying "Nothing is holding up the edifice of their errors but a superstructure of lies?"

I can accept that modern science is wrong in some ways, that its conditional "truths" are less accurate than they seem.  There have even been times (albeit few; I am not sure if that is good or bad) I have had to hold my beliefs up against doctrine that was new to me and say "Well, I don't see how I could be wrong, but I know that it happens sometimes, and this is clearly an argument that I am," and I've had to change my position.  But I am not going to discard the fruits of reason and take up gratuitous assertions that serve my day to day life more poorly while also not helping me spiritually.  The "Axis of Evil" in the cosmic microwave background could be evidence that the universe is...well, probably not orbiting a static Earth, but oriented relative to it in some way that is meaningful like how finding a 6000 year old body of a man with no navel would be meaningful; but it might also be a coincidence, or an artifact, or an error in analysis.  But what it's not is a smoking gun, and it's not the preponderant straw of evidence that broke the camel's back, either.

These guys aren't just making shit up to fool their consciences while they lure people into hell.  These guys are taking what you decry and building your airplanes and skyscrapers and smart phones, they're designing your artificial joints and your suspension bridges.  Can you even tell me where the line between here and there is?  Have you tried exorcising any of your devices to see if demons have trouble keeping up the charade?

Back off my tangent, relativity is not relativism.  Relativity makes your GPS work and can be demonstrated in a high school science lab.  Relativism just happened to come along around the same time and pretends to be, ahem, related in order to steal its legitimacy.  By perpetuating this confusion, you are doing their propaganda for them.

Jesus was born to humble means in an obscure backwater.  Even the Bible tells us people sometimes scoffed at how prosaic He seemed, so there's no sense in debating the point.  Why, then, should we reject the possibility that He not only embraced humility all the way down, but also that He embraced it all the way up?  Maybe Earth is special like the ancient pagans and Christians and Jews (yes, pagans too!  Where's your reluctance to agree with them now?) thought, but just in ways that aren't obvious to us through current technology.

Finally, it helps no one to get the ancient cosmologies mixed up.  Pagans tended to think of the Earth as the center of the universe because everything in the sky looked like it was going around the Earth--well, over, but the sun and moon were pretty recognizable, and the planets had patterns of appearance that were pretty predictable even when they didn't have distinctive colors like Mars, so closed loops instead of arcs seemed reasonable.  The ancient Jews, on the other hand, viewed Earth as being at the bottom of creation, not even as part of a sphere, with the only thing lower than Earth being hell.  So if you're going to go all flat-Earth on us, you have to give up pride of place in exchange for an ignoble configuration that demands things that neither the Bible nor science has room for but can be disproven by two people and a shovel.

And after all that, nothing in the talk was about Mary correcting the empirical errors of contemporary science.  Plenty about the miracles surrounding the tilma, some interesting symbolism in the pattern of stars on her mantle, but nothing particularly combating the idea that humanity is meaningless and not just humble.  So now I'm sad twice.


And lest we get too prideful in brushing off yet more hordes of squabbling ultracrepidarians, I want to close with a word of warning regarding a comment left on the web site criticizing someone who was defending Copernicus and more modern scientists.

The comment said a few things about the foolishness of listening to modern scientists who basically paint themselves into a corner trying to gin up evidence against God, and then said of Copernicus' defender, "You are not of God."

Someone else chimed in to warn him against judging the fellow, and he responded with "I don't judge, but when someone is wrong, I correct."

No, jerk, you judged, and your smugness may have lost a soul this day.  "You put too much stock in the worldly 'wisdom' of men, and not enough in God" is a correction, of sorts.  "You are not of God" is a judgment.  You can condemn his actions, his words, maybe his thoughts if your'e circumspect about it, but not his person.

I think it's past time to stop saying "F Nazis."

I mean, I get it, but it's gotten so tired that people who think it's important to keep the momentum up are starting to sound like they're trying to normalize or otherwise advocate for some obscure fetish.

Not a good look.

Just consider it.

Some people use incredulity towards Transubstantiation as an excuse to abandon religion

I don’t know why, though. I mean, yeah, in particular it’s a tough doctrine; it has been since the beginning (see John 6 for an early account). But to doubt some mystical paradox just for not fitting into a tidy, cozy mindset?
God is transcendent. Some things are supposed to be beyond normal understanding.
I mean, sometimes General Relativity and quantum mechanics freak me out--what is matter, why is there such a thing as phase velocity beyond mathematical tidiness?--but when I get close to a mental BSOD, I stop thinking about it and go do something else; I don't start doubting my Garmin.
Okay, relativity and electronics are on some practical level comprehensible, quantifiable, but I think what's going on is ex-Catholics are just disenchanted and Transubstantiation is just an excuse.  After all, it's the Catholic Church that is big on the Real Presence, so if that's not real, who's to say I can't use birth control?
I have some sympathy, if not in that last case.  It's a critical tenet and the New Testament even talks about people who take ill and die for receiving unworthily, so people who abstain in good conscience are just being honest and humble.
So maybe I do know why.  It's just usually not packaged up with the excuses I do hear.

So Stephen King recently tweeted that he considers quality, not diversity, when picking award nominees...

and predictably the twittersphere put words in his mouth so they could punch him in it.

There was the usual "White people are racist, men prefer to read about boobs" prejudice they had to inflate with zero evidence regarding King's actual nomination choices, but my favorite was one that went something like "your assumption that quality and diversity are mutually exclusive is part of the problem."

Uh, he didn't assume that.  He didn't even overtly admit it.  You and your thought fascists did.

All he said was they're not the same thing.  And the twittersphere proved his point by signaling to the world that they intended to make their choices of things, not by their own diverse standards of quality, but primarily by skin color and genitalia.

Sure, some of them dressed it up with "you just don't get minority art because you won't allow it to exist," but in the end, their motives were to pander rather than celebrate beauty.

This is not the old days when knowing Bruce Lee was Chinese behind his Kato mask or seeing Nichelle Nichols in a clerical position was a towering victory for representation.  We know Octavia Butler's opinion on this--and her name, even--because whatever her background, there aren't fat, cigar-smoking Stephen Kings in oak-paneled salons planning her career over scotch and cigars.

Funny how these people turn around and think that if they did such things, it wouldn't just be fair play but the only morally right way to run society.  They don't seem to se that these abuses can't happen--there are others, but they aren't political, and politics are all that concerns them, even above the actual victims when there are any--in a society where there are no such salons full of freemasonic string-pullers or whatever the going conspiracy theory is.

King isn't excluding the possibility of women or minorities being capable of good work.  He's just not patronizing undeserving tokens because we've known for half a century that affirmative action breeds distrust and mediocrity whether backed by force of law or unwritten policy.

Because if they can be that great, they can win without you being dishonest.  And if you're not honest, how will anyone ever really know?

"Imagine highways run by regulations written in 1791.  Imagine limiting yourself to medical care that was available in 1791.  The second amendment was written in 1791."

Socialized medicine didn't exist in 1791, and neither did compact fully automatic firearms.  Is your argument about technology, or about regulation?  Because you seem to be saying basically that regulation needs to keep up with technology, but your examples are contradictory.  Most of your examples are not based on principles enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but assume that technology will provide more options to citizens over time that not only need regulation but are good for citizens to have; but the same logic doesn't support the point you're really making, that advancements in firearm technology should not be regulated in a way that lets people have well designed guns but just shouldn't have them at all.

That's the problem with dishonest metaphors and analogies built around half truths:  it looks like you're making a point because of the symmetry in your argument, but it's got the same symmetry as "heads I win, tails you lose."

The problem with millennials is...

...we (or, their parents; whatever generation raised them) were a little too zealous in teaching them to pursue their dreams and prioritize their values.

These aren't bad things in and of themselves.  I'm actually looking forward to some serious disruption in the business world when companies that hide bad management and abuse behind "old school/hard core" attitudes find their pre-millennial headcount has dropped below critical mass.  And I'm not just saying that because I currently work for a place that can't keep an engineer for more than a year because they've drunk so much of their own Kool-Aid that they think making people work six twelve-hour shifts is righteous and they're the victims of a shallow hiring pool and can't staff three eight hour shifts, and that they think that people quitting before their first paycheck is funny, and that this is just how you keep your head above water instead of really trying to permanently solve manufacturing problems instead of...again, making people work 32 extra hours a week just to make up for all the bad product that got produced and to make up for all the overtime that has to get paid now to the people who are working all those hours.

Partly that, but not just that, see.

The problem is that we taught them the good side, and we seemed to have taught them a thing or two about hard work because they will commit themselves to their favorite causes, as least if you can get past the "retweet, put up a bumper sticker, show up in the streets but stay home from the polls" contingent, but we didn't teach them that "adulting" is hard and unavoidable.

,...I forgot where else I want to go with this.

Wait, I remember.  A thread on Pinterest:

"Millennial hate is a thing rich folks started because they're pissed we have unpredictable consumer habits."

There is a lot here and I would only amend one thing:  not "rich folks" so much as "marketing departments"--or "older generations," because there has never been one that did not lament the poor character of the newer generation (which I suppose is fair; if each one is worse than the last, it's because the last one had better mentors).  That's where advertising dovetails with social engineering.  Since consumer habits do seem to be changing--and you can take "seem" however you want for me to make my point--it's not unreasonable to report on it.

And for all you propeller-heads out there, yes, I'm simplifying.  Think of the story I'm telling as an example rather than an overarching narrative.

It's interesting how nobody takes the long view.  Millennials are the way they are because they were raised that way, by parents who were trying to pass on the hard lessons they learned growing up while trusting schools that have been encroaching on in loco parentis in ways Orwell might have predicted if he had written Winston Smith as a teenager.  But these parents work at companies that have said marketing departments, they see changes, and maybe they don't or didn't realize it's a result of how they raised their kids, maybe they don't see the connection between what their children tell them and how all the children of that generation eat and buy and live.  That's a pretty abstract thing for parents to be analyzing in their children, enough that it's hard to recognize before it's too late, but I would think our social so-imagined masters would be a little smarter about it...if, like I said, these weren't the same people.

So we're far enough into the Long March that "critical theory studies" is mixed into nearly everything that gets taught whether or not a student majors in it.  The elites--the ones who are raised by the people who are telling us what to think, not the ones who are told what to tell us to think; the ones who are above and immune to the tides of contemporary philosophy, not the ones who think by acting woke with enough zeal they can win some real security--are taught to feed it to America, not to eat it.  The rest of America is taught to eat it.  But are they allowing enough engineers to graduate and tradesmen to get certified who retain enough of a sense of objective reality and empirical data to keep our planes flying and computers running?

"Keep in mind the subprime mortgage crisis was a shaping event in our generation's lives."

Yeah, fine, but you seem to have missed the historical lesson:  the government leaned on banks to offer nonviable loans.  I'm sure plenty of bankers were happy to get more payments than they would have otherwise, but I have heard firsthand that banks by and large didn't want to do it because they knew it would be bad for business--that people who hadn't been able to afford to buy homes previously were in that situation more often because they had money management problems, and less often because they had a streak of bad luck.  So don't think the government is on your side.  They'll tell you they're helping, but borrowers and lenders on the whole both ended up worse off than they were before.  We all felt it, and we all know what it's like to live through it.

"Boomers refuse to pay a living wage to anyone and then wonder why people don't buy anything."

Uh, no.  Boomers only refused to raise the minimum wage to what might be considered a living wage in some places before the rise in minimum wage increased the cost of living in ways no one could predict.  More money doesn't help you buy more if you still can't afford things.  And people were buying things on minimum wage long before you came into the picture, so how are you different on this point?

"Millennials value meaningful work over lucrative work."

That's great, and I'm not just saying that to be patronizing, but part of adulting is putting up with parts of your life--and that includes your work--that just aren't great.  Go ahead, blame your parents and teachers, but don't expect us to listen if you complain about it but never try to strike a reasonable balance.  Another part of adulting is taking on responsibility for things passed down to you even if they're not your fault; you're not being blamed or condemned for wearing cultural hand-me-downs, you're just getting all there is to give (and that is not a comment on how much more wealth your elders already have than you do; twenty years from now, you'll be twenty years down that path, too).

"Millennials do not deal well with their great ideas being shut down."

Okay, that's a partially valid point, whether or not it's really a pithy criticism of your attitude, but my experience has been the opposite:  throwing people barely old enough to drink into management positions and chasing whatever fad they were taught was the final key to permanent business success, until next year when they hire the next round of bright idea pimps.  But still, "we do it this way because we've always done it this way" is not always bad--someone came up with the term "standard practices" and the notion stuck for a reason--but it's not sufficient justification to refuse to consider change.  I have also literally heard this said as an argument against changing a workflow I'm part of where I work:  "But if we change things, then they'll be different."  Um, yeah?  They're supposed to be different because there are problems that are making us want to change what we do so the problems go away.

"I'd love to buy a house but I can't be certain I'll have the same income levels for thirty years."

This is interesting.  Things really are different from how they were before in terms of how people hold jobs.  I've changed jobs half a dozen times in the last twenty years, and the only times a change didn't come with an increase in income was when I was in a transitional situation, which seemed normal but might not be any longer.  But people are changing jobs more often these days because they are choosing to.  Layoffs and furloughs and downsizing are not new concepts.

"Why can't I build a little house on a tiny lot?"

There are lots available.  They're cheaper outside the city, so you'd have to drive, but at least your property taxes would be low enough that maybe you could swing a car loan.  They're cheaper than most houses.

"What about sharing a house with my friends?  The zoning board won't allow that."

The zoning board doesn't know how many guests you have, or how long they're staying, or whether they have any mail directed to you because you have enough trust to watch out for each other like that, or if they're helping you with expenses.  Just like how if you buy a house capitalism doesn't force you to buy new furniture.

"My old fridge was older than I was, and when my new one broke, they said I should have bought the warranty."

Not getting the warranty was probably foolish.  Disagree?  Do the math.  At some point paying fifty bucks for five years isn't going to be worth the hassle of a fridge that won't keep cold, and I do agree that it's unfortunate that things are designed to be replaced rather than repaired--but don't forget a repairman's labor is more expensive than a new appliance; I sympathize with the Maytag repairman but that clock has been running forward since before your time and you will be lucky (possibly bad luck) to see the day when that clock turns back.  Oh, did you do the math while I was ranting?  No?  Let me give you a hint:  it's usually cheaper to insure than to rebuy.  That's how health care got into the problem it, frankly, is still in.  When you do the math you'll know where the tradeoff is.  Maybe in your case it wasn't foolish, but if you couldn't be bothered to make an educated guess, that's really where your problem is.

"New fridges have a $400 premium to get a convenient configuration."

Oh, grow the fuck up.  This is why old people tell "when I was your age" stories.  You can't get the shelves where you want?  Why is it so hard to reposition the shelves yourself?  Did your parents do that thorough a job of teaching you the way to succeed is to find meaningful work and asking anonymous collective other people to deal with your #firstworldproblems?

"Entry level positions require 3-5 years of experience."

Old problem, also all perception.  LinkedIn is just one resource that talks a lot about how job postings go for two things, the ideal candidate and the one with the same profile as the person who just left the job.  If you can't figure that out from people telling you, we can't solve it for you as a society, no matter how much of your own soap you make and how much of your own vegetables you grow.  Although those are good things too; capitalism's great, but fuck consumerism.

"Even trades have a $5k+ investment for training and equipment."

If you aren't going into teaching, work training is usually cheap because your employer wants you to be highly competent and skilled; and either way, there are tax write-offs for personally covering work expenses.  And if you really just want to work, and don't find trades to be too drudge to consider?  take some shop classes in college, befriend the neighborhood gearhead, find the college grease monkey club.  Learn some Spanish and go to a Home Depot at four in the morning and ask the guys out front what it's like.  Follow them where they go and you'll learn a few things.  They won't buy you hammers and tape measures, but they'll have something you can borrow to start out, and if you pick something up quick on your own because you're a self-starter or because some grizzled master welder took a cotton to you and gave you a salty version of "how can I help you succeed at your job?" you'll get to the point where you won't need a $5k class, you'll just need a certification test.  Or you'll have the $5k, if you're planning ahead.

I'm painting with a really broad brush here and I'm sure there are many specific situations where it really isn't as straightforward as I'm making it sound, but my point is just that you're not helpless victims in a new world, you're just normal.

"Ask not what your economy can do you for you, ask what you can do for your economy."

There are people in the economy, not just commodities.  I thought you wanted to help people in a  collective style.  The heart of capitalism is finding people with an unmet need, finding a way to meet it, and offering to exchange what they need for what you need.

You want to condemn people who criticize children? Then stop hiding behind children.

Some time ago Greta Thunberg, Asperger's diagnosee and child of high profile dramatists, issued a preciously narcissistic and well sculpted wake-up call to the UN about climate change.

Some people called her out for speaking out of turn:  what does a teenager know, when adults can't even agree on the meaningfulness of consensus?  Are her parents using her as a prop for virtue signaling?  Why is this particular event worth making Greta miss days of school?

Other people called out those people for being mean:  Don't you know it's not nice or fair to talk to children that way?  Why can't you just listen to her message and get with the program and shrink your carbon footprint?

My opinion?  We should be encouraging our children to learn about and participate in matters of the world, in a way and to a degree that is appropriate for their level of development.  When they do well, praise them, but be constructive rather than obsequious.  If they don't do well, still be constructive, but be charitable.

If you're going to thrust them out into the professional league, though...be prepared for the fallout.

You're the parent/guardian.  It's on you if your prized, adorable shill comes home shamed and with emotional scars.  That's because you're the parent and are supposed to exercise some judgment in what your child is facing.  Stepping in front of the public eye isn't quite as foolhardy as dropping your kid over the wall into the pit at the reptile house for some good pics for social media, but everyone else except for tyrants and busybodies are going to assume that you're managing the situation appropriately for your child's maturity level and that you recognize that they do not answer to you.

So maybe in the past people were reluctant to criticize a teenager for her juvenile rhetoric out of a sense of fair play to her.  And maybe bystanders will rate that a win for you this time.  But next time they will remember that your arguments are childish and that you won't even defend them yourself.

And what about Greta?

President Trump tweeted at her thusly: Greta must work on her Anger Management problem, then go to a good old fashioned movie with a friend! Chill Greta, Chill!"

She replied by changing her Twitter status to "a teenager working on her anger management problem. Currently chilling and watching a good old fashioned movie with a friend."


I'm not sure about this "up against a wall" thing, but I think she's going to be just fine.

Not so recently I was turned on to the long novenas of St. Bridget.

There's a one-year one consisting of 15 Paternosters, 15 Aves, and 15 particular prayers every day for a year.  There's another that consists of 7 and 7 and 7 that runs daily for twelve years.  Both concern the wounds Christ suffered during His Passion, and various promises of graces that convey holiness in this life, happiness in the next, and a commendable Christian death in between are attached to each.  The prayers for the former (there is a warning about the verbiage but proceed with prudence) are here.  A description of the latter can be found here.

Such undertakings daunt me.  Or, at least, they did.  I recently started saying the rosary on a daily basis, after some promptings I could not ignore, and when I realized I just needed to accept the time commitment it became easy (in the past I had tried to muscle my way through the fifteen minutes of sitting still and reciting Hail Marys, but now it can take 30 minutes and I hardly notice).  And I have been saying a decade of the St. Gertrude prayer daily since grad school, which was about 15 years ago, so if I had started the Bridgetine prayers at the same time I'd be done by now.

One thinks sometimes it would have been nice to be back in Biblical times to experience things firsthand (not the dysentery so much as the miracles).  I have at times been jealous of the grace given to people who were there to be recipients of it; I'm not cut out to be a bishop, but if I'd been in Palestine a couple thousand years ago maybe I could have been chosen as an Apostle, you know?

Yeah, that's not how it works and that's the wrong attitude, but jealousy isn't rational.

But recently a thought occurred to me:  whatever advantages people back then had, they didn't get all the same ones that are available to us now.  Look at some of the promises associated with other devotions that arose in the Middle Ages or later:

• The Rosary:  destroy vice, decrease sin, defeat heresies
• The Divine Mercy: even hardened sinners who say it will die a happy death
• Brown Scapular: None who die wearing it (non-superstitiously!) will suffer eternal fire
• First Fridays: all graces necessary to one's state in life and great blessings to all one's undertakings
• First Saturdays: Mary herself promises to assist by bringing the graces needed for salvation

Maybe this day and age is lean on living saints we can go to beg for prayers or miracles face to face, but these devotions can sure make up the difference.

The First Fridays devotion, also known as the Sacred Heart, is of particular relevance here.  It was presaged in the 13th century during a mystical encounter between St. John and St. Gertrude, whom the evangelist invited to recline on Jesus' chest as he himself did at the Last Supper.  When she asked why he did not elaborate about the experience in his Gospel, St. John explained that such was reserved for a time in history when the Church's love for God would have grown cold.  Four centuries to the day later, Jesus revealed His Sacred Heart to St. Margaret Mary.

What devotions, what graces, will be made available to our distant descendants, who will be struggling to see Biblical history over the haufenmist of Modernism that looms in between, over our very heads today?

All right, I haven't seen this elsewhere yet and haven't had a chance to say it to anybody else...

...but why didn't they just refer to al-Baghdadi in his headline-eulogy as "someone who did something?"

It's close enough to accurate and rhetorically fitting.

A prayer after communion

Lord Jesus, I praise You and thank You for deigning to come to me in so lowly a manner, for allowing me to approach You and receive You in this way.  I pray that I receive You to my salvation and sanctification, and not my own condemnation; and may every grace You pour out on me beyond my ability to receive flow out to all of my prayer intentions.  

I pray also You never suffer me to be farther from You than I am right now.

Amen.

My goal when I started this blog was really not to devolve into some conservative curmudgeon...

...but maybe it's just that as I've moved through life, I've drifted away from places where badly formed unorthodox opinions are rampant, and toward places where underdeveloped political opinions are mixed at the deepest levels with other things I'm interested in.

I tire of it.  I don't have the power to change all the minds of everyone on the internet who thinks that Jesus wasn't real because some other yahoo on the internet made up lies that are easily disproven after five minutes spent in any grade school library's mythology section.  I have some hope when I see Copernicus mistaken for Leonardo in the debate about the two world views and someone else chimes in with "I looked into this, and that's not quite true."  I can still make my contributions but God will have to do the heavy lifting.

I tire of the same kind of crap as "astronomers calculated the positions of the stars and planets and discovered a missing day that proves Joshua 10:13."  Why people would lie about this, I don't know.  Maybe it's all false flag operations, but these things just...smell like well intentioned lies by people who don't have the foresight to ask "if they discover this isn't true, are they more likely to throw it all away in a fit of doubt than to forgive me for tricking them into getting saved/opening their eyes to scientific materialism?"

But my point was to touch on a couple semi political things and call it a night.  Today's topic:  common core.

I'm not going to go deep, just hit a couple factors.

Supporters dislike the idea of what they call "hyper localization," that is, the idea that communities even down to the county level should have a say in their own school's curriculum.  They blame that for the whitewashing of history, for such things as learning little or nothing about the history of slavery in America and the Civil Rights Movement.  They want it standardized across the nation.

Problem is, the non-academics in Washington or San Francisco who are really more interested in training compliant future high tech employees--they will admit this is their goal when they publicize their support of the program, if slightly less directly--are not in any way immune to propagating other swaths of ignorance when they develop curricula far away from classrooms.

There's no guarantee a nationwide curriculum will be any more truthful about Wilmington or Custer, because there's no reason to be.  It's easier to reinvent the past to explain away the historical artifacts you can't or haven't yet been able to destroy, than to erase it all at once and hope no one notices or remembers what came before Year One.

Typical:  see a potential problem, magnify it into a crisis, and demand federal intervention.  Sound familiar?

But all that assumes that the curriculum reinventors and textbook compilers have all the pertinent knowledge at their fingertips and are simply making different choices about what to include and what to leave out, what to emphasize and what to deemphasize, what fits into the themes they want to teach and what doesn't, what themes ought to be taught and what are too difficult or inappropriate for each grade level, how to define the words "difficult" and "appropriate" in this context.

You get enough scholars and writers together, you'll have enough people who know enough that they do collectively have this knowledge (or at least have a passing familiarity so they'll be more effective at going back to do research to clear up the ignorance they know they bear), but there's no guarantee that this happened, and there's no guarantee that there are enough participants wise and sincere enough to make the optimal choices.

I went to a pretty good school.  Mostly we had pretty good textbooks.  But the time my history book spent on the Trail of Tears was about the same as that spent on the Grange, and while I recognized that both were just specific instances of bigger things, it wasn't clear how either fit into where the publisher put those few paragraphs.  The Trail at least was connected to some things I already knew about Indian reservations that still exist, but what I remember most about the Grange is being a boy sitting with book open to that page on my desk and wondering what it had to do with anything else going on at that time.

I have digressed, but permit me to regress.  I was going to say something about the statues of Confederate Civil War officers getting torn down.  Not about that, so much.  What I see a lot of here is a push to simplify history to singular ideas and motivations.  I may have written about this long before--or maybe I have a draft I never got around to publishing; been a while now--about how people will impugn the sincerity of someone who is trying to do the right things for allegedly the right reasons because they can imagine some other good that might come of it that would personally benefit the person trying to do the right thing.  Maybe that person recognizes the benefit but didn't have it in mind, maybe the person really didn't ever think of it and was trying to be altruistic because that's what virtuous people do, but it doesn't matter: an ulterior motive can be surmised, therefore the ulterior motive must be the only true one, and thus the virtuous person is just a hypocrite.  Utter bullocks, and the last rationalization of an insecure but happy vice-enslaved person.

I recognize how it is distasteful, to put it tastefully, to continue proudly displaying things that we as a society have come to recognize were not all that great after all.  George Wallace and Orval Faubus weren't just taking a principled stand against social decay, they were just wrong.  But I'd prefer to have things like statues of Robert E. Lee and George Custer put in historical museums where their real legacies can be depicted with some context.

Claims like "It was all about ending slavery" or "it had nothing to do with slavery; that was tacked on later" are wildly oversimple.  People are complicated and life is complicated and so is history.  I'm not expecting students to go to any historical museum and come out thinking the guys on the wrong side were all vilified angels, but I do want them to come out with a sense of these complexities, and some enhanced skill at looking at a story from both sides and seeing the truth and propaganda that each side relies on.

(and I realize I appear to be foisting myself onto my own petard.  Indulge me a bit more; I am not a historian and do not want to bore you in a bog of footnotes and tangential analyses)

Not just for the sake of history, either.  Yeah, Sherman might have been a horrible person for his practice of total war and his lack of enthusiasm for abolition, but he's not a monster.  And by that I mean "a horrible person is not an inhuman monster no matter how horrible," not "he wasn't so bad."

And if we can teach our students not to write off the villains of history as monsters, but to recognize them as fellow humans with motivations that are complex and often conflicted even when not wholly erroneous, then we will be teaching the next generation real lessons in how to understand and love one another.

I was going to make this a separate post, but i think it will be more fitting to finish this one with the following.

"They asked me if I was going to let politics get in the way of my friendship.  You're damn right I will.  I will not tolerate the presence of racists and homophobes."  This in response to the criticism that certain political strains tend to make everything political, that there are people you can't have a normal human conversation with because they are always having just one conversation whether you're part of it or not.  Zeal for one's principles is nice, but there's a problem with being the kind of person Winston Churchill described as being folks who won't change the subject.  It's the same problem the Pharisees had when they criticized Jesus for supping with tax collectors and sinners.

I don't need to spell it out, do I?

"It is possible to be pro-gun and pro-gun-control. As a gun owner with a clean record and a sound mind, why would I oppose legislation that does not affect me but has the potential to keep guns out of the hands of those who pose a threat?"

1. Red flag laws.
2. "First they came for the socialists ... then they came for the trade unionists...."
3. Has the "potential?"  Now we're supposed to pass laws based on what we hope they might accomplish?  Laws have been overturned for being ineffective--recreational marijuana will probably be the next obvious example to make the history books--but we don't even have to entertain bills that have a reasonable expectation of achieving their intent with minimal side effects?  Well, I guess not; so much political posturing in Washington and the media is so ridiculous I doubt one person in twenty would believe a word of it if they got past how it makes them feel....
4. (added August 2020--can't believe I didn't think to include this originally) Being pro-gun and pro-gun-control just puts you in the same boat as politicians and celebrities who talk about how we really don't need guns, in a rather "let them eat cake" tone, but surround themselves with walls and gated communities and armed bodyguards.  That canard has been beaten to death, so I'm just going to leave it at that for you to chew on.

"If owning a gun were an effective means of self defense, insurance rates would go down, but they don't because you're more likely to shoot yourself than an attacker."

Insurance companies aren't concerned about crime, they're concerned about paying out on life and health insurance policies; if they're involved in any social engineering, you can bet it's not going to be in support of any actuarial data that show personal gun ownership stops home invaders and other criminals from causing harm, which we know is true--it's just more newsworthy to report "Joe Blow was apprehended by authorities, full stop" than "Joe Blow was arrested fleeing the home of Benny Hanna; police caught him running out the back door after hearing Hanna, 42, rack his shotgun."

My chances of drowning at home are much higher because I have a bathtub, but since my bathtub poses no political threat to busybodies and tyrants, the fact that having a bathtub provides benefits that outweigh the risks is not controversial.

"Alabama, get your act together. No state that bans abortions but is in last place for education and has had four mass shootings alone in 2019 really cares about kids."

Yet another argument based on moving goalposts and insufficient purity of intent or zeal, which will get its own treatment.

What about next to last place?  40th instead of 50th?  Second place? First? At what point will you allow us to say, O arbiter and czar of decency and liberty, “our children might not score as high as some states’, but stop shaming us for this perfectly respectable ranking, because it is not the only metric?” Education is important, even for people who may not be college material, but in a day and age where there’s a lot of training to blame capitalism (or “the heads of capitalism,” who I take to be not George Soros or Bill Gates and formerly not the Donald) for every human failure in history and conditioning to divorce personal responsibility from lifestyle outcomes, I’d be chary of making comprehensive moral judgments on the basis of a testing statistic.

I mean, really:it’s not fair to prioritize one issue, even life, and refuse to acknowledge the value of others, but you’re literally saying “the children we don’t kill do better on standardized tests than yours.”  Wow, way to set the bar, there.  It’s not like any true Scotsman would criticize the rope he was getting hanged with for being new, after all.

As for the mass shootings thing...the New York Times as of May 9 reports eight school shootings in the US, one being in Alabama.  These have resulted in four deaths and seventeen injuries. Wikipedia has some more interesting statistics:  124 events total nationwide as of May 16, with 129 fatalities and 468 injured. Three of these were at a school at one was at a church.  For comparison, it shows three mass shootings in Alabama with a total of five dead; New York only had one with one fatality, California had twelve with eleven fatalities, Texas had twelve with 21 fatalities, but the city of Chicago alone had four deaths across five mass shootings.  All these include bar fights and domestic incidents with multiple casualties, not just schools.  I'm not going to quote low-fatality statistics at you, but this should be enough for you to practice on when someone says you're not comparing apples to demographic apples.

Another sign I'm on the right side

I mean, yeah, sometimes even on the Internet I find my echo chamber pierced like a bubble and find facts and logic and decent human beings that don't fit my paradigm, and I wonder if maybe I just have a few good intentions but am largely mistaken.

But then something else happens.

A number of something elses, actually, but I'll talk about how 90% of the violence is either physically on the other side or exists only as rhetoric and accusation and invention but still is on their side later.

It’s not that both sides don’t have solipsism and myopia. It's not that both sides don't have some facts and logic to support their positions (gun violence is never a good thing, even if you can justify its necessity; rationalizing its expansion despite any consequences is inhumane and as bad as the argument that is aesthetic rather than moral that "guns are bad so it doesn't matter if they reduce violence overall").  It’s that on the libertarian side, problems tend to be self limiting; large scale benefits perpetually promised by socialism might not be possible, but neither are tyrannies that keep said promises poorly and then bring more problems.  So when I see situations as I describe below, I find them to be evidence that such beliefs are more dangerous than my own, instead of less.

A coworker of mine--I'll tell you more about him later; he's fun--was lamenting that unemployment was as low as it has been lately.  He has nothing against people working, mind you, and he recognizes that some unemployment is natural as it accounts for people who are willingly between jobs and are not suffering in any way. But his contention was that as unemployment drops below this natural level, competition for workers goes up and that translates into higher wages meant to entice job seekers. And the money for higher wages has to come from somewhere, namely, the price of whatever goods and services are sold by companies that are raising their wages. Thus we end up with inflation hand in hand with wage increases. Okay, that’s not the best situation, although on some level that’s just a tautological opportunity cost—even if the money came from nowhere, prices would go up because the supply of money was higher.

That’s why modern first world countries have the richest citizens in human history and the truly (even the marginally) destitute are not proportionately large in number.

But the kicker? He’s down with a “living” minimum wage.

That’s right. It’s not good for labor prices to rise from natural market forces because it will push inflation, but artificially raising it and letting inflation happen for the very same reason is A-OK. Whether this parallel is unimagined or there is an implicit assumption that enough wisdom and economic controls can be made implemented quickly enough to stave off a crisis, I have no faith that the outcome would be better than not interfering.

"Don't slutshame. Sex isn't meant to have kids. Children are an occasional side effect of sex."

I could say a lot here--I don't want to go off on a tangent about how to discuss things that are inherently shameful, and how shame is not a social construct--but I will restrict myself to this:

If conception is an accident, a rare coincidence, then why is failure to use contraception in 100% of sexual encounters (y'know, just in case it's that one occasion) described as "not being responsible?"

A bit heavy-handed and transparent, no?

So two years ago Trump is elected president.

Like the mirror image of Obama being awarded the Nobel prize before taking office for the great humanitarian things it was presumed he would accomplish, the usual suspects and their useful idiots started crying for Trump's impeachment before taking office for the great humanitarian crises it was presumed he would create.

This didn't go far by itself because being uncivil, being a jerk, being disliked, having differences of opinion, and even using rhetoric that is inflammatory but would have been unremarkable two hundred or a hundred or twenty years ago are not impeachable offenses.  But the Russian collusion thing quickly picked up some steam and for two years eclipsed it--they could always impeach him for that, since the "but I didn't get what I wanted this time!" wasn't working on its own here or against the Electoral College.

Fast forward through two years of investigators spinning their wheels, finding little more than a past her prime porn actress, and reminders of smoking guns found in the hands of at the wrong targets, and finally a few weeks ago they decide to acknowledge that there's no "there" there.

Immediately cue up Amendment 25 rhetoric.

Really?  President not fit to execute his office?  Did everybody just not notice before?

Everybody was sure hopeful to throw everything at the wall during early talks of impeachment to see if they could get enough to stick (as if it were a matter of quantity of dirt thrown and not actual high crimes and misdemeanors; one would have through they learned that lesson, but then came along Brett Kavanaugh and all his accusers who waited until the last minute to stage a wave of protests and then claim that that meant something above than the theatrics they so patently were).  I'm honestly surprised, looking back, that they didn't try some "he colluded because he was incompetent, not just because he was evil and too unpopular to win an honest vote" double play.

Someday some trick like this will work against some president.  And then the other side will turn that trick against them, and everybody will be shocked when another obamassiah is kept from taking office by a conspiracy that has learned that double edged knives cut in both directions.  And then we will have the world's largest banana republic.

And maybe that's what they want.

I don't know what to call it.  It's not envy because they don't want to destroy something good someone else has because they resent not having it; they want to destroy it on behalf of people who don't, except for the little bit they think will still exist for them to keep for themselves.

If the government can just print more money whenever it wants some, has a budget shortfall, recognizes a contraction in the money supply...

…why are there still taxes?


I mean, not to lessen the pithiness of that question, but where do people think money goes when it’s taxed or spent?

You know what really gets me?

It's that all the protesting, all the rhetoric, all the drama when something is built up into a crisis....they all act like we're finally on the cusp of turning human society around, how with the next judicial appointment or the next presidential election or the next symbolic bill going to the floor for general voting, everything is going to turn around, and if life doesn't just suddenly start coming up daisies, at least all our social ills will just start dissolving like a sugar cube in hot tea: rape will drop off and alpha males will suddenly start crying tears of joy, black people will stop getting murdered and will start having cushy jobs drop into their laps as white people move into the back woods and inbreed themselves to extinction, people will come out as gay or trans by the millions, and other things less obviously in the fantasy genre.

One lady quoted by an NPR reporter after the Kavenaugh confirmation: "Are we going to be out here for another 30 years? I don't have 30 years left." Lady, what were you protesting that you thought 30 years of standing in streets with signs was going to change? The Civil Rights Era was over more than 30 years ago, and sorry to say but the last few years of what amounts to "This is the same thing so let us have it!" just doesn't close the argument.  Or was there something else? Abortion? Legal more than 40 years; it's the pro-lifers who are protesting that. Something else? Something more fundamental to the human species, like the propensity to be inconsiderate, invasive, rude, predatory? Sister, no amount of legislation is going to fix nature. Schools and parents have been trying to civilize children for a lot longer than 30 years, and considering we have to start over with every generation, I am surprised you ever thought you'd live to see the day when we finally succeeded once and for all.

Megan Kelly, NBC employee...

...was somehow unwoke enough to suggest that blackface or anything short of racist fawning wasn’t the worst thing in the world.

She apologized on her show, and it wasn’t good enough.

Trump is somehow more responsible than the media who go around constantly calling half the country racist and sexist and homophobic and Islamophobic, but somehow not being responsible for the outrage that sometimes spills out into physical violence that is positively condoned in many corners of the public sphere (corners, sphere...YKWIM).

 Maybe NBC needs to reconsider how it vets its long time employees. Good luck.

Oh look, they're doing it again.

Still talking about Kavanaugh as if every accusation thrown at him is a conviction of guilt and any response on his part is an admission of same.  

I don't expect everyone against him to recant, even now, but yet again it's come down to a few people being more interested in changing what people think than they are in pursuing justice.

Which is really what's going on.  Improving the thought patterns of moral troglodytes sounds great, but in the end it's just thought policing.  

"Conservatives don't mind if Republicans lie about their sexual escapades.  It doesn't matter; they can always get away with it."  Yeah, because a couple high profile guys at Fox News lost their jobs, while Harvey Weinstein got arrested for accusations of sexual assault than any other three people I can think of, and Bill Clinton is still at large.  This isn't a partisan thing.  That's why when you hear about "rape culture" and "patriarchy" there's a lot of Marxist language but they tend to construct accusations that are barely short of universal.

Not to narrow this down to rape.  It's a narrative they're trying to maintain, using repetition and drama to crowd out uncontested facts.

When Al Gore lost to Dubya, he only demanded recounts in districts he expected better results from, and the results were more in Bush's favor every time, but now we're starting to hear that it was the other way around and Trump in 2016 just did what Bush pioneered, despite the reputation of only the other party getting extra votes from people and from dead people.  When Dubya played fast and loose with wiretaps (not to say that was okay), all you heard was "King George was shredding the Constitution."  When Obama was president, all you heard was "the Constitution is obsolete" and "there were no scandals."  Now that Trump is president, all you hear is "He's a tyrant" even though the closest thing they have to evidence is things completely within his power to do that they happen to find disagreeable; and even though they've been lambasting him since before he was elected, somehow it was his power as president he abused to cause the polarization that results in all the shootings that have been in the news this year, and not the media that have been stridently calling half the country bad names like it was going out of style.

Pro tip:  When you go to see a stage magician, don't look at his cards or his wand or what have you.  Watch his hands.

Do I have to explain this?

Women go on strike for a day and a country panics...

...men go on strike for...okay, probably for the most part men will founder on trying to cook and do laundry and manage kids a la "Mr. Mom" for a day more than anyone will suffer, with some possible exceptions, if men go on strike for a day.

But what if it's a week?

People who work outside the home and have no homemaking skills may panic immediately if they don't have someone to have their food and clothes ready--we clothe ourselves daily and eat every few hours, after all.  But these are skills than can be learned to subsistence levels quickly.

What about the stuff guys do that keeps them from being smarter about reading recipes or care tags on the back collars of shirts?

Over three quarters of professionals in transportation (something similar happened in Australia recently, so little need to speculate) and utilities, and five sixths of mineral extraction (including oil and gas, so that's almost all our electricity) are male.  That won't have much of an immediate effect in lower population density parts of the US, but in NYC where public transit is the norm, most people aren't going anywhere except on foot.  How long can you live on "I'll stay home today" when your electricity and water are in the same state as taxis, buses, and subways?

Sure, some of these jobs require certifications or formal training, so it might violate a business's insurance policy or accreditation or actually be illegal if women just stepped up to fill in the gaps..but considering almost 90% of the US police force is male, maybe there wouldn't be enough law enforcement around to stop women with pluck but no experience from flying 747s or doing thoracic surgery or taking to the streets as unregulated militia on top of juggling cooking, laundry, kids, and a day job.

But losing nine tenths of your law enforcement strength brings other problems, so good luck with that.

Stolen from a comment on YouTube:

"So I take it that the next time a black man who is wearing a uniform or flashing a badge follows me not just around the store, but OUT of the store and down the block, I should tell him 'You can't do this, because you have no institutional power over me.'"

This in response to the notion that racism is "racial prejudice" plus institutional power, therefore minorities can't be racist; that is, because a minority bigot doesn't have the collective social power to oppress anyone else, there's really nothing wrong with their attitude or the shitty way they might treat people on a personal level.

Except Kanye.  He crossed a line by agreeing with a different subset of white people, so the narrative would insist you believe, and now he enjoys not just the perquisites but all the collective guilt of white civilization.  So the narrative would insist you believe.

Of course, it also neatly obscures a double standard: whites are personally guilty of racism because of demographics and collective, historical racist stuff whether or not they personally wield or enjoy any advantage of a biased system, just like how minorities are not guilty of racism because they don't have the advantages of a large, widespread system invisibly codified to help only them, no matter how hostile they are in person to people of a different demographic or how coordinated they and others in the same demographic are in their efforts to make their encounters with a majority out-group difficult or dangerous.

And this is deliberate.

The point I'm going to make is worth its own post but I riff on it a lot these days.

Trump wants to regulate immigration, to stop people from illegally sneaking into the country and working for less than minimum wage and not paying taxes, and voting just because they live here most of the year, just like we've been talking about for decades.  These are all legitimate concerns: voting is a right and duty of citizens but not of foreign nationals who are only here for their jobs and not interested in becoming US citizens (and obviously this doesn't include the ones who do, but I shouldn't have to point that out), and other countries recognize that when Americans go abroad for work; people who work and get paid under the table make it harder for people on the IRS's radar like US citizens to get jobs, and that really sets a double standard for minimum wage arguments, and "lettuce will become expensive" is really not a compelling counterargument.  But what does everyone say about Trump?  That he just hates immigrants, and it's just because he's racist, and he's wrong because it's ironic since he's of European extraction.

This is not an argument.  This is an obfuscation.

It's also why they say Trump is "literally Hitler" even though Hitler died before he was born and Bush was Hitler before him just because he was moderately conservative by the standards of the day.  It's why they try so hard to show how there's no difference between the National Socialist German Workers' Party and moderns who either consistently vote conservative or actually are racists who just don't happen to be patronizing about it (depends on whom you ask), to the point where if Hitler were alive they'd be telling you he's secretly on the lecture circuit in Mississippi and Indiana--and the only reason alleged modern Nazis of today (not official neo-Nazis, but the ones who just get called Nazi online) get away with their attempts to distance themselves from the German political movement of the mid-20th century is Nuremberg made sure there wasn't anybody left to say today "Yeah, he's one of us."  It's why they have someone volunteer to show up at an NRA function wearing a rifle with a plastic stock and black backpack with the Stars and Bars draped over it to give the impression that the KKK was a branch of the NRA, rather than the NRA being formed partly in opposition to the KKK--you can tell it's someone doing a false flag operation because in his attempt to make a recognizable caricature of conservatives, he's the only one openly armed and is obviously trying too hard to fit in.

When they say "literally Nazis," they aren't just exaggerating.  They want you to believe that's actually true, and maybe they believe it themselves.

Even this post is going to end up used as an example of being insufficiently opposed to Nazi practices (i.e. that not being zealously opposed enough makes me one of them, like in the dying throes of every totalitarian regime of the 20th century would have it--which should tell you something about the nature and danger of their political motivations), by focusing on the argument that Trump and his voters are not all wrong, and skipping over the part where I argue that they're not literally Nazis.  They'll show a picture of Hitler saluting next to a picture of some Republican waving to a crowd and think they've made an airtight argument, and then either use that as evidence for "literally a Nazi" or use "I've proven you're literally a Nazi by ignoring all facts and logic to the contrary" as evidence that the aforementioned juxtaposition is, in whatever sense they put stock in such a thing, the truth.

The most annoying—and I mean merely annoying, but it’s high on the list—about the early 21st century is that everything is labeled as terror.
Unless it’s racism or sexism or some such, but I think terror sums it up best. 
Bully defends himself by saying it’s a joke, and you say “if the mark didn’t agree to it, it’s not a joke, it’s terror?”  No it’s not. What planet do you live on where people have to get informed consent before engaging in any interaction? How could they if attempting to request consent is unsolicited contact in the first place? It’s also not funny if you explain the joke first. Human beings know this.
But this is a bully so we don’t have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Fine; He’s not on trial. But it’s bullying; it might be abuse, it might be harassment, but it’s not terror. He’s not trying to intimidate you to get something else he wants. Or maybe he is, but he’s also treating you like shit because that in itself is what he does to enjoy himself. He’s not trying to oppress you, he just wants your lunch money. Your human dignity is so far down his list of concerns it never occurs to him that you might have any to violate
A guy shoots up a crowd?  It might be terorism, but “what else do you’d call it?” Is a dumb question. Maybe he just wants 26 people dead. Maybe he wants those 26 people dead. Maybe he’s mentally ill and his shooting up a crowd has nothing to do in his mind with 26 people dying.  Whatever his intentions, it's a mass shooting.  Calling everything an act of terrorism, domestic or otherwise, doesn't open people's eyes.  It just makes it easier for real terrorists to hide in plain sight because they don't stand out in a crowd of random people who all are stuck with that label.
Of course, that could be the point.  Try to make everything sound like the problem that everyone wants to solve and then get broad laws passed to address a now-nebulous and omnibus crisis, and profit over the disintegration of society.

If a double standard for you is a double standard for me....

So I'm watching TV and start seeing commercials for some new injustice called the pink tax.

Sure.  Make it sound like it's some institutionalized/systemic/patriarchal policy that the ever-male-dominated Congress has signed into law under Trump or some such rot.

As it goes, the notion is that women spend $1351 a year, typically, more than men do on personal stuff like bath products and underwear.

They complain that it's not fair, insulting.  Sounds unjust, doesn't it?

Funny.  A few months ago, I was hearing all about how the fragile male ego forced me to buy deodorant that didn't have pink teddy bears on them.  Now I'm hearing that, while we're all buying the exact same thing, the stuff with pink teddy bears is more expensive.

Maybe we're just being frugal.

I've seen women's bathrooms and you've seen men's bathrooms, so we both know "we buy the same stuff" is a lie.  I see cream rinse in some showers, none used solely by men, and I have no idea what it's for because I choose not to buy it and don't need to.

Are the pink teddy bears exactly the same as the blue ones?  Then buy the blue ones.  You can choose to.  No one is putting a gun to your head, or threatening jail time as if this were a real tax.

I mean, how do you think you're going to "repeal" it when it's not actually a tax on just the stuff you want?  It's just you buying more, and more expensive, stuff. How do you think you can fix that without destroying everything else? You’re talking changing prices by force of law, interfering with buying patterns, controlling what bathroom products are made and sold.

That’s going to cost society more than $1351 a head.  And I don't mean just in the pocketbook.

Was browsing Pinterest and found something vaguely political I thought I might agree with partly but seemed nuanced enough to make me willing to consider some contrary opinions. Something that I thought showcased well the inherent problems of a large and intrusive government, even if you thought such a government was a good idea in general. Usually these opportunities are in the face of half baked arguments I could have countered in high school (even considering that was decades before the current situations developed) and I hope these people pushing them also do.

So I click through to the site and discover that it was icing on a shit cake, written by someone who apparently without any sense of irony thought those particular problems were in fact the desired outcomes: the rest of it was what I was used to and what I try to avoid just to keep the anger and frustration in my life at tolerable levels.

Then I saw the caveat: no conservative opinions allowed, go to some anti communist site to bitch about us instead; liberalism is an inherently inclusive philosophy.

Oooh....yeah, swing and a miss, buddy. Maybe you got burned by some rude or angry conservatives, but this wasn’t even pretending to honor your principles.

Another case of dishonest eisegesis

Saw a video on YouTube recently about pirate trivia. A lot of it was interesting, including an item about how pirates practiced gay marriage. This surprised me a little bit because I didn't think "practicing marriage" was on the list of typical pirate activities at all. So they went on for a minute about how two pirates might decide to throw in together: they might pool their share of the spoils, if one died the other would get something for it and was responsible for making final arrangements...and they, I kid you not, would occasionally share a prostitute when they were in port. They'd share a prostitute? Kinks aside, that doesn't sound like anything that should be described as a marriage, gay or otherwise. What it sounds like is a mutual power of attorney compact between two close friends. It wasn't long ago that two men could be friends without being presumed to be lovers, and even something as seedy as splitting a prostitute wouldn't have cast doubt on that. But, anything to muddy the waters, eh? Keep this in mind next time someone makes a similar claim.

On the value and limits of emotional argumentation

This isn't supposed to be about guns so much as something I saw on social media regarding last week's shooting inspired me to write this.  I will use some relevant examples, but this is not going to be a rant against people who do nothing but pull on others' heartstrings in order to achieve some goal that makes them feel safe or righteous or wealthy and powerful.

As I said in my last post, logic and facts aren't the only vehicles to truth; you just haven't arrived at it if right reason contradicts whatever your epiphany is (setting aside cases where maybe you just don't have enough data or brainpower to navigate some conundrums; I mean no insult or condescension as this world is big and complicated enough that even our brightest sometimes disagree and even get shown up by more humble minds), then maybe the revelation you had wasn't so fully true after all.

On the other hand, it can cut through a lot of the sophistry we use to lie to ourselves to make life a little easier to bear or our sins a little easier to ignore.

That's what people are feeling when they they experience a sort of mental "waking up" after some major life or society changing event.

The only problem is, it's often misdirected or just wrong.

Actually that's not the only problem.  In a phenomenon related to confirmation bias, if one relies too strongly on emotional revelations to take shortcuts around empirical analysis and logic, one will be inclined to take shortcuts around everything, and any effort or meme that resonates with the original emotional experience will be used to attempt to further whatever the goal is.  Thus we have widely circulated "statistics" like "there have been 18 school shootings already in 2018," but you only get that number if you include shootings in the same neighborhood and shootings between people who are neither faculty nor students at times that are not during school hours but happen to be in the parking lot (how such an altercation is supposed to meaningfully contribute to students' collective sense of fear is based entirely on empty, forced association, like if I say "Ivanka Trump" and "Founders Brewery" a lot people will start connecting the two in their minds just because I did it so many times first).  The real number of school shootings in 2018 so far is 7, and 5 have resulted in casualties (not all fatalities).  That's still horrible, but it's not the epidemic people want us to think it is.  Three thousand people died on 9/11, but you don't hear anything about an epidemic of religion-motivated terror attacks, even though those still hit the news, do you?

But I digress.  I was talking about how these epiphanies people have when they're smacked in the face with a tragedy often motivate people to espouse or do something unhelpful or counterproductive or useless.  Well, I was about to make that point, anyway.

The morsel on social media that stirred me to post yet again this month went something like this:

"When I have to wonder as I put my kids on the school bus if I'll ever see them again, it's time for things to change."

So, what's your plan?  To drive the kids yourself?  Gun homicides are competitive with vehicular homicides.  Homicides in general are the cause of death for school aged children roughly one fifth as often as accidents.

Ah, but that's not really what you meant, I know.  Like I said Thursday, gun deaths are offensive, but children's deaths by other means, in any quantity, lie somewhere between acceptable and unremarkable.

When I point something like this out, the only I answer I get is something in the shape of "it's easier to ban unnecessary and dangerous things like guns than stop everyone from using the cars they need because some people can't bear the responsibility."  There's some irony there I won't unpack today, but what they're doing is describing the problem and its solution as very simple things, and then hoping you'll confuse "easy" for "simple."

So, sure, there haven't been school shootings in the UK since guns were banned.  But knifing deaths (and survived injuries) are up.  And the homicide rate is lower...wait, no it's not:  the UK reports murder rates for these things, not homicide rates.  Murder is a homicide that a court of law has conclusively determined was unlawful, and thus is a significantly smaller number even if the total death rate is comparable or potentially higher.

So, like I would ask a slacktivist who puts a Hillary 2018 sticker on his car and goes to an election party to celebrate the historical inevitability instead of participating in it at the poll:

How do you think, if someone put you in charge or asked for your suggestion like I'm doing now, we could get as a country from where we are now to a place where people prone to mass murder are unable to get this one type of tool for scratching whatever crazy itch they have that makes them do this?
Do you want the police to be armed so they can use decisive force to protect you from someone attacking you with a bat or a knife or a jar of battery acid or their brute strength and gang members?
Do you think they will be available to help you any more than they are now?  What would you do to make that happen?
If you want the whole country a gun-free zone, what are you going to do to prevent something like when Prohibition fomented a lively black market for liquor and organized crime?  Why do you think any efforts you made now for this would be more successful than what turned out to be the only Constitutional amendment to be repealed?  Sure, gunsmithing is harder than brewing beer or distilling, but there are lots of other necessary things to society that require machining equipment, and if you've got that and the raw material you'd be using anyway and a little expertise, you're a week away from arming a small militia.

Sometimes they have answers to a few of these questions, but they're all solutions that are worse than the problems.  It's someone else's job to do the hard work.  But usually that doesn't get done either; we get something slipshod hypothetically run through Congress and then everyone clutches their pearls when unrefined details turn out to be show stoppers.  Then we're buying pre-owned AKs from Mexico and pulling contraband of various calibers out from the floorboards, because we knew the bad guys were already doing that.

But that's another problem they're hoping will just go away in the sweep.

No, it actually isn't about guns.

I know they keep saying it is, and telling people who weren't there hiding or wringing their hands that they're not sympathetic enough to have a valid (let alone voiced) opinion.  But that's because describing the experience of fear is easier than being rational.

Sure, logic and facts aren't the only way to apprehend some truths, but truth and right reason cannot contradict, so if you are struggling with a contradiction, check your facts, check your logic, and check your gut; at least one and possibly all three are wrong.

I normally avoid hot political issues--okay, not abortion, but that's an old controversy and everyone is used to it from a political perspective--because it's an opportunity for social media to go crazy that am no longer young enough to find anything but tiresome and annoying and wrong, but I will make a rare exception and hopefully have the self discipline not to violate my policy...well...a third time.

I'll expand on my next point in the relative future, but without demeaning their horrific experience this week, as long as everyone is being political instead of remember our own and each other's humanity, these kids today, I tell ya...are just as dumb as we were at that age.

"A gun killed 17 students.  A gun caused all this fear."  Bullshit.  A disturbed teenager--I'll restrict my opinion about his mental health versus his snowflake status to watercooler chat at work--killed 17 students.  Or would it really have been okay to you if he just burned the school down?  Probably would have achieved a significantly higher body count; is that a fair trade in your eyes?  And fear?  Okay, the prospect of a shooter is more alarming than that of someone with a machete, Florida schools largely not resembling slasher flicks, but one generally doesn't see honest and well-adjusted people going around crying at the sight of a pistol on a cop's hip or unable to sleep because speculation about how many neighbors might have guns--even field stripped, unloaded, and locked away--in their own houses!

No.  They trot out the fear and hard cases to make hay while the sun's shining, but when the dust settles it's back to normal.  And in the end, no one cares that it was a sick young man who killed 17 children.  No one cares that Congress does not actually have the power to stop a distraught youth from coming unhinged.  But people will keep thinking it does, because they keep listening to people who keep saying it does, because they don't care about murdered teenagers or teenage murderers, they only care about what what they're going to get out of trying to corral public sentiment.

Just so we're clear...

...if someone points out that health care should be non-profit, it would behoove them to be reminded that:

1. Actual hospitals in the United States already are
2. "Non-profit" does not mean "government-run," except in the case of VA hospitals, which (alas, tragically, for our vets) are something nobody should be striving for.

A metaphor for abortion

“After my folks died," one apologist for abortion once said, "they left me their house, but I liked living in my townhome downtown; it was close to work and the grocery store so I didn’t need to drive much, and it was cozy.  I knew I would never want to live there—at least, not at that point in my life.  But I still had to go through the neighborhood a lot where the house was, and I didn’t want to be reminded every time I saw it that my parents were dead.  So I burned the house down.”

Okay, she didn't exactly say this, but this argument was identical in shape and logic to the argument she used.

Setting most other considerations to the side for a moment--such as the problem itself--does this not sound at least like one of the less responsible solutions, not more responsible, to her problem?

Fragile male ego?

No, just marketing. Note that the dark shape on the bottom right of the white antiperspirant spray is the proverbial little black dress. That tells you it’s a product for women. So don’t go off about sauce for the gander isn’t sauce for the goose.

j'ever notice...

...Young single men and women will move to a new town for work or school and go on Craigslist or whatever to find a roommate, find one of the opposite sex, and make plans they swear up and down will be platonic as if they honestly believe it (or maybe it’s a friends with occasional benefits thing; I’m not sure how the younger generations rationalize such things these days)…

…but then when they talk about sources of angst in their lives, the men are like “I’m afraid a woman will make fun of me” and the women are like “I’m afraid a man will kill me?”

Really?

Not to trivialize violence and murder, and not to blame the victim—and not to even talk about how or if potential victims could or should protect themselves, and not to deny the asymmetry in what men and women fear from each other, but:

1. If your first thought whenever you meet someone is “I wonder if he’s going to kill me,” your biggest problem probably is not the potential violence of that person.  Your biggest problem is probably much more immediate and compelling, like the actual death threats you have already received that, yes, compelled you to consider the question so promptly; or your pathological distrust of all men, most of whom (let’s not trivialize this with a “don’t say ‘not all men’” counterrebuttal, shall we?) are not in fact prone to whatever flavor of violence you’re worrying about.  Sure, men are more violent than women, in terms of quantity and severity of injuries (not counting the woman who think it's okay to throw shoes at her beau whenever she's angry at him, on the grounds that her fists are small and his counterarguments are sound), but killing is rarely at the top of the list of intentions.
2. You don’t get to willingly enter living arrangements with complete strangers and then claim victim status just on principle.

I mean, not for nothing, but you can’t shoot yourself and then blame society for making you a victim of gun violence.

It’s awful that bad things happen like you talk about, but honestly:  what were you thinking?  “that’s not fair” and “you don’t understand” and “I’m sick of hearing that” aren’t answers.

This is why you hear more about how potential victims can avoid becoming actual victims, and less about how bad men can be less bad.  It’s not an either-or zero-sum game.  There are already laws and police and punishments that are supposed to limit that kind of behavior—setting aside the sufficiency or effectiveness of such measures for the time being--but not a trivial amount of that is to stop criminals from taking advantage of the people who not simply cannot but will not learn to take measures to avoid becoming a victim.

A lot of that is earmarked by soliloquies that start with “I should be able to….”  Well, yeah, you should, in a perfect world, and maybe even in a possible world, but it's not this world and we all need to learn to live in it…and sometimes that means learning to avoid criminal behavior and sometimes that means learning not to commit criminal behavior.

I repeat:  it’s not either-or, it’s not zero-sum.

The Orwellian language of inclusive corporate policy

So my employer was recently bought by a very large corporation.  One of the new perqs I enjoy *cough* is regular news e-mails from corporate.  A lot of it's just press releases or discussion of proxy fights, but sometimes they throw in something cultural.

All well and good, but it's usually about drumming up interest in one of their "employee resource groups," which interests me for almost two seconds before I realize there's no news there.

To be fair, they don't insist on joining any of these groups.  Some of the our-plant-only committees are always eager for fresh blood, but you can say no to their face and there are no repercussions.  I've heard of other large companies that take a dim view of people who hesitate too long before joining their more progressive employee groups, and I don't see that happening here.

Which is good, because the only groups are for veterans, professional women, Hispanics, and homosexuals.

I only need to point out that I don't really need to point out how odd this juxtaposition is.  I'm also a little surprised there are only four, but that's another matter.

Suffice it to say I'm not interested in any of them because I don't belong and I'm not much of a "join to cheerlead" type.

But then I saw one of these e-mails go out and while explaining how these groups are critical to our vitality as a company, they presented the statistic that 50.2% of employees' children are diverse.

What?  "Diverse" is a quantifiable thing that an individual person can be?

Uh, no, it's not.  You might say the group comprised of all employees' children is diverse, but I am suspicious of whatever survey they did that enabled them to calculate that 502 out of every thousand children raised by my coworkers wears some kind of "diversity" badge.

And when it's over half, aren't we getting to the point that whatever makes them distinctive from the traditional white male workforce no longer qualifies as a diversifying characteristic?  If they were all Hispanic lesbians, the group wouldn't be diverse at all.

For that matter, what are these criteria they're using?  50.2% might just be how many of the children we're talking about are girls. Not saying that doesn't count, but it is mundane.

My sneaking suspicion is that, if they're not just using the number of girls as a shortcut around statistical sampling, they're looking at race and making sure we know they mean homosexuals too when they say "diversity," so we have one more thing to look for in our own children, even if they're too young to know how they're oriented or what claiming to know really means.

I wonder what the veterans group thinks about that.

postscript:
Actually, I have more than a sneaking suspicion.  Some of the more recent postings have some nice, neutral jabber about how inclusiveness helps make sure ideas and perspectives we might not otherwise consider get brought to the table, as if this were an elementary school where that was a lesson that needed to be taught and was willing to be learned; but just so you know what they mean, the postings are all decorated in rainbows.

Can't just put the bullhorn down once so we can give your intentions the benefit of the doubt for a second, can you?

The cost of social programs

Half a century ago, give or take, the Second Vatican Council normalized the use of the vernacular language in Mass for the first time in centuries in the Latin church.  This was accepted, if not always happily, but many were so excited about that and the other rumored changes that we saw abuses on the level of priests in seminary switching to street clothes and taking girlfriends because "celibacy will be out with Vatican 2."

More recently, the order of the mass was retranslated into English because the previous "dynamic equivalence" attempt had proven itself to have some weaknesses that led to some liturgical abuses and other pastoral problems beyond what seminarians were getting desensitized to.

This was less accepted, by the argument that the fifty-year-old translations were deep-set and had become too familiar to change; but mostly because the people who benefited from or caused these abuses and problems did not want to give it up.

And so, I see the same thing on a much shorter time scale with the health care debate.

Lots of hope about finally bringing all the uninsured masses in from the cold, and lots of drowning out of concerns from people who realized the financial numbers weren't that solid, and it was going to help some people who needed it but only at the expense of other people who belonged to the demographic that already has the lion's share of the tax burden, and that there were some legal irregularities that portended nothing good.

But, Obamacare was pushed through with suspicious ease, and none of the criticisms have proven false.

What do we hear, though?  "We can't repeal it!  Trumpcare will hurt the weakest amongst us!  Your pie in the sky constitutional objections are pure selfishness!"

Well, there were evils attached to it, and both before and after it was signed into law, people suspected Obamacare was designed to fail so the sense of emergency would allow a radical expansion of government control over the health industry and people's well-being.

"Look at how much it would hurt...oh, people over 60!"

Never mind how much it's already hurting, oh, employed middle class people in their 30s and 40s...and would hurt 20somethings if they didn't strategically opt to take the penalty--which they have done, since the loophole was big and obvious enough to fly the Moon through, to the insolvency of Obamacare.  

What's funny is whenever a bill to dismantle or replace Obamacare gets introduced, the talking heads on cable TV and on newsprint start talking about how Trump has already taken away health care for various demographics. Chicken little much?

Look at what you achieved in your year fighting for Obamacare!  All you had to do was pass a black-box law, corrupt the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, and rape the largest demographic in the country.  What could go wrong?

"You're metaphorically taller than the rest of us, so you should recognize your obligation to get stuff off the highest shelves for us, even if you don't recognize our entitlement to them!"

Who's this 'us' you're claiming to be a part of, Hollywood?  We're taller than some but we're not the tallest, and we sure as hell aren't taller than you are.  There are just more of us middle classers for you to nominate to carry the burden of hastily developed social programs, so it will just take longer for a different crisis to emerge when you run out of our money.  Surely you realize that's the real reason we're the ones expected to foot the bill for...well, everything.  And yes, I caught that bit where you insinuated that we owe payment because we can make a payment, and you have a rightful claim on behalf of the people who couldn't make a payment--and thus, your behalfism forgives you of any obligation you yourself have for having bank accounts larger than my house.  

Nice try, but false.

No doubting their priorities anymore

Remember when certain parties and entities used to tug at our heartstrings after a tragedy like Las Vegas in order to motivate us to go along with their political agenda--or better yet, get motivated to do some grassroots activism on your own?

Oh, the shift started at least as far back as the Orlando shooting.  I was seeing in social media hashtags that expressed vulgar opposition to the NRA and nothing about the shooter, but there was still sympathy for the victims mixed in.  Of course, the shooter was a Muslim, so any motivations related to that were off limits, but they spent very little time speculating about how he may have been more mentally ill and less a fitting representative of Islam.  Not much of a fig leaf.

Five to one the next terrorist attack they can't write off as simply "workplace violence" they attribute to the neologism "white Muslim."

But back to Vegas.  The blood was still wet on the ground when people jumped on the bandwagon faster than they took a knee to fill the vacuum of Colin Kaepernick.

I've been seeing blurbs since day one criticizing Trump for expressing sympathy instead of banning guns.  Really?  If you can't even see the humanity in the victims--I'll let the humanity in your political opponents slide for the nonce--clearly enough to add even a drop of compassion for the victims and their families into the mix, is there anything about the victims that motivates you at all?  Anything?
I saw one tweet express that sentiment in 25 characters.  That left 115 to say something human instead of merely political.  There's a time and a place for focusing on the message, sure, but the bodies in the street were still warm; can we at least talk about that and be humane for a minute?

This is why you get knee-jerk slacktivism like celebrities posting selfies and issuing platitudes that could have been written by a kindergartner but then not doing anything to actually fix a problem--no, the real work is for someone else.  The real work isn't even for the mediocre unemployed athletes who touched off the whole thing and now have enough time on their hands as well as money to make a difference.

J'ever notice...

On TV and in movies these days, there's never a question about a guy and a gal being platonic friends, no jealousy, no temptation, no confusion, no doubts, no conflicts, no unrequited hopes, no complications arising from crossed boundaries...

...but if it's two guys, there has to be a homoerotic element, even if it's just waiting to be eisegeted by some cultural gatekeeper Who Really Knows What's Going On?

Edit: Really not impressed with Blogger guessing at the formatting I want to use but not showing me the tags until I see the post looks stupid.....

And without a whiff of irony...

Tweets from earlier in the week, courtesy of one of those "alt/rogue government" Twitter feeds:  "We're not going to let politics get in the way of getting the truth out."  Fine, it's still a free country, and unlike the president you should have things other than politicking to do on company time, so it's great to keep them separate whether or not you were being above board.

Tweet from yesterday, from one of those very same feeds:  "...so now we're handing the reins over to some journalists and activists."

Really?  That seems perfectly natural, and you can't hardly be brought even to guess why some people are skeptical of your facts when your actions run this way?

No, I guess you couldn't.

Maybe I just need to get off social media.

Teh stoopidz, it burnz.

I usually skip right over it, but I just spent twenty minutes chasing articles on Twitter looking for some sobriety.  What did I find instead?

Mockery of "deplorables" allegedly griping about the election being rigged and then backing down when a recount is proposed...but when does a faction that wins an election ever complain about corruption and demand recounts--and then, only in swing states they won, and not swing states they lost?  Red flags raised about allegedly alt-right Twitter feeds getting suspended, insinuating it's official and wannabe neo-Nazis who are getting censored but not really showing that it's not just a broad list of people who were reluctant to support Mama Hillary in her time of need, or at least not making it clear that censorship of people you mildly disagree with on some issues is bad no matter who you are.  Some doctored photos and quotes that probably also were doctored showing Obama emitting rainbows and threatening not to be so nice once he stepped down--rhetoric I haven't seen since his '08 campaign, rhetoric that was tellingly absent in '12.  Outrage about Trump doing personal deals and threatening national security, even though he's not in office.  Outrage once again at the failure of the electoral college, where eleven states can cinch the presidency...but somehow it would be okay for politicians to focus on Boswash, Chicago, and L.A., which if they thought it through would be sufficient in a strictly democratic system, because, y'know, this is modern America and we have modern needs.

Again, there's lots of stupid on the other side too, but one point I'm trying to make is these people whose security in social media seems assured don't even recognize the irony (to put it politely) of their concerns. 

And another point?  This is the status quo.  Things aren't any different from what they've been for the last, oh, eight to eighty, maybe even 190, years.  Act appalled all you want--things aren't perfect--but don't act shocked.  This goes for high level politicians as well as hoi polloi who voted for them.

Be mindful of the dangers of taking privileges that you wouldn't like your opponents also taking but in a different direction.  You can hold a tiger by the tail, but you can't hold a snake.

So, in looking for other things, I found an image similar to the one below with a caption that read something like "Can we stop telling women what to do with their bodies?"

The irony puzzled me.  This wasn't the first piece of evidence I've found that the originator wasn't intellectually all that like most post-theistic "life is a tool and we are its master" types think they are, but it didn't seem like the most insightful juxtaposition.

So, a word to the wise:


This might be a picture of a girl, but it is not a woman's body.

Bodily autonomy is not the answer that cinches it for abortion.  It is the question.

You and we might be talking about issues that are related, but they are not one and the same issue.  Both sides need to be reminded of this from time to time.  And then we can actually have a discussion.