Town Quixote's

[Town Heretic]

Thought of the day...

If I was named Halley I'd start a blog and name it Halley's Comment.
Then 75 years later I'd repost...because sometimes a joke is all about timing

[Town Heretic]

So Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "[A] house divided against itself cannot stand." But in a nation still largely Christian, how often do we actually elect peacemakers or guard against division?

I've heard many a call in church to pray for our leaders to have wisdom. I think maybe we need to start praying for ourselves to manage it as well.

If you hate your neighbor, left or right, if you hold something other than concern and love for them, you are not advancing the gospel and it's time to do better than that.

[Jerry Shugart]

But in a nation still largely Christian, how often do we actually elect peacemakers or guard against division?

We need to get rid of those who depend on division in their thirst for power, the lefty Democrats!

Identity politics is all they have!

[Town Heretic]

We need to get rid of those who depend on division in their thirst for power, the lefty Democrats!

Identity politics is all they have!

That one may win the "Unintentionally Ironic Post of the Year" award if chrys ever starts that up again. It's fine to be different and to have differences. But people like you are literally ruining the public square, Jerry. You preach the politics of division, not difference. The politics of war.

That's suicide for a republic.

[Town Heretic]

Watching the fare offered by the networks I'm thinking my old idea of a hospital trauma unit run by genius toddlers isn't such a bad idea...and you can't beat the title: Peek-a-Boo ICU.

[Town Heretic]

The Wrap
on Lately


Remember when TOL was a place where serious conversations happened over topics that mattered? Like this on about who would play James Bond...

I'm generally more interested in the more cutting edge side of film and TV where it's not so much of an issue but I still like blockbusters

Ha! You almost had me, but I know Blockbusters went out of business years ago.

Well, I'm not one to cry PC at any given thing

I wouldn't think that you would. Now show me your "but"...and I mean that in a straight, white way...which I think has some connection to Broadway. Maybe.

and I've little time for garbage such as traditionalism equating to white straight males even though I am one.

I'd say that it's empirically observable in just about every major media form for the lion's share of their existence.

In film and tv almost every lead/central figure/protagonist has been white and male.

[Monroe] was a beauty and glamour icon and nobody is for "everyone".

Agreed across the broad...board. Across the board.

There's a reason why certain people are generally regarded as beautiful, pretty, handsome etc and there's science behind it too. Facial symmetry, bone structure etc. As to Bogart then it was more probably more down to his presence and character than physical appearance else who do you suppose would win in a "better looking contest" between Brad Pitt and Jack Black?

Well that's baiting the field a bit. Who would win between Brad Pitt and a younger Harrison Ford? Or Brad Pitt and a bowl of Raisin Bran, which is extraordinarily symmetrical in a spoon. Much like Pitt and Jolie back in their day.

Or Doctor Who as a woman.

I like her as an actress, I don't like the angle as effectively the doctor is a male despite regenerations and after Tenant/Piper it just doesn't work.

The Doctor was male, just like he was an old guy who didn't so much as wink at the ladies once upon an incarnation. I think it will excite more people than it alienates.

Still, if Tenant and Rose had got together then what would have happened once "he" changed into Whitaker?

Something a lot of straight males would probably have set their dvrs to capture.

But if this is the alternative...

It sounds like you're changing your tune now.

No idea why you'd think that. I supported the nomination before the hearing. During the hearing I noted that her testimony was consistent with what I'd expect from someone telling the truth and that I found his testimony on the point as good as could be proffered. In short, isolated that way I didn't see how a call could be made, and that would have worked in Kavanaugh's favor. Because if you can't tell what the truth is then you have to go with the truth you know and we're back to qualification.

But the judge went beyond that response and those remarks. It was in doing that where he lost my belief in and support for his nomination. Though I've also said that in making statements I found less than frank and credible outside of the question that sponsored the hearing it would be reasonable to apply a Latin maxim from school that was noted during the hearing, translated roughly as, to be false in one thing is to bring reasonable question as to the rest. If you apply it you might reduce the balance between the parties testimony and find for Dr. Ford, but I didn't alter my support on that principle.

So, do you think Kavanaugh should sue Ford?

No, because of the standard for public figures. He'd have to prove the testimony of Ford was willfully malicious. And he'd have his own testimony working against him, where he essentially fails to evidence any belief that that is the case, instead placing the blame elsewhere and inferring a serious mistake driven by trauma when it comes to Ford.

That would be hard for him to change now without looking like a calculating political operative, which might then throw the larger question into play.

Among the questions Dr. Ford's lawyer would ask (or more likely file in a successful motion to dismiss):

L: Justice Kavanaugh, and please limit your response to a yes or no, you're aware the standard for your suit would require either a knowing falsity on the part of Dr. Ford or a reckless disregard for the truth?
L: And referring back to the hearing where you offered testimony under oath, and again limiting your testimony to a yes or no, did you at any time level that accusation at Dr. Ford?
L: Again, limiting your response to a yes or no, didn't you, in fact, proffer something closer to that charge at others, at a larger conspiracy outside of Dr. Ford's person and control?
L: And again, limiting your answer to a yes or no, did you, in point of fact, testify and characterize Dr. Ford's testimony as mistaken and stemming from a trauma you found credible if misplaced?
L: And, limiting your answer to yes or no, is it your testimony now that you believe something differently about Dr. Ford's testimony?
L: And which time should we find you credible?
L: Now, Justice Kavanaugh, let's talk about your credibility, which is at the heart of your altered position before us today. Let's begin with your drinking...

Just not in his best interest to do it. Beyond the above Dr. Ford's team would be able to have witnesses subpoenaed and testimony and cross as a part of the public record. No, the Justice will leave this one alone and he should. There's little chance of gaining anything and a great deal to lose. He's going to look to rehabilitate his reputation from the bench, where he has control, and not from some court docket where he's again in a subordinate position, an environment he doesn't appear to exactly thrive in.

Leading to...

Gobbldeygook

Maybe the former is better.


Though there are moments...like a longer conversation with Idol on a few things...

I like to talk about sports without mentioning the line, but you helped me to get a handle on the vocabulary so that I could continue to talk sports with you all, and how to transform what I wanted to say into this new way for me of talking sports. So I appreciate that.

De nada.

I've enjoyed football intrinsically from my youth, when I played it. And then Tom Brady happened on my watch as a fan, so I was a goner.

Greatest system quarterback of all time. I'm kidding. That's Peyton payback. Can't be helped. I think Brady is a lot like the NBA's Jabar. The only person who has been as good for nearly as long is Brees, who may take that title from him.

I love the whole GOAT debate. I don't put any modern qb on that pedestal though. I mean rules changes 90s on modern. Marino breaks 5k and it stands for nearly a quarter century, until those offense friendly changes gave birth to Manning, Brady, and Brees. Okay, Stafford got one too. And that alone tells you how much easier it was. Brees managed it 5 times.

If there's a GOAT, to me it's Montana. Four Super Bowls, four wins. No ints. No losses. Not a single game where his quarterback rating was under 100. Freakish.

But we are exclusive. We and we alone believe in the Empty Tomb, we believe Easter, we believe Christ's Resurrection is nonfiction fact of history. Your small corner of the world has a microphone recording to a 'podcast' that's 'broadcast' the world round. There's never been greater leverage in small corners of the world as there is today.

I believe in the moment and the face I'm staring into. There is where I see my obligation and there is where I find Christ more often than not.

Everything beyond grace and gratitude is a mystery to me, but I'm ecstatic in that revelation.

So go to Mass. If I'm right, and there's no ego in me making this claim, since all glory is God's alone, and it's His Church who I'm arguing for, and not my own view; then going to Mass will sharpen this gift that you already manifest, and more precisely direct it at that which will best advance His kingdom.

I'm mostly color blind, but I love sunsets. Some may feel that I'm cheated of a larger thing, but I never have.

Of course we're brothers and sisters, and of course we'll meet in glory.

Tomorrow? I'm not promising. See you when I see you.

[noguru]

Delete

[noguru]

So Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "[A] house divided against itself cannot stand." But in a nation still largely Christian, how often do we actually elect peacemakers or guard against division?

I've heard many a call in church to pray for our leaders to have wisdom. I think maybe we need to start praying for ourselves to manage it as well.

If you hate your neighbor, left or right, if you hold something other than concern and love for them, you are not advancing the gospel and it's time to do better than that.

[Town Heretic]

What I love about reading...it is the only art form where we experience the other, the mind of the artist, as intimately. When we read, we bring their thoughts into our mind, and that happens before we apply ourselves to them. In that regard it is unlike any other form of art.


So it doesn't surprise me that the more well read a person is the more tolerant and empathetic they tend to be (Scientific American, Oct. 4, 2013). It rather follows, as an expansion of who we are should follow. Walking in the shoes of another, or the thoughts of another, changes something in us if we pay attention.


When we read the world gets smaller in the very best sense.

[Sherman]

Thread reopened after trolling posts removed. Do not troll. Trolling/mocking licenses have been yanked.

[Rosenritter]

So Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers" and "[A] house divided against itself cannot stand." But in a nation still largely Christian, how often do we actually elect peacemakers or guard against division?

I've heard many a call in church to pray for our leaders to have wisdom. I think maybe we need to start praying for ourselves to manage it as well.

If you hate your neighbor, left or right, if you hold something other than concern and love for them, you are not advancing the gospel and it's time to do better than that.

The Anabaptist might say that the nations of this world naturally engage in activities of which the Christian cannot and should not participate.... so to answer "how to elect peacemakers?" You don't elect leaders, you live in the world but not of the world. If that is universally observed, it would also prevent Christian division.

[Stripe]

Mocking noguru is not trolling. It's how we say hello.

noguru.

Haven't seen you for ages. Had me on ignore?

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

[Town Heretic]

The Anabaptist might say that the nations of this world naturally engage in activities of which the Christian cannot and should not participate.... so to answer "how to elect peacemakers?" You don't elect leaders, you live in the world but not of the world. If that is universally observed, it would also prevent Christian division.

It's a tough call. I think we can't really love our neighbor and withdraw from a process that can further his good...and I also wonder if we can give what we should give to Caesar and fail our civic obligation. And that's before we come to the idea of the kinds and quality of our witness, but I appreciate the thought. I don't agree with it, but I'm interested in the conversation.

[Rosenritter]

It's a tough call. I think we can't really love our neighbor and withdraw from a process that can further his good...and I also wonder if we can give what we should give to Caesar and fail our civic obligation. And that's before we come to the idea of the kinds and quality of our witness, but I appreciate the thought. I don't agree with it, but I'm interested in the conversation.

1. I am not sure that voting left (or right) is the intended application of love thy neighbor... Certainly your neighbor might disagree with how you might choose to love him in this manner.

2. I don't live in a country that can force you to vote (or endorse) any of the candidates or political parties or current rulers. Maybe some people do live in such a country, but I suspect in many places that there is also freedom to abstain from the political selection process, which could also be considered a "null" vote.

3. Again, this may depend where you live, but in the hemisphere I am familiar with evil owns all ends of the political spectrum. Placing any hope or faith in one of the offered sides can lead to a misplaced faith in a system that follows the god of this world. I accept that the world and its governments are evil, and that they will ultimately stand against and united against Christ when he returns.

But if I have "no king but King Jesus" then I also know that "my kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants.... " fight? try to replace the current emperor with his rival? It would be so easy to be caught up in an impossible doomed crusade to redeem the beast that blasphemes God. I think so many have gotten caught up in the idea that it is one side or the other, artificial choices that are already tainted.

Maybe a better way to phrase this might be, "What Would Jesus Do?" Would he vote for this candidate, taking the side of one power base against the other? To usurp one ruling family with another through the vote? "My kingdom is not of this world..." seems to apply. I don't want to hard sell this here, but perhaps it might bear some consideration and some future thought down the road.