My friend Joe Sheffer had cerebral palsy and passed away in 1989, at the age of 36, so this infuriates me even more than most things Trump has done.
And then there's taking braille off the elevators at Trump Tower.
This is about his niece's forthcoming book.
Her antipathy towards her uncle long predates his foray into populist rightwing politics. When Trump’s father, Fred Trump Sr, died, his will distributed his estate among his children and their offspring with the exception of his son Fred Trump Jr. The children of Fred Jr objected that they had been included an earlier will, written before Fred Sr was diagnosed with dementia, and took legal action.
Mary told the New York Daily News that her aunt and uncles “should be ashamed of themselves”. And soon after the lawsuit was filed, Trump changed a health insurance policy so that Fred Jr’s grandson, who had cerebral palsy, lost coverage. Eventually the lawsuit was settled and the child regained health insurance.
182 comments:
Not surprising. It's sad that the Conservatives worship him like they do. I know another Christian who thinks that Trump will give America back to the people. What a joke!! This is why I don't vote, and why I don't support partisan politics. When you vote, you are saying that you support evil.
"This is why I don't vote, and why I don't support partisan politics. When you vote, you are saying that you support evil."
How repulsive. People literally die to acquire the right to vote, you throw it away with cavalier indignation, only to then complain about how bad things are.
What, do you suppose you ought to be able to have a candidate who fits all your parameters? Gee, how does that work in a country of over 300 million people?
When you vote you get a fair chance to have your say in a national consensus, when you abdicate that right you lose your moral standing to complain about our leaders at all.
Stardusty Psyche, I have this to say to you:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
2. You need an education: https://www.obstruct-the-vote.org/
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and so I 100% agree with Stardusty's above comment.
If you vote, you have a right to complain about what our elected officials are doing. If you fail to vote, SHUT UP!
Starhopper, our rights are not granted by laws or kings. We can complain all we want whether we vote or not. Comments like Stardusty's show how ignorant a lot of Americans are. We can't get change through this system.
OK, you can go ahead and complain after not voting, but I for one will not listen to you. (What would be the point in doing so?) Anyone who does not vote may not have lost the "right" to complain, but he's lost any and all credibility. He's just a noise.
What has voting done for the American people? Nothing. You just elect politicians that don't do anything for you. They can't do anything for you. Partisan politics has to go.
OK, so you don't like democracy. What alternative are you proposing? Monarchy? Feudalism? Totalitarianism?
bmiller-ism
Now do a post about certain Catholics on this blog disrespecting the unborn.
SteveK,
Hope you've been well.
Biden holds that he knows by faith that the unborn are persons, but that the evidence that the unborn are persons is not available to those outside the Catholic faith, and therefore the right of the unborn to life, which is not known to the American public in general, cannot outweigh a woman's right to privacy in her medical decisions, which is something that everyone can know. He may be mistaken in this. However, in my opinion, he has more ethical concern for the unborn than his opponent has. Pro-choice Democrats are, at worst, ethically myopic. Trump is an ethical nihilist who offers pro-lifers political results they want in order to maintain political power. He has probably paid for his share of abortions in his lifetime. So I say, vote for the most pro-life candidate, which is Biden!!
Ha ha ha!
Good to know that you have a sense of humor Victor!
Biden thinks abortion is murder, but he is willing to allow murder in order to get votes and stay in office. So millions will die.
Even if it is true that "Trump is an ethical nihilist who offers pro-lifers political results they want in order to maintain political power." The result is that millions will not die.
It takes a screwed up university education to arrive at the conclusion that killing millions is better than saving millions.
I do not believe that anti-abortion laws, even if they are ideally desirable, are a practicable solution to the problem of abortion. Electing Trump will not save millions of fetuses. He can't outlaw abortion, even if he wants to. Vacating Roe will just throw it back to the states, and most states will not pass anti-abortion laws.
Abortion is a spiritual and moral issue that has been hijacked by politics.
Victor,
"Abortion is a spiritual and moral issue that has been hijacked by politics"
If the aborted fetus was indeed a human being with an intrinsic right to life then abortion is rightly a criminal issue.
Suppose a woman is pregnant with a 9 month aged term healthy fetus, nearly ready to give birth, in which case one ordinarily expects a normal healthy live birth of a living human being who will, after being born, surely have an intrinsic right to life, a human life, the elective intentional taking of which is and should be a capital crime of the worst sort.
Now, supposing that same woman, instead of driving to the hospital to have a normal live birth, instead drives to an abortion clinic, where the unborn term fetus is injected in the heart in utero, and when his or her heart stops the abortionist proceeds to extract the fetus from the uterus piece by piece.
Was that a murder of a human being with an intrinsic right to life? If not, why not? Is there something about traveling through a vagina that confers human life to a term fetus over the space of a few hours?
What intrinsically changes about a fetus of significance to his or her humanity in the hours between the onset of labor and birth? Does a fetus become a human being when the head is first visible? When the head is first out? When the whole body is out? When the cord is cut? At the first breath of air?
If any of these events has a transformative effect what is that effect that causes the term pre-birth fetus to transition from a non-human collection of cells to a living human being with an intrinsic right to life?
Well, perhaps you say its not about killing term babies in utero, its about xyz. Ok, but when does xyz happen exactly? On what day? There are only about 266 days from conception to birth, not a big number, it would be pretty easy to list all 266 days on a few pages of paper. Can you mark the day when a human being becomes a human being?
What possible reason could there be to justify the intentional elective killing of a human being with an intrinsic right to life? Various excuses have been offered, no such excuses stand up to rational evaluation.
The only justification for an abortion that takes a human life is self defense. Pregnancy can be dangerous to the mother, not often life threatening, but still often enough that a self defense exception is justified and necessary.
A parent may well be scared, unable to care for his or her child, poor, inconvenienced, hampered, and frustrated with the burden of providing life sustaining sustenance to his or her child.
Irrespective of the burden on the parent, the intentional withholding of sustenance with forethought and knowledge that such withholding will result in the death of the child, and does result in the death of the child, is, and should be, a capital crime of first degree murder by depraved neglect.
Why would we treat the criminality of taking a human life differently by virtue of that individual's physical location?
JBsptfn said...
"Comments like Stardusty's show how ignorant a lot of Americans are. We can't get change through this system. "
Black suffrage.
Women's suffrage.
The voting rights act.
Cleaning up the smog that used to choke LA and is virtually gone now.
Our increasing number of national parks.
More and better roads for me to drive on. I like driving on our roads.
Locking up criminals. Crime is down a lot. Incarceration is up a lot. That works for me.
Legalization of marijuana. Illinois is even vacating prior convictions and letting people out of prison if marijuana was their only offense.
Increased health care. We get better coverage when a Democratic president has a Democratic legislature, happens every time.
Vehicle safety laws. Cars are vastly safer now due to laws passed requiring safety equipment and design.
Social security.
Medicare.
Medicaid.
Public education.
Military defeat of fascistic expansionist attackers. I like that, hats off to our fine military personnel.
Ok, I have lots more things to write about the vast return on investment we all enjoy by paying our taxes and continuing to vote for those who do in fact enact positive changes over time.
But my fingers are getting tired and the list of benefits of voting and paying taxes is so long it would take hours and hours and I still could not finish.
bmiller,
Biden thinks abortion is murder, but he is willing to allow murder in order to get votes and stay in office. So millions will die.
We all allow murder for self-defense.
StardustyPsyche,
Why would we treat the criminality of taking a human life differently by virtue of that individual's physical location?
You mean, why is it different to shoot a threat in your house instead of shooting them in their house?
Answer: you are expected to try to leave someone else's house, if you can.
Mothers can turn babies over to the state, if need be. Pregnant women don't have that option.
"You mean, why is it different to shoot a threat in your house instead of shooting them in their house?"
It isn't, one needs to be in immediate danger of losing one's life in either case. That may or may not be the case in either location.
Just because somebody comes into your house does not mean you can legally blow them away, nor is self defense ruled out is the shooter is in the victim's house.
"Mothers can turn babies over to the state, if need be. Pregnant women don't have that option."
So what, so if a parent is forced by circumstances to have sole responsibility for the sustenance of a child that makes elective murder OK?
Have you ever been alone with a baby for an extended number of days? Did it cross your mind that it would be OK to kill the child by depraved neglect because you no longer wished to care for that child? If so you are a very sick person indeed.
Victor,
I do not believe that anti-abortion laws, even if they are ideally desirable, are a practicable solution to the problem of abortion. Electing Trump will not save millions of fetuses. He can't outlaw abortion, even if he wants to. Vacating Roe will just throw it back to the states, and most states will not pass anti-abortion laws.
Abortion is a spiritual and moral issue that has been hijacked by politics.
In your last post, you argued that Biden was somehow morally superior by betraying his core convictions (he has none) and allowing abortion/murder. When I pointed out the folly of your position you now tell me we shouldn't even he talking about abortion....the subject you just brought up.
But I'm pleased to see that you, an abortion advocate, oppose legislation. It means that pro-lifers are on the right track. I'd start to worry if you agreed.
I'm hardly an abortion advocate. I think there should be as few abortions as possible. I think trying to use the law against abortion is to achieve that goal in the worst possible way. People are used to thinking of others in the abortion debate as for abortion or against it. This is not true. Some people are pro-choice but anti-abortion. In fact you can hold this position.
1) Abortion is wrong.
2) Ideally, abortion should be illegal.
3) The constitution affirms a right to privacy which precludes abortion legislation in the absence of a clear Constitutional assertion that fetuses have the right to life that must be protected.
4) Abortion can and should be outlawed if and only if a Constitutional Amendment can be passed to that effect.
5) Attempts to tilt the Supreme Court against Roe v. Wade through putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court is a misguided enterprise.
Such a person would be technically pro-life, though totally opposed to the presently constituted pro-life political enterprise.
Victor,
I'm hardly an abortion advocate. I think there should be as few abortions as possible. I think trying to use the law against abortion is to achieve that goal in the worst possible way.
Yes, I know. You demand the government fund your leftist positions because people will suffer otherwise, but it is the worst possible thing to stop people from being killed by passing laws against killing people. That may make sense to someone.
You're welcome to your opinion, but you shouldn't characterize it as "technically pro-life".
The pro-life position is that a human life/personhood begins at conception and you don't hold that position. If a court rules differently then the court is wrong just as the Dred Scott decision was wrong. If the law allows the murder of the innocent, then the law is wrong just as the laws allowing slavery were wrong.
3) The constitution affirms a right to privacy which precludes abortion legislation in the absence of a clear Constitutional assertion that fetuses have the right to life that must be protected.
The constitution is a piece of paper and affirms nothing. The SC made up that interpretation.
4) Abortion can and should be outlawed if and only if a Constitutional Amendment can be passed to that effect.
The SC prohibited laws against abortion without a Constitutional Amendment so reversing RvW will restore right order.
5) Attempts to tilt the Supreme Court against Roe v. Wade through putting originalist judges on the Supreme Court is a misguided enterprise.
Good. We're on the right track.
Hal,
Nice post. I happen to be a supporter of reproductive rights, but I think your post lays out good reasons for even a pro-life advocate to support Biden for president.
How so?
bmiller
"The pro-life position is that a human life/personhood begins at conception"
Hijacker.
The pro-life position is to protect actual human life.
You think life begins at conception because you believe in ghosts, and that a spook pops into a cell sometime or other (I very much doubt you have thought about your own position enough to specify exactly when your hallucinated ectoplasm takes up residence in a fertilized egg).
One Brow
You are so stupid you do not even know what simple words mean.
"We all allow murder for self-defense."
noun
noun: murder; plural noun: murders
the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
verb
kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation.
If it is allowed and in self defense it isn't murder, you moron.
The true "pro-life" position is the "seamless garment" position.
Abortion is evil, but so is capital punishment, imperialism, endless war, systemic racism, police violence, gang violence, exploitation of the poor, xenophobia, opposition to universal health care, and indifference to environmental destruction and climate change.
You cannot call yourself "pro-life" without fighting for systemic change in the totality of our current governmental and societal "culture of death".
You cannot call yourself "pro-life" without fighting for systemic change in the totality of our current governmental and societal "culture of death".
We need to thank Starhopper for giving us an excellent example of the "all or nothing fallacy".
You know, it used to kind of annoy me when Stardusty would post.
But now I kind of enjoy it. As long as it's not a wall of words.
Starhopper
"police violence, gang violence"
Equating police violence with gang violence is particularly stupid.
Police violence is virtually always a good thing for us all, except the criminals who they use violence against to thwart their further crimes. Criminals don't like police violence against themselves, it inhibits their criminality.
Gang violence is just the opposite of police violence. Gang violence is extremely destructive for honest people, monstrously criminal, and often must be met with violence by the good guys, the police.
Yet you equate the two, you moron.
Police violence is like the allies violently attacking in Normandy. Gang violence is like Nazi violence. Learn the difference you idiot.
bmiller said...
"You know, it used to kind of annoy me when Stardusty would post.
But now I kind of enjoy it"
This is like Sam Harris and Donald Trump agreeing about Islam.
Yes, SJWs are idiots, I am with you on that, after that, you and I go our separate ways.
Hal,
How so what?
You made a statement that I quoted above. It's in reference to that statement.
Yes, SJWs are idiots, I am with you on that, after that, you and I go our separate ways.
I was actually referring to your ignorant ectoplasm statement, Mr "Grandfather is Causing Me to Move" :-)
StardustyPsyche,
If it is allowed and in self defense it isn't murder, you moron.
That was a more subtle point, so I'm not surprised it escaped you. Abortion is not legally murder because it is not illegal.
StardustyPsyche said...
It isn't, one needs to be in immediate danger of losing one's life in either case. That may or may not be the case in either location.
Legally, you are under no obligation to try to flee your house if you are capable, rather than defend it. Legally, you are under the obligation to leave someone else's house. Since we agree that murder is a term referring to what is legally impermissible, there is an obvious difference between a shooting in your home or someone else's.
So what, so if a parent is forced by circumstances to have sole responsibility for the sustenance of a child that makes elective murder OK?
Since abortion is not murder, the question is moot.
Have you ever been alone with a baby for an extended number of days?
I raised 5 of them, and have sat for others.
Did it cross your mind that it would be OK to kill the child by depraved neglect because you no longer wished to care for that child?
In what way is surrendering a baby to the state "depraved neglect"?
bmiller,
The pro-life position is that a human life/personhood begins at conception ...
I am pro-life to bmiller. How about that!
Hal,
OK. It doesn't make sense to me but you're not obligated to explain your reasoning.
Anyone see Parasite?
Subtitles involved.
I've heard of it, but have not seen it.
I mainly watching "classic" cinema nowadays, and very rarely anything current.
Plus, I've been re-living my childhood of late by binge watching my favorite shows from long, long ago. "Adventures in Paradise", "The twilight Zone", "The Wild Wild West", McHale's Navy", "Gilligan's Island", "Rocky and Bullwinkle", "Lost in Space" "Star Trek" (the original series), plus some shows from British TV.
"Rocky and Bullwinkle" is subversive.
"Lost in Space"....really? Barf.
Hey, it beats Doctor Who.
But not Benny Hill.
Been reading John Humphrey Noyes book regarding his take on the history of socialism in America and why it failed.
Here are some passages from THE HISTORY OF AMERICAN SOCIALISMS starting at page 23.
Owenism and Fourierism, has touched and modified both of the party-sections and all departments of the national life. We must not think of the two great socialistic revivals as altogether heterogeneous and separate. Their partisans maintained theoretical opposition to each other; but after all the main idea of both was the enlargement of home-the extension of family union beyond the little man-and-wife circle to large corporations. In this idea the two movements were one; and this was the charm-
AMERICAN
SOCIALISMS.
ing idea that caught the attention and stirred the enthusiasm of the American people....
As a man who has passed through a series of passional excitements, is never the same being afterward, so we insist that these socialistic paroxysms have changed the heart of the nation ; and that a yearling toward social reconstruction has become a part of the continuous, permanent, inner experience of the American people....
Nettleton and Finney were to Revivals, what Owen and Fourier were to Socialism...
Opposed as they were to each other theologically~one being a movement of Bible men, and
the other of infidels and liberals-they could not be expected to hold public attention simultaneously. But looking at the whole period from the end of the war in 1815 to the end of Fourierism after 1846, and allowing Revivals a little precedence over Socialism we find the two lines of excitement parallel, and their phenomena wonderfully similar....
On the one hand the Revivalists needed daily meetings and continuous criticism to save and perfect their converts; and these things they could not have without a thorough reconstruction of domestic life. They tried the expedient of "protracted meetings," which was really a half-way attack on the fashion of the world; but society was too strong for them, and their half-measures broke down, as all half-measures must. What they needed was to convert their churches into unitary famlies, and put them into unitary home·s, where daily meetings and continuous criticism are possible ;-and behold, this is Socialism!
On the other hand the Socialists, as often as they came together in actual attempts to realize their ideals, found that they were too selfish for close organization. The moan of Macdonald was, that after seeing the stern reality of the experiments, he lost hope, and was obliged to confess that he had "imagined mankind better than
28
AMERICAN SOCIALISMS.
they are." This was the .final confession of the leaders in the Associative experiments generally, from Owen to the last of the Fourierites; and this confession means, that Socialism needed for its complement, regeneration of the heart ;-and behold, this is Revivalism!
I didn't realize that the Great Awakening happened around the same time as all these socialist experiments. I find an interesting parallel between these movements in the 19th century in America and the similar types of movements in America in the 1960s-1970s involving the "New Left" and the "Jesus Movement".
The main reason why the USA is not a European style socialist nation today is FDR and the New Deal. Roosevelt saved American capitalism, which was collapsing in the early 1930s all over the world. Russia's answer to the world wide economic collapse was the Five Year Plan and Stalinism. Germany's answer was Hitler. Italy's answer was fascism. (The same for Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, Spain, and (eventually) Argentina.) Japan's answer was militarism and the invasion of China. The USA's answer was... the New Deal.
New Harmony was started by Owens in 1825. Chapter 4 page 30
Before the year was out it was pretty chaotic, so Owens appointed an "Executive Council" that was to follow the orders of the commumnity but almost immediately they decided that Owens should call the shots. And all was well...for a while. But it was a short "while".
Owens gave this 4th of July message in 1826:
On the 4th of July Mr. Owen delivered his celebrated Declaration of Mental Independence, from which we give
the following specimen:
" I now declare. to you and. to the world, that Man, up to this hour, has been in all parts of the earth a slave to a Trinity of the most monstrous evils that could be combined to inflict. mental and physical evil upon his whole race. I refer to Private or Individual Property,
Absurd and Irrational systems of Religion, and Marriage founded on Individual Property, combined with some of these Irrational systems of Religion."
About a year later, Owen gave up and walked away but not after a mess of chaos.
The chapter is a short read. It's instructive.
Quick Quiz: Agree or Disagree:
1) Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color
2) Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people
3) Rename our cities and towns until they match the demographics of the population
4) Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color
5) Move, after an open public process, to a new name for our country that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people
6) Rename our states until they better reflect the heritage of Native people and citizens of color
7) Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved
8) Respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities
9) Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them
10) Move, after public consultation, to a new American flag that better reflects our diversity as a people
11) Consider adopting a new national language, that will be forged from the immigrant and Native linguistic diversity of this country’s past
12) Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population
13) Gently remodel the statue of liberty to make it better reflect the diversity of America
14) Rename our streets and neighbourhoods until they match the demographics of the population
15) Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people
16) Begin changing the layout of our cities, towns, and highways, moving away from the grid system to follow the more natural trails originally used by Native people
1) Agree
2) Make THIS our national anthem (I'm serious)
3) Disagree
4) Disagree
5) Disagree
6) They already do. 25 states (fully half!) have Native American names, 7 have Spanish names, 2 have French names, 4 are named after places in Europe, 11 are named after people, and 1 (Idaho) is totally made up.
7) Disagree
8) I hate Mount Rushmore. Not because they're of "dead white men", but because the whole thing reminds me of Stalinism and the Cult of Personality.
9) We definitely need more wilderness, but it doesn't have to be the parks. They're for recreation.
10) We're going to need less stars, if we're ever going to add new states. (We started out adding stripes as well as stars, but quickly realized it would eventually look stupid, and went back to just 13.)
11) We don't have an "official" language now. Let's keep it that way.
12) Remove ALL statues. (Well, most of them.) What good are they?
13) Disagree
14) Some streets, yes. Neighborhoods, no.
15) I can think of 3 or 4 amendments that we desperately need without breathing hard. But an entirely new constitution? No.
16) Disagree
Sounds like you're mostly lazy Starhopper, like me.
If they start changing all those names I'll never find my way home.
It seems that Owen's communism was all the rage around the time of Monroe and John Quincy Adams:
From Chapter V
He came to this country with the prestige of a reformer who had the confidence and patronage of Lords, Dukes and Sovereigns in the old world. His lectures were received with attention by large assemblies in our principal cities. At Washington he was accomodated by the Speaker and President with the Hall of Representatives, in which he delivered several lectures before the President, the President elect, all the judges of the Supreme Court, and a great number of members of Congress. He afterwards presented to the Government an expensive and elaborate model, with interior and working drawings, elevations, &c., of one of the magnificent communal edifices which he had projected. He had a large private fortune, and drew into his schemes other capitalists, so that his experiment had the advantage of unlimited wealth. That wealth, as we have seen, placed at his command unlimited land and a ready made village. These attractions brought him· men in unlimited numbers....
From his speech about the Declaration of Mental Independence
" And here we now are, as near perhaps as we can be in the" center of the United States, even, as it were, like the little grain of mustard seed! But with these Great
Truths before us, with the practice of the social system, as soon as it shall be well understood among us, our principles will, I trust, spread from Community to Community, from State to State, from Continent to Continent, until this system and these truths shall overshadow the whole earth, shedding fragrance and abundance, intelligence and happiness, upon all the sons of men!"
Such were the antecedents and promises of the New Harmony experiment. The Professor appeared on the stage with a splendid reputation for previous thaumaturgy, with all the crucibles and chemicals around him that money could buy, with an audience before him that was gaping to see the last wonder of science: but on applying the flame that was to set all ablaze with happiness and glory, behold! the material -prepared would not burn, but only sputtered and smoked; and the curtain had to come down upon a scene of confusion and disappointment !
So, bmiller, what was the purpose of your quiz?
To see the reactions. Looks like you're the only one who has an opinion and it appears to be racist.
Hal,
As I said, over on another conversation here, Trumpistas are driving away thousands upon thousands of souls from Christ every day. His supporters will have much to answer for on the Day of Judgement.
Here is what I wrote on this subject previously. It's truer now than when I first posted it.
Oh, my fellow Christians! How have allowed yourself to have been so bewitched that you forget the very foundations of your faith? Your ancestors in the faith were willing to die rather than worship the Roman emperors, who fancied themselves to be divine. Yet you yourselves trample the very Cross in your eagerness to offer sacrifice to the (fake) golden idol who is the very antithesis of every last teaching and action of the Lord Jesus.
That is not incense that wafts around his infernal throne, but tear gas and chemical agents. How appropriate that his praetorian guard is styled the S.S.!
The man you have traded the Lord God Himself for is known to you (so you have no excuse) as a habitual blasphemer, a defiler of all that is holy, a man with neither respect for nor even understanding of the Truth, a serial adulterer and sexual predator, a man utterly lacking in empathy or compassion, who thinks first and only of himself, who insults, mocks, and denigrates war heroes, the families of the fallen, the disabled, women, minorities, refugees, and the poor, a man who has never opened the Scriptures, let alone ever read them (and if he did, he would not comprehend them).
Yes, damn this administration to hell. But fear for your own souls as well. Remember what Our Lord had to say to the hypocrites of His own time ("You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?"), and don't forget that He was also speaking to us (as He does to all times and places with every word He speaks.)
Flee from the wrath to come, before it is too late!
Well it's unanimous. Atheists and cursing cultists agree on what proper Christian behavior should be.
bmiller,
Where am I wrong in anything I wrote in my last posting? Do you honestly believe that Donald Trump is a worthy exemplar of the Christian Faith?
Starhopper,
Hal the atheist linked to a stupid propaganda youtube video in order to mock Christian behavior. Then you make a mockery of Christian behavior by cursing.
Go to confession already.
"you make a mockery of Christian behavior"
That is precisely what I am NOT doing. I am calling out UN-Christian behavior for what it is - damnable. The ones truly making a mockery of Christian behavior is anyone who supports Trump, despite his spitting all over Christianity and everything it holds hear.
His stunt with the Bible in front of St. John's after violently dispersing peaceful demonstrators for a photo op was the greatest propaganda tool for Satan since the Catholic sexual abuse scandals, and ought to be condemned by Christians with the same fervor.
That is precisely what I am NOT doing. I am calling out UN-Christian behavior for what it is - damnable.
You cannot damn anything, and to presume you can is a sin. You are a disgrace as a Christian.
Hal,
You posted your stupid video to mock Christianity. Typical thing to do for an atheist. I'm not surprised.
"Apparently bmiller actually thinks the people in that video are displaying Christian behavior."
He says as much. When he accuses me of mocking Christian behavior, he's referring to those persons on the video and how they are behaving.
Now I do not doubt that they are Christians. (I do not doubt that bmiller is a Christian.) Which is precisely why I condemn their anti-Christian witness so strongly.
When I was in the service, we all judged each others' behavior to a higher standard than for civilians. Most professions think that way. Most families do. ("No son of mine would ever...")
Support for Trump by self-proffesed Christians is as great a scandal to the Faith as the sexual abuse of little boys by Catholic Priests. Both behaviors reflect badly on the entire community to the great shame of all. It is the duty of Christians who by Grace see through this evil charlatan to denounce in the strongest possible language (a.k.a., "cursing") any and all support for him.
It is indeed a sin to damn persons. But it is our duty to condemn (i.e., to "damn") evil and evil behavior.
I just did condemn (not damn) your evil behavior.
Hal,
No I did not intend to mock Christianity. I'm criticizing the very un-Christian behavior displayed in that video.
You linked to a stupid video that showed people saying stupid things and implied that Christianity made them say those stupid things. If not, why mention Christianity? Why not post videos of Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar". Are you a bigot?
Starhopper,
You voted for a philandering rapist twice and you're going to vote for a demented one this time. By your own standards you stand condemned.
Bigot Hal,
The people in your video were saying stupid things. I generally associate people saying stupid things with them being atheists.
Leftist Logic: I support abortion because technically that position is pro-life - and therefore Biden is pro-life - but Orange Man Bad because reasons.
Hal,
It is a simple question:
Were the people in that video displaying Christian behavior?
And I gave you a simple answer:
You linked to a stupid video that showed people saying stupid things and implied that Christianity made them say those stupid things. If not, why mention Christianity? Why not post videos of Muslims shouting "Allahu Akbar". Are you a bigot?
I expect the answer to my simple question now.
BTW, if you get your news from random bigoted youtube videos I can understand why you're so uninformed.
What's wrong with random bigoted youtube videos?-)
George Washington was a Catholic?
Blogger SteveK
"Leftist Logic: I support abortion because technically that position is pro-life"
Well, that is really more like William Lane Craig logic. It was good for the Jews to kill all those babies because that means they will all go to heaven, whereas if they had been left alive they would have grown up to be pagans and ended up in hell for all eternity.
Thus, infanticide is the most loving thing one can do, dontchya know?
Hal,
bmiller cannot answer your question with a yes or a no because:
- if he says the video does display Christian behavior, then he is defending the undefendable, and identifying with stupidity
- if he says it does not, then he must admit that I was not mocking Christian behavior.
Now I have repeatedly said that I was condemning (not "mocking") the
UN-Christian behavior showcased on that video. I would never criticize a person for acting like a Christian. But it is a damned shame that so many Christians are, through their support for this most un-Christian of presidents, acting in such an anti-Christian manner.
You've probably heard the slogan "Silence is Consent." Well, if I were to sit by silently while the Faith was being dragged through the filth by my fellow Christians, then I would be consenting to such. So my moral compass compels me to speak out.
Hal
"They really make great Christian witnesses"
That video was pretty hilarious to watch, but sobering to consider more carefully.
Actually, there are similar videos out there showing SJWs saying equally idiotic things.
Stupidity is not the sole province of one party or one section of a political spectrum diagram.
But, the mask issue has been politicized by Trump, with Trump holding a rally where most people did not wear a mask, and Trump moved his convention acceptance speech to a location that would not hold him to social distancing rules.
So, just because you are a Trump voter does not mean you are a covid spitting Christian wingnut, but he does have that demographic solidly in his base.
A wise man said "your right to exhale water droplets during a pandemic ends at my inhaling nostrils and the surfaces I touch".
bmiller's problem is that he is fundamentally a Trump cultist, and believes that supporting Trump is more important than being a Christian. He dare not admit that to you (or me), but most especially to himself. He cannot honestly answer your question with either a yes or a no without showing disloyalty to Trump.
"Actually, there are similar videos out there showing SJWs saying equally idiotic things."
No political philosophy has a monopoly on stupidity, and no movement is immune to it.
Hal,
So you obviously thought there was some Christian behavior I was mocking.
I absolutely did not obviously think there was some Christian behavior you were mocking. You were mocking Christianity precisely because you were attempting to tie people saying stupid things to Christianity. The propaganda video showed snippets of people saying stupid things about wearing masks. Only a bigot would come to the conclusion Christians need to condem or defend peoply saying stupid things.
Also, you're asking about their behavior. They were exercising free speech without cursing or sinning as far as I can tell, so what *behavior* should a Christian condemn in that? Those people were saying stupid things, not sinning. That's why don't accuse you or Starhopper of being sinners (except for those occasions where Starhopper curses and/or supports murder). Both of you say stupid things all the time and I don't wonder for a second if that constitutes un-Christian behavior.
bmiller's problem is that he is fundamentally a Trump cultist, and believes that supporting Trump is more important than being a Christian. He dare not admit that to you (or me), but most especially to himself. He cannot honestly answer your question with either a yes or a no without showing disloyalty to Trump.
See. I still don't think this to be a sin on Starhopper's part. He's just saying stupid things.
Here is a man exemplifying true Christian behavior.
Oh, and take the time to read the comments to that video.
Hal,
Do you honestly not understand my point? In America we all agree that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, race or religion. You may as well have said sarcastically "They really make women look great." Or to single out the little girl of color and say "She really makes her race look great."
Race is an accident of birth and genetics.
Religion is belief system.
That's why it is OK to criticize a person's religious beliefs but not so for race.
Employment or education or other forms of settings for discrimination are different, in that in most cases discrimination based on race, sex, or religion is unjust.
So yes, some of the things those Christians said does reflect on Christianity more broadly, in particular the way I have heard so many Christians express the idea that Jesus will somehow protect them from Covid-19 while in church or elsewhere so they don't need to wear a mask. Those kinds of beliefs are a public health hazard.
Guess it's bigot Sunday here at old Dangerous Idea.
Who's Drinking All the Kool Aid?
I've only recently been reading about the utopian communes of America's past and seeing some of the similarities to the what was going on in the 60's and 70's. Cult City makes that connection to the early communes and The People's Temple.
Utopian communities pop up in several of my books. None became so dystopian as Jonestown. But they generally become unbearable to inhabit. In "A Conservative History of the American Left", I wrote about several. For instance New Harmony, Brook Farm, the Oneida Community, and other attempts at creating heaven on earth.
Jonestown, minus its last day, fits neatly into this tradition.
I didn't realize however, how connected Jim Jones was tied into San Francisco politics and the left of his day:
Before the poor drank the Kool Aid in South America, the powerful did in San Francisco. That’s the overarching message of Cult City.
San Francisco Mayor George Moscone appointed Jim Jones to the city’s housing commission. Jones soon became chairman. In other words, the mayor of one of America’s greatest cities essentially made Jones the largest landlord in the city. Just two years later, he would murder almost all of his tenants in a commune bearing his name.
When Rosalynn Carter campaigned for her husband in San Francisco in 1976, Jim Jones introduced her to speak. Walter Mondale, campaigning for vice president, held a private meeting with Jim Jones immediately upon landing in San Francisco. The Burton Brothers, Harvey Milk, Willie Brown, and other power players in the city essentially made Jim Jones bulletproof in San Francisco. Many of the same people protected him in Guyana. As people warned of what Jones was doing, prominent Democrats wrote letters to Guyanese officials. They defended Jones against “politicized smear campaigns.”
In August 1977, Harvey Milk wrote to Guyanese Prime Minister Forbes Burnham:
Such greatness I have found at Jim Jones’ Peoples’ Temple. … If other church[es] believed in Christianity like People’s Temple does — if other people’s [sic] believed in democracy like People’s Temple does th[e]n mankind in this nation would not be in the everlasting struggle it finds itself engaged in. But we do struggle. People’s Temple eases that struggle.
Mervyn Dymally, the lieutenant governor of California, wrote Burnham to defend him against mounting criticism:
This attack is no different from attempts recently by the United States media to discredit Guyana and Jamaica. We are no[w] experiencing the same phenomena here with Peoples Temple. The reasons are obvious.
Willie Brown, then an assemblyman, explained to Burnham:
Rev. Jones is that person who can be helpful when all appears lost and hope is just about gone. Having him as a resident in your country can only be a plus no matter how short or long his stay.
The Western half of the Bay Bridge now bears Brown’s name. In fact, many monuments around San Francisco now honor Jim Jones’s lackeys — George Moscone, Harvey Milk, Herb Caen, etc. The Taliban’s Bay Area auxiliary somehow overlooked them when toppling the statues of St. Junipero Serra, Ulysses Grant, and Francis Scott Key.
Hal,
I understand that you are refusing to answer my question. I already mentioned above why I think you are dodging that question.
Again, you are the one who claimed I was "mocking Christian behavior."
Once you point out what specific Christian behavior you thought I was mocking then we can go on and discuss some of your other concerns.
What Christian behavior was I mocking?
I didn't dodge your question, I thought I was pretty obvious. Let me go step by step:
You pointed at some people saying stupid things and said "They really make great Christian witnesses.".
So you told us they were Christians giving their witness. Christians giving their witness is something Christians sometimes do (aka a Christian behavior).
You mocked the *Christian behavior* of *giving witness* by telling us that that is what these people were doing when they weren't.
You're a liberal. I supposed liberals weren't supposed to mock people for their sex, race or religion. Guess I was wrong. As for myself, I don't think any topic is necessarily out of bounds. Are there differences between the sexes? Are there differences among the races? What are the differences among religions? Are some cultures better than others? Can liberals even be allowed to discuss these things today?
give witness to
Definition of (give) witness to
: to declare belief in (a god or religion)
They gave witness to their faith.
Hal,
For future reference, HERE is an example of true Christian witness.
Christian are witnesses for their faith in Jesus Christ, not politics.
HERE is what happens when people start actually listening to what both sides of the political debate are saying.
"Christians are witnesses for their faith in Jesus Christ, not politics."
The man in the video was not giving a political witness. In fact, what he said had nothing to do with politics. Note his continued Conservatism.
What he was doing was emulating the Early Church martyrs, who went to their deaths rather than submit to worshiping the Roman emperors. Paul Haney (sp?) was refusing to bow to the false and blasphemous idol that is Donald Trump. That is the truest witness to his faith in Jesus Christ possible. It is the idol worshiping "religious right" that is putting politics ahead of their faith.
Allow me to put this as bluntly as possible. You CANNOT be a faithful Christian and support Donald Trump. It's either one or the other.
"And what concord hath Christ with Belial?" (2 Corinthians 6:15)
The only way I can be accused of mocking Christian behavior is if I mocked someone who is behaving according to their faith.
Nonsense. Your response is the same as a blind bigot would give.
You could have just said "Look these people saying stupid things". You sarcastically called them Christians in order to smear Christians. That is called mocking.
If I substituted *woman* for *Christian* it would have been just as wrong for a liberal to do even though all but one of those clips were clearly of women and there is not as much evidence any of them were Christian (although some likely were).
If you want to mock Christians, I consider that your right. But I'm not a liberal who supposedly is against bigotry.
Allow me to put this as bluntly as possible. You CANNOT be a faithful Christian and support Donald Trump. It's either one or the other.
I'm going to vote for Trump because he will do the least harm to the country and is improving it in ways Hillary wouldn't have and Biden won't. That is what is best for the common good which all faithful Christians should be in favor of.
Hal,
You still do not understand. bmiller cannot give you an apology, because doing so would, in his mind, be disloyal to Trump. You might as well move along, because to members of the Trump cult "Truth isn't truth" (Giuliani) and they have their own "alternate facts" (Conway).
As my Polish grandmother would say, "You can't squeeze beet juice out of a turnip!"
Sorry, the Conway quote is "alternative facts".
Hal,
If you don't mind answering... what caused you to lose your faith? Was it a life experience, or something more "cerebral"?
Hal,
YOU LINKED TO A VIDEO IN ORDER TO MOCK CHRISTIANS.
You purposely selected and linked to a propaganda video of people saying stupid things about masks. It was made to mock people from the start and was edited to select the dumbest statements. Your entire purpose was to mock. But it was not just to mock the idea of protesting against laws requiring masks in public, it was specifically to mock Christians "Look!, here's some Christians behaving badly!". My mind isn't twisted enough to get from that to "My goal as an atheist is to proclaim TRUE Christianity".
I'm done discussing the video.
You still do not understand. bmiller cannot give you an apology, because doing so would, in his mind, be disloyal to Trump.
Dude. Trump lives rent free in your head.
I agreed that people said stupid things while protesting against wearing masks. It was just wrong to bring up Christianity. Nobody was discussing Trump. I hope TDS frenzy doesn't finally kill you.
Here is an even better example of courageous Christian witness. And before bmiller dismisses this as "political", listen closely as to why Scott Singer is speaking out. It's not at all political.
The definition of TDS is still supporting him after 4 years of unmitigated horror. Such support can be explained only by:
- pure malevolent evil, or
- delusion.
Which of the two (there is no third) is your reason for supporting him?
Starhopper,
Thinking Trump is hiding behind every door, behind every bush and hides under your bed when you turn off the lights is not healthy. Oh well sorry to hear you're hastening your own demise by obsessing about things God is in control of.
FYI. Not going be clicking on ignorant links proposing to proclaim TRUE Christian witness. I'll let you all revel in your hate. I'm all about love.
Well, if you love me, then you'll want to educate me. How would a Biden presidency be worse than 4 more years of Trump?
I love you but that doesn't make me a miracle worker. I do pray for you.
Jim Jones has an extensive entry in Wikipedia
It's interesting in that he seemed to have some sort of strange plan from the start and experimented with a variety of things to advance while hiding his madness (or did his madness develop as he advanced?). It seems he spent a lot of time trying to become charismatic leader after being a wierd child and succeeded bigly (basically studying Hitler's and Father Divine's strategies).
Interesting and relatively short read for the old guys (you know who you are) who know about Jonestown, but not about Jim Jones' life.
The good news is that you'll no longer feel the need to pray for me after Biden absolutely destroys Trump this November.
Don't worry. I'll still pray for you. I doubt that will stop your hate.
I only hate evil. As should you.
I see a bitter cursing man who apparently doesn't trust God. That looks like someone consumed with hate to me.
I'm all about love.
Hal,
Because I'm an atheist you simply assume I must be evil and out to destroy Christianity.
I'm not worried about you or anyone else destroying Christianity. You've demonstrated that you're quite comfortable with double standards so I feel I accomplished what I set out to show.
Hal,
The only thing you've demonstrated to me is your inability to admit a mistake: your false accusation against me.
You should have left those people's religion out of your mocking, just like you should leave out their sex and race if you want to be a consistent liberal.
Hal,
OK. Thanks for admitting you were mocking and thanks for the apology that you did not elaborate.
As you can see, ridicule is not a conversation stopper for me, but it is also not conducive to polite discussion. Aside from that, I still think your approach was ill-conceived.
Hal,
THANK YOU for bringing up bmiller's link again. I didn't watch it the first time he posted it, but now I figured, "What the heck?" I'll take a look.
What an absolute pile of #@&**!$&#!!. If this is what bmiller considers to be reasoned discourse, then no wonder he is so $#&**@@!! up. Sheer and utter insanity. Words fail me, which is why I find it necessary to resort to symbols. I knew that bmiller and I disagreed with each other, but until now I never realized that he was batshit crazy. There is no reasoning with someone so far gone from reality. I am no longer even going to try. It would be wasted effort.
Hal,
I was using sarcasm to critique them for their un-Christian behavior. I never mocked them for their Christian behavior as you have falsely claimed I did. And continued to claim even though I repeatedly told you what my intent was.
The people you were mocking were Christians. You were mocking their behavior. Therefore you were mocking Christian behavior which is what I claimed from the start.
Now let's examine your argument. You're claiming they deserve to be mocked because they are Christians but are behaving in an un-Christian manner. In other words, they are hypocrites. But if they really believe those things, in their own mind they are behaving in a Christian manner and therefore are not hypocrites. You, the atheist, are fallaciously judging them to be hypocrites by your own idea of Christianity, not theirs own. You seem to leave unsaid, by focusing on their claims to be Christian, that all other Christians should somehow be shamed for I don't know what. Should they be excommunicated? How would that work?
That's why I said I thought your approach was ill-conceived. You should have left those people's religion out of it.
Hal,
Only one that I saw looked like it was close to the video showing his mockery of the reporter but that was a video recorded after he mocked the reporter!!!
Fair and Balanced
BTW. I can understand why you couldn't find this story. When you google "did trump mock a disabled reporter?" this fox link is buried on the second page. It's the second link on DuckDuckGo.
Starhopper,
What an absolute pile of #@&**!$&#!!. If this is what bmiller considers to be reasoned discourse, then no wonder he is so $#&**@@!! up.
HaHaHa! You're getting better! Only pounding the keyboard rather than outright cursing. See, I have a calming effect on you.
Here was my quote:
HERE is what happens when people start actually listening to what both sides of the political debate are saying.
I didn't mean to suggest that the link was going to provide any arguments per se. It was meant to show how people react when they are open to hearing both sides of the debate and use critical thinking.
I never thought you were a candidate to be persuaded by *reasoned discourse*. You actually told me so:
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes.
Reminds me of Mark 5:9 :-)
Hal,
By the way, I never claimed they were hypocrites. Can you show where I claimed that?
I'm sure they think they are acting in accordance with their faith. So they aren't being hypocritical. But they are mistaken. Or maybe it is better to say they are deluded.
To be quite honest Hal, I don't know what you're claiming today.
If you think they are deluded people and they are acting in an un-Christian way but are being faithful to what they believe, then they are deluded, faithful un-Christians.
If a Christian engages in an adulterous relationship then they are engaging in un-Christian behavior.
Yes, they are sinning if their faith tells them adultery is wrong. Were those people behaving in a way that their faith told them was wrong?
Hal,
I saw those videos. In fact I mentioned that I looked at the videos in the post you responded to. And as I mentioned, only one looked close to the one mocking the disabled reporter: that was the one where he was mocking Cruz. And again, as I mentioned in the post you responded to, that actually occurred after the one where he mocked the reporter.
The fist video was from 2005 and he was mocking himself, so this is apparently something he does all the time. If you want to consider yourself an expert in the fine variations of the way Trump mocks people including himself, I'm sure you could write volumes on your findings. I'll be sure to read it.
Use DuckDuckGo and type "did trump mock a disabled reporter?" into the search bar. The Fox News story was just the first I found that attempted to address that question. But you just illustrated that you are unwilling to listen to all sides of the political debate, which was kind of my point in the first place.
This is very much in line with Trump's behavior. He is constantly mocking people.
Finally something we can agree on!
Hal,
No. Even if it turns out they are simply deluded, they are engaging in un-Christian behavior. They are lousy witnesses for their faith.
I don't see why that should make them un-Christians. Christians are still capable of being deluded and in error as are non-Christians.
Here is what you just stated:
I'm sure they think they are acting in accordance with their faith.
If they are acting in accordance with their faith then they are by definition giving a good witness for their faith. If they think they are acting in accordance with their faith, but are deluded about what their faith actually teaches, then they are in error according to their faith and their pastors should correct them.
Do you think they are not following what their pastors teach them? Do you think their pastors are then teaching them a false Christianity? Who ultimately gets to determine what is TRUE and FALSE in Christianity?
This is why I told you your project was ill-advised.
That's a relief!:-)
Hey. I'll even give you a "He's also extremely vindictive against people that cross him." to go along with it at no charge;-)
Regarding your video.
I'm not sure I want to get caught enjoying 2 white people dancing to a Jackie Wilson song. I'm sure someone is going to find something dreadfully wrong with that. ðŸ¤
Hal, Great video! I'm a huge fan of both Fred Astaire and Rita Hayworth, and here they are together. It just doesn't get any better than that!
Except for maybe THIS.
Hal,
OK Hal. Got it. You think you're the pope.
Hal,
Thanks for your (very brief) faith history.
I myself was raised in a Polish-American Catholic family, where one's faith identity was as much ethnic as it was anything else. Even as an adult, I've had trouble understanding how anyone could possibly be Polish and not Catholic. Surely Jesus Himself dined on Polish sausage and Pierogi!
I've never disbelieved in God for even a nanosecond my entire life, so that's never been an issue for me. But I did leave the Catholic Church for a brief period in college (my sophomore year). I was attracted to a Campus Evangelical Christian group and for almost a year self-identified as a Protestant evangelical. But it wasn't long before I found too many points of disagreement with Protestantism in general, and returned to Catholicism before the year was out. You might find this amusing, but the biggest obstacle in the way of my accepting Protestantism was their attitude toward the Deuterocanonical books of the OT. I never gave up my Jerusalem Bible translation during that time (which includes all 73 books).
One of my very favorite passages in the entire Bible is the 24th Chapter of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus). I must have read it ten thousand times over the years. It's practically part of my daily prayer routine.
MY daughter's (white) viola instructor was a member of Diana Ross's back up band "back in the day".
Hal
“There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles.”
The science and tons of citations are in the link below.
https://technocracy.news/censored-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covid-19-social-policy-and-why-face-masks-dont-work/
From the article:
The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point. Rather, it has profound health-policy implications, which have been entirely ignored or overlooked in the current coronavirus pandemic.
In particular, Shaman’s work necessarily implies that, rather than being a fixed number (dependent solely on the spatial-temporal structure of social interactions in a completely susceptible population, and on the viral strain), the epidemic’s basic reproduction number (R0) is highly or predominantly dependent on ambient absolute humidity.
Victor better start running his humidifier on high since he's in dry, dry AZ.
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
ebizz.co.uk
I didn’t know humidity played such a huge role in spreading the virus. I may have to buy some humidifiers for our home.
Couldn't hurt.
SteveK said...
The science and tons of citations are in the link below.
Thank you for the laugh. Anyone who links to a Del Bigtree interview unironically offers up a real knee-slapper, especially when they are getting medical advice from a physicist.
There are hundreds of studies on face masks, and your article cherry-picked 7. Here's one in the Lancet that used 172 studies in it's analysis:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext
bmiller,
The breakthrough achieved by Shaman et al. is not merely some academic point.
No, it's a massive confusion of correlation with causation. Summer months, when kids are out of school and people engage in more outdoor activities, are the high humidity months
One Brow,
Did you even read the articles? The author cites RCTs but the Lancet does not and instead defers to them for more accurate results. LOL
Author:
“There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles”
Lancet:
“Our search identified 172 observational studies across 16 countries and six continents, with no randomised controlled trials and 44 relevant comparative studies”
“Robust randomised trials are needed to better inform the evidence for these interventions, but this systematic appraisal of currently best available evidence might inform interim guidance”
Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States (2010)
Abstract
Much of the observed wintertime increase of mortality in temperate regions is attributed to seasonal influenza. A recent reanalysis of laboratory experiments indicates that absolute humidity strongly modulates the airborne survival and transmission of the influenza virus. Here, we extend these findings to the human population level, showing that the onset of increased wintertime influenza-related mortality in the United States is associated with anomalously low absolute humidity levels during the prior weeks. We then use an epidemiological model, in which observed absolute humidity conditions temper influenza transmission rates, to successfully simulate the seasonal cycle of observed influenza-related mortality. The model results indicate that direct modulation of influenza transmissibility by absolute humidity alone is sufficient to produce this observed seasonality. These findings provide epidemiological support for the hypothesis that absolute humidity drives seasonal variations of influenza transmission in temperate regions.
This study was done during the H1N1 pandemic and that virus continued to infect people during the summer months. So although higher humdity can attenuate virus transmission, novel viruses can still infect a population with low immunity. Seems reasonable to assume raising humidity where possible would help even with this virus.
I'm leaving the science to the experts, and trust their opinion.
Both my eldest daughter and my son-in-law are doctors, and I listen to them concerning the coronavirus. So when they stole my car keys a couple of months ago and confined me to the house, I didn't complain. Despite my severely compromised immune system (I've been hospitalized 3 times in the last 2 years for potentially lethal infections in my legs), I am still COVID-19 free.
So when they stole my car keys a couple of months ago and confined me to the house, I didn't complain.
Next they need to take away your internet access and get you more DVDs. I'm afraid you're going to blow a gasket. :-)
I've been watching all those governors and mayors addressing what they are doing about Covid and it reminds me of 3:27 on this video:
SNL
Bonus points if you can correctly identify everything else that is not allowed today.
The bit with Boris Yeltsin reminded me of the time I met him (the most famous person I ever actually had a conversation with). It was 1989, and I asked him about what he thought what was happening in East Germany. His answer to me: "Vostochnaya Germaniya na plavu." It was obvious to me that Yeltsin was completely plastered, but diplomat that I was, I let it pass.
THIS is absolute perfection, (And yes, I understand every word of it.)
SteveK,
Did you even read the articles? The author cites RCTs but the Lancet does not and instead defers to them for more accurate results. LOL
Did you read the articles Del Bigtee linked to? Did you know 6 of the 7 supports the wearing of masks, and the other one had 32 subjects? 3 of them are comparing the use of N95 masks with surgical masks, not going without masks. LOL, indeed.
Article #1: Thirty-two health care workers completed the study, resulting in 2464 subject days. ... A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
Article #3: The effectiveness of masks and respirators is likely linked to early, consistent, and correct usage.
Article #4: Conflicting recommendations exist related to which facial protection should be used by health care workers to prevent transmission of acute respiratory infections, including pandemic influenza. We performed a systematic review of both clinical and surrogate exposure data comparing N95 respirators and surgical masks for the prevention of transmissible acute respiratory infections.
Article #5: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) indicated a protective effect of masks and respirators against clinical respiratory illness (CRI) (risk ratio [RR] = 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]:0.46–0.77) and influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR = 0.34; 95% CI:0.14–0.82).
Article #6: Among outpatient health care personnel, N95 respirators vs medical masks as worn by participants in this trial resulted in no significant difference in the incidence of laboratory-confirmed influenza.
Article #7: Previous meta-analyses concluded that there was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of N95 respirators. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks for prevention of influenza by collecting randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
You can always count on Bigtree to lie to you.
It is truly a sign that God is protecting America this 4th of July.
America let Starhopper be a diplomat and we weren't nuked to Kingdom Come! :-)
bmiller said...
Absolute Humidity and the Seasonal Onset of Influenza in the Continental United States (2010)
What about that study safeguards it from the confusion of correlation with causation that I referred to earlier? Lower humidity is associated wwith lower temperatures, with is associated with staying inside.
I'm interested in the science of it all, but I'm not personally opposed to wearing a mask as long as I have a choice of which one I can wear.
I favor Amazon's Choice
Christian Behavior Experts,
Is this another instance of Christians behaving badly?
bmiller,
I favor Amazon's Choice
Intriguing, but I will not give up the 18xx mask my daughter made for me.
I’m relying on the scientific studies not whoever this bigtree person is. I’m reading the studies and it’s clear that we don’t have a clear answer as to what benefit masks provide. Some studies say no benefit others say some benefit. There are too many variables in everyday real life so I can see why the results are mixed. Leftists in government claim that masks make a *big* difference so they force you to wear one. There’s no evidence for that.
A chain linked fence will reduce the number of water droplets that make it through to the grass on the other side. The grass still gets wet though. A mask will similarly reduce the transmission of a tiny virus via droplets but the virus is still getting out and other people are still coming in contact with it.
About time.
Hope they don't put her in that NYC jail.
I’m relying on the scientific studies not whoever this bigtree person is.
SteveK. Don't you know that you shouldn't read scientific studies unless the proper authorities say you should? You may end up thinking for yourself :-(
Can’t think for yourself. Must. Follow. Leftist. Orders. (or they will cancel you and your family)
Hal,
They were white nationalists. That's all that matters to Trump.
And considering his own many acts of treason, why should he care about those of others?
I actually think Trump is all in for punishing traitors. Just not the dead ones.
"I actually think Trump is all in for punishing traitors. Just not the dead ones."
No, just the imaginary traitors living in his head.
And the link is to a really old list. Since then, he's accused several retired generals (including my old boss, Gen. Hayden), everyone who testified against him during the impeachment process, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and the Black Lives Matter protesters of treason. Probably other people as well.
Hal,
A good friend (and skiing buddy) of mine was erroneously arrested for war crimes at My Lai, but all charges were dropped after a thorough investigation before it ever came to trial. He had some hair raising stories to tell about his 2 years in Vietnam. I was lucky to have missed that show. Being fluent in Russian, they sent me instead to Augsburg, Germany, to keep an eye on the Soviets in East Germany. Let me tell you, the Cold War was hell! (as in, "Noch ein helles Bier, bitte!")
Want to bet who the Dem VP candidate is going to be?
A tough on crime prosecutor, it doesn't get much better than that!!!
Anybody but Warren. I might have to become a Christian just so I can pray to Jesus, dear lord, anybody but Warren.
Of course, the announcement by Biden that he was going to pick a woman was the most blatantly sexist and bigoted thing any candidate has done recently.
Imagine the screams of sexism if a candidate were to announce he would be picking a man!!!
But, if we get a lockem up prosecutor all will be forgiven.
There are numerous statistical studies that show the running mate rarely has a significant impact on a presidential race. Of course, there are glaring exceptions (usually negative) such as Sarah Palin and Thomas Eagleton.
But look at the disaster that Dan Quayle was, and yet he did not prevent George Bush from winning in 1988. And in that same year, the brilliant choice of Lloyd Bentsen was in the end no help to Michael Dukakis.
This will be a race between Trump and Biden. Their running mates will be relegated to footnotes.
But don't rule out Trump pulling a surprise name out of the hat at the Republican convention, just to "shake things up". Trump has no qualms about throwing people under the bus, and he wouldn't hesitate to throw Pence to the wolves if he saw something in it for himself.
Hal
I haven’t been wearing a mask for 4 months. I socialize up close with others that also don’t have a mask. I go to the store without a mask. I don’t have covid and I haven’t given it to anyone Masks aren’t necessary in my life. Maybe you feel that you need one. Go ahead and wear it. I won’t judge.
SteveK
". I go to the store without a mask"
Where do you live, Podunk Nowhere? Stores across the USA require a mask to get in, I guess your local government just isn't all that smart.
The second wave is here, right now, and it is worse than the first wave.
Right now we have exponential growth in total cases because of idiots like you who think you are somehow immune so you just do whatever you feel like pretending there isn't a problem.
I would not be surprised to find out you are a drunk driver too.
"Unless you've been tested regularly you can't be sure you haven't had Covid-19."
Same statement applies to you even if you wear a mask. You can't be sure that you don't have any number of contagious diseases brewing inside you right now. Maybe you just contracted covid or Ebola or H1N1 and will kill someone when you infect them today. Have you been tested today? You're risking lives, Hal. Get tested now...and every day afterward.
Your sloppy mask could be spewing covid virus out the front, top and sides with every breath. You're touching your contaminated mask and then touching other surfaces which could infect other people. Stay home, Hal.
Dusty,
Do you require that passengers wear a crash helmet in your car? Don't be one of the idiots who thinks they are immune from car crashes and pretends they won't ever subject their passengers to the horrors of a head injury. It happens every day. Be responsible and show that you care for the lives of others. Require passenger crash helmets.
SteveK,
Some studies say no benefit others say some benefit.
Some small studies find no benefit, the larger studies do find a benefit. Again, the evidence is so obvious that even Bigtree only only find one study concluding neutrality, with a grand total of 32 people in the study.
Leftists in government claim that masks make a *big* difference so they force you to wear one.
The consensus of the evidence is that, with proper use, a good mask will reduce transmission by 80%. There a reason hospitals require masks when practitioners deal with contagious patients or in surgeries. It's a huge expense, and the suffer the cost for a reason.
Now, in day-to-day life, it's true that people don't always wear good masks and don't always use them properly, so the effectiveness is reduced. That's an argument for proper use, not non-use.
bmiller said...
SteveK. Don't you know that you shouldn't read scientific studies unless the proper authorities say you should? You may end up thinking for yourself :-(
Thinking for yourself is great. Reasoning to a pre-determined conclusion, less so.
bmiller,
I actually think Trump is all in for punishing traitors. Just not the dead ones.
Do we agree having your name removed from a military base is not a punishment?
StveK
"Same statement applies to you even if you wear a mask. You can't be sure that you don't have any number of contagious diseases brewing inside you right now. Maybe you just contracted covid or Ebola or H1N1 and will kill someone when you infect them today. Have you been tested today? You're risking lives, Hal. Get tested now...and every day afterward.
Your sloppy mask could be spewing covid virus out the front, top and sides with every breath. You're touching your contaminated mask and then touching other surfaces which could infect other people
Do you require that passengers wear a crash helmet in your car? Don't be one of the idiots who thinks they are immune from car crashes and pretends they won't ever subject their passengers to the horrors of a head injury. It happens every day. Be responsible and show that you care for the lives of others. Require passenger crash helmets. "
Yes, the evidence is mounting that you are a drunk driver, of your keyboard.
Yes, poorly fitting masks and masks made of porous material can leak, reducing their effectiveness in both directions, so get the best fitting highest quality mask you can, and wear it.
Yes, of course viruses and bacteria build up in the mask, that is the whole point!!! Duh, that is what the mask is for. That is also why you should have multiple masks and dry them in between uses.
Head injuries are not growing exponentially nor are they contagious, you irresponsible, ignorant, selfish, scatterbrain, jackass.
"That's an argument for proper use, not non-use."
The CDC and state governments are not recommending that proper masks be used - just a face covering of some kind. Irresponsible. Will you condemn them?
Speaking of masks...did you wear a proper mask to protect others from SARS, the common flu and H1N1 - prior to 2020? Did you wear a proper mask to prevent some old lady from catching these viruses that you didn't know you had? Did you socially distance to lessen the spread prior to 2020? Lots of old people die from these viruses and you didn't wear a proper mask or socially distance? Geez!!
Clearly you've been contributing to the problem for years - decades even. What's wrong with you?
"The CDC and state governments are not recommending that proper masks be used - just a face covering of some kind. Irresponsible. Will you condemn them?
"
!!! YES !!!
The CDC is part of HSS. HSS reports to Trump. It is no wonder that the CDC has been issuing false, misleading, and dangerous advice about masks since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis.
Trump is an ignorant criminal and it is well known in the executive branch that if you do not back up his ignorant statements you can lose your job, hence the deplorable CDC mask policy statements.
Don't forget the WHO, Dusty
https://www.who.int/images/default-source/health-topics/coronavirus/clothing-masks-infographic---(web)-logo-who.png
That poster by WHO is pretty good in isolation, that is, if the only mask you have available is a cloth mask then following those usage guidelines makes sense.
The CDC advice to wear a cloth mask preferentially is reckless and dangerous and contemptible.
Remember those protests in Minnesota? They started May 25th and the social distancing/masks rules were not followed.
Was there an uptick in hospitalization 2 weeks later?
bmiller,
"Remember those protests in Minnesota? They started May 25th and the social distancing/masks rules were not followed.
Was there an uptick in hospitalization 2 weeks later? "
Almost certainly, yes, the protests provide a proportional source of the spread.
Compared to our population as a whole and all the interactions people have, things like a single protest or a single rally probably contribute a small fraction overall, but still, I was somewhat horrified to watch so many people gathering so closely, shouting and thus literally spitting on each other (in tiny invisible droplets).
It is crazy that wearing a mask and social distancing has been politicized. The virus does not care who you vote for or what your opinions are. People who interact closely without wear a mask are spreading the disease.
The second wave is here and it is much worse than the first wave. We are in a period of exponential growth right now starting from an already high baseline.
I would have expected a spike in hospitalizations June 9th in Minnesota which is 2 weeks after the May 25th protests started if protests had an effect.
Data shows May 28th was the peak at 242. June 9th was 199, showing as part of a downtrend from that time in fact, the hospitalization rate looks like the right hand side of a very obvious standard distribution. It's not bi-modal in the least.
SteveK,
The CDC and state governments are not recommending that proper masks be used - just a face covering of some kind. Irresponsible. Will you condemn them?
1) If you read the recommendations more carefully, I'm sure you'll see there is a preference for good masks.
2) The governments are still correct to try and get people to wear something rather than nothing.
3) Yes, I will still condemn them for not emphasizing proper masks enough.
Speaking of masks...did you wear a proper mask to protect others from SARS, the common flu and H1N1 - prior to 2020?
None of these diseases had weeks-long symptom-free infectious periods, and I get an annual flu vaccine to protect myself and others.
Lots of old people die from these viruses and you didn't wear a proper mask or socially distance? Geez!!
Which of these diseases has killed over 125K people in the US over a period of less than half a year?
bmiller,
Remember those protests in Minnesota? They started May 25th and the social distancing/masks rules were not followed.
Was there an uptick in hospitalization 2 weeks later?
If you only followed the mainstream media, it may not have been obvious that most of the time, most protestors were masked and distancing to some degree. So, there was no uptick from the population of protestors.
"One Brow"
"1) If you read the recommendations more carefully, I'm sure you'll see there is a preference for good masks."
I see that your ability to read websites for policy understanding is very low on more than one subject.
The CDC has been telling people explicitly either not to wear a mask at all or to specifically wear a cloth mask. The CDC has steadfastly excluded N95 masks and other rated manufactured masks.
The CDC is part of HSS, and the HSS secretary reports directly to Trump, so it is no surprise that the CDC has been issuing this dangerous and irresponsible advice since the beginning of the Covid-19 crisis.
One Brow
"most protestors were masked and distancing to some degree"
Except for the ones who were not.
"So, there was no uptick from the population of protestors."
Irrational. Of course the protesters contributed proportionally to the runaway exponential growth that is happening right now. The virus doesn't care about one's opinions. Where people gather and interact, especially while they are exerting themselves and shouting, there will be many invisible water droplets in the air, some of which will transmit the virus.
The myth is that the protesters are the major cause or even a substantial part of the problem. The USA is over 320 million people all day every day. The protesters number in the thousands for relatively brief periods. The bulk of the transmissions are between all the people who interact now that almost everything is opened again, especially places that opened like bars where people foolishly went without masks, oblivious to the the obvious danger.
There is a huge difference between indoor and outdoor crowds (airflow, and all that). Although I totally agree that the hundreds of thousands of protesters were foolish to gather en masse in the streets, it was still far less dangerous for them to do so than for the 6000 Trump cultists to assemble inside an enclosed arena.
I would have happily been there in Lafayette Square with the peaceful demonstrators, but for the pandemic. There is no way I am leaving this house until I am well and truly vaccinated. Good thing I have a 1000 plus volume library to keep me busy.
StardustyPsyche said...
I see that your ability to read websites for policy understanding is very low on more than one subject.
Perhaps, but in this case, still superior to yours.
The CDC has been telling people explicitly either not to wear a mask at all or to specifically wear a cloth mask. The CDC has steadfastly excluded N95 masks and other rated manufactured masks.
Yes, but not because they are inferior. The CDC is recommending cloth masks because surgical and N95 masks are better masks, and should be reserved for workers in critical roles.
Surgical Masks
Cloth face coverings are not surgical masks or respirators. Currently, those are critical supplies that should continue to be reserved for healthcare workers and other medical first responders, as recommended by current CDC guidance. Cloth face coverings also are not appropriate substitutes for them in workplaces where masks or respirators are recommended or required and available.
Of course, this was not even the point of what I said.
It's completely true that if you read the CDC site carefully, there is a preference for good masks, not "just a face covering of some kind".
One Brow,
"Yes, but not because they are inferior. The CDC is recommending cloth masks because surgical and N95 masks are better masks, and should be reserved for workers in critical roles."
You just contradicted yourself, as does the CDC.
Cloth masks are inferior, by your own words and the words of the CDC.
The correct advice is to wear the best quality mask you have available. Any other advice is bad advice, the antithesis of good.
StardustyPsyche,
You just contradicted yourself, as does the CDC.
Recommending where the best commonly available mask, while preserving rarer masks for people with greater need, is not a contradiction.
Further, since my original point was 'if you read the CDC site carefully, there is a preference for good masks, not "just a face covering of some kind".', there is no contradiction between "good" and "best".
Cloth masks are inferior, by your own words and the words of the CDC.
Some are less inferior than others, and the CDC site goes into detail about why.
The correct advice is to wear the best quality mask you have available. Any other advice is bad advice, the antithesis of good.
The best advice for the populace as a whole, or for an individual?
One Brow
"Further, since my original point was 'if you read the CDC site carefully, there is a preference for good masks"
When dealing with a deadly disease inferior is not good, only better than nothing.
"The best advice for the populace as a whole, or for an individual?"
The population is made up of individuals. The CDC gave out dangerous advice because they are part of the Trump administration. They even told travelers not to wear any mask at all.
Even today, now that Amazon has gone back to selling N95 masks, and KN95 masks are available with direct sales from China, and surgical masks are very cheap and available, still the CDC persists in its grossly irresponsible advice.
The CDC has lowered itself to the level of Trump.
StardustyPsyche said,
When dealing with a deadly disease inferior is not good, only better than nothing.
YOu can be "good" without being "best".
The population is made up of individuals.
Thank you for acknowledging the correctness of my facts.
Kanye is running but he has competition!
RunTomRun!
Sourcing original content now.
Post a Comment