Are we heading toward an all-renewable energy future, spearheaded by wind and solar? Or are those energy sources wholly inadequate for the task? Mark Mills, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Cloud Revolution, compares the energy dream to the energy reality.
Armstrong and Getty discuss certain states push to outlaw gas cars. During the discussion talk about what it would take to accomplish such a feat makes one wonder just how much the Left hates our planet. In a previous post I note some of these issues as well (Marie Antoinette Democrats: Let Them Drive EVs). One of the guys references a RUSH song and is the reason for the video thumbnail.
Red Barchetta | RUSH
LYRICS
My uncle has a country place No one knows about He says it used to be a farm Before the Motor Law And on Sundays I elude the eyes And hop the turbine freight To far outside the wire Where my white-haired uncle waits
Jump to the ground As the turbo slows to cross the borderline Run like the wind As excitement shivers up and down my spine Down in his barn My uncle preserved for me an old machine For 50 odd years To keep it as new has been his dearest dream
I strip away the old debris That hides a shining car A brilliant red Barchetta From a better, vanished time We fire up the willing engine Responding with a roar Tires spitting gravel I commit my weekly crime
Wind in my hair Shifting and drifting Mechanical music Adrenaline surge
Well-weathered leather Hot metal and oil The scented country air Sunlight on chrome The blur of the landscape Every nerve aware
Suddenly ahead of me Across the mountainside A gleaming alloy air-car Shoots towards me, two lanes wide I spin around with shrieking tires To run the deadly race Go screaming through the valley As another joins the chase
Drive like the wind Straining the limits of machine and man Laughing out loud with fear and hope I’ve got a desperate plan At the one-lane bridge I leave the giants stranded at the riverside Race back to the farm To dream with my uncle at the fireside
(First and foremost I must thank Dave Rubin for an excellent interview and channel. The original file can be found HERE)
I had to isolate this point, it is excellent. A friend and I were just talking talking about the Jewish nation (people) being blessed of God. Chosen. Set apart. And we talked about the advances of the Jews that were so helpful and a blessing to themselves as well as the world.
Although Jews are only 0.2% of the world’s population, Jews were awarded 24% of the Nobel Prizes in science and medicine. Similarly, while Jews account for only 2% of the American population, they received 37% of the US Nobel Prize awards in these fields. (TIMES OF ISRAEL)
And that this was an evidence of God… but so too are the advances by Jewish persons that harm society. Take Hollywood as one example; or, Marxism as another… George Soros as yet another. The Jewish people seem to advance well, and both sides of the coin are evidences of God’s promises to the Jewish nation. (And His judgement, past and future.)
My friend and I talked last Sunday at Smokehouse on Main. I watched this 4-days after our getting together. Prager said it best:
Part of my testimony is that when I was drowning in doubt, I asked God to send me a lifeboat. I’ve stated publicly that one of the earliest and most significant “lifeboats” was the apologetics message of Ravi Zacharias. With allegations of sexual misconduct being brought against him, I’m asking the question, what do you do when Christian leaders fail…when your “lifeboat” springs a leak?
MIKE LICONA
“The Report of Independent Investigation into Sexual Misconduct of Ravi Zacharias” was released to the public on February 11, 2021. It revealed that Ravi Zacharias led a double life: one as a minister of the gospel, the other being guilty of multiple accounts of sexual misconduct and abuse. In this video, Dr. Mike Licona lays out 3 important points for Christians to keep in mind in light of the disturbing report.
A SAD UPDATE TO THIS TRIBUTE:
Mike Winger does the best job at Biblically dealing with this issue — head on! Sadly
This is not a video I’m looking forward to. But this is why I’m doing it.
1) Ravi’s victims need vindication. In particular, Lori Anne Thompson has been continually maligned and horribly treated because she brought TRUE accusations against Ravi. I believed the worst about her because of the comments from Ravi and the echoes of those comments from RZIM. This only made her a continual victim. We need to clear her name. 2) Ravi’s sins have left a lot of open wounds that need tending. Both in the body of Christ and in RZIM. Believers need to be reminded of how to process all this as a follower of Christ, of how true Christ remains regardless of this tragedy and how to handle this situation so that we don’t wrongly treat RZIM staff, Ravi’s family or continue to make the error of ignoring red flags that may still lead to more discoveries. I’ve seen every kind of wrong response online already. I pray to God that I would have wisdom to help us all to have wisdom here. If you are reading this before I go live then please stop and pray for me as I prepare for this video. 3) Scripture commands us to openly deal with a leader who persists in sin, which is proven by evidence, by telling the local body so that other leaders can properly fear their own falling (1 Tim 5:19-20). Since Ravi was a leader in worldwide Christianity with personal character endorsements from countless other leaders this command can only be fulfilled by taking the truth as public as his endorsements were. 4) If we as the body of Christ do not deal with this issue openly then I feel that we implicate ourselves in some sort of complicity at this point. The witness of Christ in the world has been harmed by Ravi’s sin and we do need to publicly deal with it. Due to my own place in ministry as a public figure I do feel compelled to speak on this.
Like many of you I am angry and I’m sad. But we can’t respond with conspiracy theories that deny the overwhelming evidence of persistent sin, abuse of power, abuse of ministry funds, abuse of women and how calculated and deliberate it all was. The facts are in, all that is left is to face them and try to respond in ways that honor Christ.
To Ravi’s family, I’m really sorry I am making a video about your father/husband/relative. It breaks my heart and I hate the idea of adding hurt to what you are going through. Please know that I don’t mean you harm and I’m not on the bandwagon of heartless crowds. I am compelled that this must be done and I pray that you will find, in some way, some help in it as well.
MIKE WINGER
J. WARNER & JIMMY WALLACE
It’s been over a year since the final report about Ravi Zacharias was released. What can we learn from the scandal? What can we do to prevent others from falling in a similar way? J. Warner and Jimmy Wallace discuss recent news articles in this episode of the NRBtv Cold-Case Christianity Broadcast.
DAVID WOOD (OUR CHRISTIAN PSYCHOPATH)
After a team of investigators hired by Ravi Zacharias International Ministries recently announced that they had uncovered significant evidence of sexual misconduct by Ravi Zacharias, many of Ravi’s fans are confused, angry, and devastated by the allegations. But there’s an important lesson to be learned here, one the church can no longer continue to ignore. Ravi’s final message to the world may be his most important. David Wood discusses the issue.
OLD POST
(Almost all the videos or audios below are from my YouTube Channel. I recovered many of them from my Vimeo account and my MRCTV account. Enjoy, I have worked all day on fixing audio and video to make them more presentable)
If C.S. Lewis was the greatest Christian expositor of the 20th century, Ravi Zacharias might well go down in history as the greatest of the 21st century. Both are often described as “apologists,” but that sounds defensive to the modern ear. (WASHINGTON TIMES)
“To my friend, my mentor and a great hero of the faith [Ravi Zacharias] — Thank you,” Tim Tebow wrote. “I know I’ll see you again and I look forward to that day. Love you brother.” (PJ-MEDIA)
First, let me say, I am a fan of Ravi Zacharias. A huge fan. He has impacted me in countless ways, and thus, he has impacted my family. As a three-time felon, I benefited from his insights into what a Christian worldview should look like, and how a Christian should present himself. But he is a man — in need of a savior and prone to missteps and falls. Like any of us. His statement via CHRISTIANITY TODAY makes note of this:
“I have learned a difficult and painful lesson through this ordeal,” Zacharias said. “I failed to exercise wise caution and to protect myself from even the appearance of impropriety, and for that I am profoundly sorry. I have acknowledged this to my Lord, my wife, my children, our ministry board, and my colleagues.”
Ravi, like many a person I know (myself included), will always make claims not in line with reality to lift ourselves up to a greater status in life to impress others. It is almost a default of our prideful nature. I acknowledge all these faults in Ravi, and in my own life — it is a long and complex life filled with spiritual falls, scrapes, wounds, and battles. Ravi’s message of how the Christian worldview is coherent whereas others are not is not changed by his faults and missteps. God’s truth is unchangeable. As imperfect vessels, we imperfectly reflect His perfection. As you can see one of Ravi’s misstatements is made in the following video… but that retelling of flawed history by Ravi has no impact on the truth of his response in showing the self-deleting assumption of the questioner:
With that being said, Ravi passed from this place to the next. In March 2020, it was revealed that Zacharias had been diagnosed with a malignant and rare cancer within his spine. If one wants a book by him that shows the elegance of his thought and skills as a writer, his book “The Grand Weaver: How God Shapes Us Through the Events of Our Lives” is the book I recommend the most. A portion of this book in audio form has been used by myself in a presentation while filling in at an adult Bible study at church (Grace Baptist). the Below is an older post of mine (updated a bit) discussing this section of the book where God’s design of our life doesn’t end with Him knitting us together in the womb — along with the mentioned audio:
BEAUTY IS MORE THAN SKIN DEEP
In this presentation Ravi Zacharias takes his time explaining a talk he was present at where Dr. Francis S. Collins (WIKI) compares a cross section of DNA to a stained-glass Rose window from Yorkminster Cathedral. The design is apparent and Collins mentions it a huge boost to his faith.
At The Veritas Forum at Caltech, Francis Collins shares two images representing the scientific worldview and the spiritual worldview. He asks whether there is a way to merge science & faith, and suggests that his experience is that these two perspectives are not in conflict. (The full presentation can be seen HERE):
“The picture (of the DNA) did more that take away one’s breath; it was awesome in the profoundest sense of the term – not just beautiful but overwhelming. And it almost mirrored the pattern of the Rose window… The intricacy of the DNA’s design, which pointed to the Transcendant One, astonished those who are themselves the design and who have been created semitranscendant by design. We see ourselves only partially, but through our Creator’s eyes, we see our transcendence. In looking at our own DNA, the subject and the object come together.”
TO WIT…
END of POST
I have other uploads as well I have used in conversation over the years as well that are instructive to the armchair apologist. Here they are (some recently imported from my VIMEO account:
AUDIO/VIDEO
Ravi Zacharias responds with “precise language” to a written question. With his patented charm and clarity, Ravi responds to the challenge of exclusivity in Christianity that skeptics challenge us with.
A student asks a question of Ravi Zacharias about God condemning people [atheists] to hell. This Q&A occurred after a presentation Ravi gave at Harvard University, and is now one of his most well-known responses in the apologetic sub-culture. This is an updated version to my original upload. I truncated the beginning as well as editing the volume of the initial question. I also added graphics and text quotes into the audio presentation.
A Muslim student at Michigan University challenges Ravi Zacharias on Christianities seemingly lack of ability in keeping the “law” like Islam and Judaism do so well. How can Christianity be true if it isn’t doing that which God demands? (I have recently enhanced, greatly, the audio in the file from my original VIMEO upload… and reconfigured slightly the visual presentation.)
(February 12, 2014) This is for a group of men that are going through Gregory Koukl’s book, “Tactics.” Often times a person merely need to ask his accuser questions to better open up what they mean by their questioning.
✂Therefore Pilate said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” AND WHEN HE HAD SAID THIS, HE WENT OUT AGAIN…. (NASB – emphasis added)
One example of this “Socratic Method” can be seen here: “Socratic Method ~ Falling On Their Own Sword (Origins Myths)” The students start out sounding like experts and often times the Christians will shy away from conversation when in fact the person is basing their assumptions on a self-refuting idea[s], and all that is needed to bring it out are a few questions.
(March 31, 2013) Ravi Zacharias does a great job in explaining what pornography does to shame, the Holy, and the insatiable fire of not being able to satisfy men’s archetype they build in their minds eye.
(February 11, 2014) A quick witted response brings a light heart to a serious subject. This comes from an event today from the University of Pennsylvania, titled, “Is Truth Real?” Ravi Zacharias International Ministry has the longer version here.
Will Smith is under formal review after he walked on stage during the 94th Academy Awards show and slapped Chris Rock in the face after Rock cracked a joke about Jada Pinkett Smith’s hair loss.
Ukraine’s Asymmetric War — Moscow has more firepower, but Kyiv is using digital technology better.
Reports from Ukraine are filled with stories of Javelin antitank missiles and Turkish Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles taking out Russian tanks and armored vehicles. The Biden administration has announced $800 million in defensive weapons for Ukraine, including Javelins, Stinger antiaircraft weapons and Switchblade drones. More amazing is what Ukraine has also been doing on the cheap. And I don’t mean Molotov cocktails.
Wars are increasingly asymmetric—the lesser-armed side can put up a strong fight. The U.S. learned this in Iraq with insurgent use of improvised explosive devices, basically roadside bombs triggered with cellphones. Similarly, Ukraine has been deploying inexpensive, almost homemade weapons and using technology to its advantage.
The Times of London reports that Ukraine is using $2,000 commercial octocopter drones, modified with thermal imagers and antitank grenades, to find and attack Russian tanks hiding between homes in villages at night. Ukraine’s Aerorozvidka, its aerial reconnaissance team, has 50 squads of drone pilots who need solid internet connections to operate.
When the internet was cut in Syria in 2013, enterprising techies set up point-to-point Wi-Fi connections to bring internet access from across the border in Turkey. You can do this with Pringles potato-chip cans and $50 off-the-shelf Wi-Fi routers. Ukraine may be spared this ad hoc setup as
Elon Musk and his firm Starlink have donated thousands of satellite internet-access terminals to Ukraine, including to the Aerorozvidka squads, which come with warnings to camouflage the antennas. They typically cost $499 each and $99 a month for service.
Ukraine also effectively jammed Russia’s long-in-the-tooth wireless military-communication technology, which apparently uses a single-frequency channel to operate. Former Central Intelligence Agency Director
David Petraeus told CNN that Russians were then forced to use cellphones to communicate until Ukraine blocked the +7 country code for Russia and eventually took down 3G services that Russia uses for secure connections. Russian soldiers were forced to steal Ukrainian cellphones to communicate with one another. That’s no way to fight a war.
Ukraine also has taken advantage of crowdsourcing. The Journal told the story of Russian tanks that would fire on the city of Voznesensk and then back up a few hundred yards to avoid return fire. Civilians and Territorial Defense volunteers would then message the tanks’ new coordinates via the Viber social-messaging app.
The propaganda war is also being fought on the cheap, from President Volodymyr Zelensky’s Zoom call with the U.S. Congress to Ukraine’s work spreading news inside Russia. The Russians have blocked Facebook and Twitter, independent media has been shut down, and on Russian television no one is allowed to say “invasion” or “war.” But no country can completely filter and firewall real news. The Telegram and WhatsApp messaging apps encrypt their communications. Ukraine has begun using facial recognition to identify killed and captured Russian soldiers, even contacting their families and posting their photos on Telegram channels. Twitter now is using a service to disguise its origin and restore service to Russian users.
Most surprisingly, after much hype and many warnings, Russian cyberwarfare has been deemed fairly ineffective. Hours before the invasion, someone, presumably the Russians, launched a Trojan.Killdisk attack, disk-wiping malware that hit Ukrainian government and financial system computers and took down Parliament’s website. Cyberattack tracking firm Netscout called the attack “modest.” A Ukrainian newspaper then released a file with details on 120,000 Russian soldiers, including names, addresses, phone and passport numbers. Where the information came from is unknown.
But we have a hint. Ukraine is filled with smart coders, and the government set up an “IT Army of Ukraine” Telegram channel to coordinate digital attacks on Russian military digital systems. As many as 400,000 have volunteered so far. An officer of the Ukraine State Service of Special Communications said they were engaged in “cyber-resistance.” This digital flash mob has taken down Russian websites, though I doubt we will ever fully know the damage it may have inflicted. This is definitely a social-network-influenced conflict.
In the fog of war, stories and disinformation swirl. Most are impossible to verify. I’ve heard of foreign volunteers swarming to Ukraine who then post photos on Instagram. Both Facebook and Instagram strip GPS location coordinates from smartphone photos, but they allow these volunteers to tag nearby locations, potentially giving away refugees’ hiding places. These could be targeted by Russian missiles and may have been the reason the Mariupol theater was destroyed.
New technology for use in commerce often emerges after the smoke of battle clears. World War I produced tanks, field radios and improved airplanes. World War II brought radar, penicillin, nuclear power, synthetic rubber, Jeeps and even duct tape. What we are seeing in Ukraine is the asymmetric power of pervasive inexpensive commercial technology, especially citizen-empowering social networks and crowdsourcing. So far these tools have been altering the war’s outcome. Welcome to 21st-century warfare.
As Russian invasion continues, Makariv may be small in size, but it has big strategic value as it blocks Russia’s armed forces from encircling Kyiv. Ukrainian volunteer fighters use drones in the area for reconnaissance that can be used by Ukrainian artillery units to strike back.
Footage out of Ukraine shows the impressive accuracy and timing of an air-to-ground anti personnel operation by means of a quadcopter dropping a small point-detonating explosive.
…A recent editorial in the Los Angeles Times is not quite the same. But it’s close.
Here’s the headline: “The Vitriol in Politics Is Driving Good People Out of Public Service.” The editorial laments the decision by a Los Angeles City two-term councilman, who, after taking several constituent-displeasing positions, decided not to run for reelection. Those positions include voting against an ordinance to declare certain public streets and public areas off-limits to the homeless and voting to cut the city police budget and redirect the money for “youth programs.” What’s not to like in a city plagued by rising homelessness and homicides (up 50% since 2019)?
But the point here is not to attack or defend the councilman’s policy positions. The point is the hypocrisy of the Times in denouncing the “vitriol in politics” that supposedly drove him to decide against running for reelection.
Some nerve. This is a newspaper that hired columnist Erika D. Smith who, when I ran in the election to recall California Gov. Gavin Newsom, wrote a column with the headline: “Larry Elder Is the Black Face of White Supremacy. You’ve Been Warned.” Smith wrote: “Like a lot of Black people, though, I’ve learned that it’s often best just to ignore people like Elder. People who are — as my dad used to say — ‘skinfolk’ but not necessarily kinfolk.” If that was too subtle, she called me a “Trump fanboy,” “dangerous” and a “troll,” adding: “His candidacy feels personal. Like an insult to Blackness.” The reaction from non-conservative media outlets … crickets. There is, please understand, but one way to be black — and that is left-wing.
In her column the following week, after many readers expressed their displeasure with her column, Smith wrote: “Casting what, for most Democrats, would be a protest vote against Newsom would put Elder in a position to become governor — and open the door to far-right thinking and white supremacist policies.” “White supremacist policies?”
The vitriol-in-politics-denouncing Los Angeles Times also hired as a columnist the equally charming Jean Guerrero, who, in an appearance on CNN, incredibly claimed: “(Elder has) refused to talk to non-partisan media outlets and to journalists who are critical of him, has refused to answer difficult questions. … But he has been able to reach the minority of voters in California who embrace his white supremacist worldview.”
[….]
There was certainly no denunciation by my interviewers of any “vitriol in politics,” a vitriol that now, claims the Times in its editorial, “is driving good people out of public service.”
I arrived early for my dinner with a friend at a restaurant on the Westside of Los Angeles. At the table to my right sat two women. We started talking.
They had known each other since second grade, and one was celebrating her 85th birthday. One was a psychotherapist, the other a “human rights activist.” Both were Jewish. A few minutes into the conversation, one said: “Wait. I know who you are. You ran for governor.” After I confirmed her suspicion, she said, “Guess who I voted for.” I smiled. “You didn’t vote for me.” “How do you know?” she asked.
I said, “Let’s see. We’re at a restaurant in West LA. You’re Jewish and a psychotherapist. Your friend is a human rights activist. Read the clues. You’re both Democrats and no one could pay you to vote for a Republican.”
They acknowledged that they voted against the recall of California Gov. Gavin Newsom. I asked, “How do you feel about rising violent crime?” They both called the increase “outrageous,” and even criticized the soft-on-crime Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascon, currently facing his second recall attempt. A vote among his assistant district attorneys found that 98% of them wanted Gascon to resign.
“How do you feel about our homelessness problem?” I asked. The human rights activist responded, “If we provide housing and treatment — and there’s plenty of money for both — then I don’t understand why people are allowed to remain on the streets.” I said, “That was exactly my position during the campaign.”
“What about the quality of California’s K-12 government schools?” I continued: “Pre-pandemic, nearly 70% of black third graders could not read at state proficiency levels, with math scores not much better. Almost half of all third graders cannot read at state proficiency levels, with math scores about the same. Are you OK with that?” They both called it “a travesty.”
We turned to the governor’s draconian COVID-19 lockdown of business and of in-school education. They said they had been “double-vaxxed with a booster.” “So have I,” I said. “We’re in high-risk categories. But I don’t think the state should’ve been shut down when the risk for young and healthy people is low. Do you?” They agreed with me.
“So,” I said. “You agree with me on virtually every issue, yet you voted to retain Newsom.”
Before they could answer, I said, “I’ll tell you why. You … just … could … not … bring … yourself … to … pull … that … lever … for … a … Republican!”
They laughed and said, “I guess you’re right.”
In fact, a recent University of California, Berkeley, poll found that Californians rate Newsom underwater on 9 of 10 issues, including crime, education, jobs, homelessness, state budget, drought, wildfires, the economy and health care. His unfavorable number on homelessness is six times higher than his favorable number. The only positive for Newsom was “climate change,” where he stood one point above disapproval.
Overall, Newsom has a 48% job approval rating. It is tempting to suggest that were a vote held today, Newsom would lose. But during the recall his approval rating was only two points higher, and he survived recall with 62% of the vote.
The overwhelmingly Democratic and Democrat-leaning independent voters in California, like my restaurant companions, just … could … not … bring … themselves … to … vote … for … a … Republican — especially one who voted for former President Donald Trump.
(Originally posted October 2011, the 2nd reposting was when Vincent Bugliosi died in June 2015. I am reposting this March of 2022 to update the media in the post.)
I am re-posting this because Vincent Bugliosi just passed away. He was a legend in his field who wrote many good books. But even smart people say DUMB things.
INCORRECTLY DEFINING AGNOSTICISM
I was surprised in listening to Vincent Bugliosi in an interview about his book, Divinity of Doubt: The God Question. Surprised because considering his book on debunking pretty much every JFK conspiracy known to man, I would expect him to realize his fundamental mistake that taints his whole view.
So when I heard Mr. Bugliosi quote Gertrude Stein as part of his definition of agnosticism…..
“There ain’t no answer. There ain’t gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. There’s your answer.”
…. I immediately knew he was a second rate skeptic churning every old cliché over again for a new generation.
PROPERLY DEFINING “SOFT” & “HARD” AGNOSICISM
So here we should define for the layman what an agnostic is and why some say that there are two kinds… one being indistinguishable from an atheist.
✓ Atheism: The belief that there is no God. This is typically the conviction that there is no personal Creator of the universe, and no powerful, incorporeal, perfect being in heaven or anywhere else.
✓ Agnosticism: The state of not-knowing whether there is a God or not. The humble agnostic says that he doesn’t know whether there is a God. The less humble agnostic says that you don’t, either. The least humble agnostic thinks that we can’t ever really know.
Tom Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (Foster City, CA: IDG Books, 1999), 238.
Okay, most philosophy texts and dictionaries will at times make this distinction. Again, that there are two types of agnostics. A soft agnostic says: “I do not know. You may. Therefore I may want to dialogue because you may have information I do not.” A hard agnostic says: “I do not know, and neither can you.”
But what about what Vincent Bugliosi said about the impossibility of knowing?
Does he know this possibility?
Let me show how his position is self refuting, incoherent, and illogical. This comes from my “chapter” via my “book” on Reincarnation vs. the Laws of Logic (references at linked chapter):
….To begin, pantheists claim that God is unknowable because it [God] is above and beyond human logic. In other words, we are told that we cannot intellectually comprehend God because he is beyond all understanding. However, this is nonsensical and self-defeating statement. Why? “Because the very act of claiming that God is beyond logic is a logical statement about God.” Also, to say that we cannot know or comprehend God, as do the agnostics, is to say that we know God. How? I will answer this with a response to agnostic claims by the associate professor of philosophy and government at the University of Texas at Austin:
To say that we cannot know anything about God is to say something about God; it is to say that if there is a God, he is unknowable. But in that case, he is not entirely unknowable, for the agnostic certainly thinks that we can know one thing about him: That nothing else can be known about him. Unfortunately, the position that we can know exactly one thing about God – his unknowability in all respects except this – is equally unsupportable, for why should this one thing be an exception? How could we know that any possible God would be of such a nature that nothing else could be known about him? On what basis could we rule out his knowability in all other respects but this one? The very attempt to justify the claim confutes it, for the agnostic would have to know a great many things about God in order to know he that couldn’t know anything else about him.
Although not the time nor place to explain the law of non-contradiction, for those who do not know, a brief perusal may be warranted. The law of non-contradiction is simply this: “‘A’ cannot be both ‘non-A’ and ‘A’ at the same time.” In the words of Professor J. P. Moreland:
When a statement fails to satisfy itself (i.e., to conform to its own criteria of validity or acceptability), it is self-refuting…. Consider some examples. “I cannot say a word in English” is self-refuting when uttered in English. “I do not exist” is self-refuting, for one must exist to utter it. The claim “there are no truths” is self-refuting. If it is false, then it is false. But is it is true, then it is false as well, for in that case there would be no truths, including the statement itself.
You see, Mr. Bugliosi is denying that you know, which means he REALLY KNOWS… which is self defeating.
You can see in this mock conversation how this woks out:
Teacher: “Welcome, students. This is the first day of class, and so I want to lay down some ground rules. First, since no one person has the truth, you should be open-minded to the opinions of your fellow students. Second… Elizabeth, do you have a question?”
Elizabeth: “Yes I do. If nobody has the truth, isn’t that a good reason for me not to listen to my fellow students? After all, if nobody has the truth, why should I waste my time listening to other people and their opinions? What’s the point? Only if somebody has the truth does it make sense to be open-minded. Don’t you agree?”
Teacher: “No, I don’t. Are you claiming to know the truth? Isn’t that a bit arrogant and dogmatic?”
Elizabeth: “Not at all. Rather I think it’s dogmatic, as well as arrogant, to assert that no single person on earth knows the truth. After all, have you met every single person in the world and quizzed them exhaustively? If not, how can you make such a claim? Also, I believe it is actually the opposite of arrogance to say that I will alter my opinions to fit the truth whenever and wherever I find it. And if I happen to think that I have good reason to believe I do know truth and would like to share it with you, why wouldn’t you listen to me? Why would you automatically discredit my opinion before it is even uttered? I thought we were supposed to listen to everyone’s opinion.”
Teacher: “This should prove to be an interesting semester.”
Another Student: “(blurts out) Ain’t that the truth.” (Students laugh)
Do you see? After listening to Bugliosi himself do you understand where he went wrong? If you are a person who thinks like Bugliosi, may I posit that you are just as dogmatic as the most dogmatic atheist.
This is a weird one, and definitely not something I’ve seen before. This video was recorded in the city of Popasna and it shows a mixed section of Russian attack helicopters doing something a little weird. The first helicopter, what appears to be a KA-52, comes in low and fast, then tilts his nose upwards and randomly expends his entire rocket pod. The second helicopter, what looks like an Mi-28N, follows suit with the same fire mission, but does so from a little deeper. This angling the nose up bit to expend your rocket pod is not something I’m personally familiar with, so if anyone does recognize this technique before I theorize go ahead and hit the comments.
Here’s my theory. What goes up, must come down. When it’s a rocket, the point of impact is still going to be explosive, same with a MK-19. When you have two known factors, you can eyeball in a range to your target and use just about any weapon system as an indirect fire one. Did the pilots do some quick math here based off of the maximum range of their rockets and just turn their aircraft into flying MLRS platforms? Or, maybe they needed to expend all rockets before returning to base?
Seriously, this one is vexing me. Someone give me a hand. Am dumb grunt. No understand pilot things.
For many, many years I have enjoyed political cartoons. I have noted that these artists can capture an entire paragraph of explanation in one panel. I am working on some cartoons to upload today elsewhere on the “interweb” and I came across this by Steve Kelley cartoon — it is one of the best examples I can think of to capture this idea of how well a single panel of art captures months of stories [truths].
In this case the Gray Lady [all MSM really] being the mainstay of the professional political Left… the “informed” “science” believing individual whirling around the Hunter Biden laptop story, how the Gray Lady [CNN, NPR, MSNBC, Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, Facebook, “blue check” Twitter heads, etc, etc] pushed this was a Russian propaganda operation. Of course AFTERthe election they finally admit this was a legit story. All the while the regular Joe Blo [middle class] following the truthfulness of the NYPs story and the “elites” or the Lemmings that follow the NYTs saying the opposite. Oh how the tables have turned. This was an unfolding story since October 2020. all captured in one frame.
The other day I posted this on Religio-Political Talk’s Facebook Page:
QUESTION:If this guy is a Republican with a “Biden” shirt, he is hilarious. If he is a Democrat, he is a douche
My wife voted douche, another friend noted the following (to the right… click to enlarge).
So, as I was catching up with some Tucker Carlson media over the weekend, I came across this interview (no, THIS IS NOT THE GUY).
This all leads to WHO THAT GUY ISthough….
But this led me to find a particular video shown in Tucker’s montage. And the Channel that uploaded it used varying views and messed with the sound a bit to create this [as seamless as you can get] video of Alex Stein:
How does this tie in to my original query? Because out of habit I just go to the person’s “videos” if I thumbs up or like their video… and lo-and-behold — Alex Stein influenced another guy to play a roll[s] in front of the same city council… the guy in the original video. Here is another character played. Yes, Brian Wellington followed “Prime time # 99 Alex Stein,” what a City Council meeting this must have been. Here are some comments from LOOPER GAMING’S upload:
This after 99 must’ve been the most hilarious of city council meetings. I’ve been to a lot of such meetings but NOTHING like THIS was going on. ???.
Ben Shapiro NOTES in his dealing with the below responses that if a 2-year old can answer the question, a Supreme Court nominee should be able to as well. To Wit, Justice Ginsburg is now considered “patriarchal” — my inference, but closer to the truth than this SCOTUS nominee:
Gwendolyn Sims writes for PJ-MEDIA and notes what this really is. And much like Adam Carolla’s point, it is a power play:
…..With their relentless attack on gender, the left is denying reality as author George Orwell described through the characters in his novel,1984: “Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense.” It would therefore be heresy for Jackson to incorrectly define “woman” according to the radical left’s pre-approved definition (whatever that happens to be this week). While defining “woman” may on the surface seem commonsensical, it’s actually instrumental to the left’s ideology. “Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing,” wrote Orwell. If the left can force us to invalidate commonsense reality and replace it with their own, they can also hold all the power.
“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four,” Orwell wrote. “If that is granted, all else follows.” In other words, the left can’t allow ‘woman’ to be defined by the right as anything objective or provable. It must remain vague and subjective so that it can be defined in whatever malleable way benefits the left’s ideology and power. Or, as the Party in Orwell’s book put it, “You will be hollow. We shall squeeze you empty, and then we shall fill you with ourselves.”…..
I thought this was a good Tweet by Obianuju Ekeocha that makes a salient point, which is the patriarch has been right this entire time. Men AREbetter at everything…. although Miss Ekeocha didn’t express it in those terms. That is my interpretation:
Maybe the #MeeToo movement should be the #MeWho movement. A phrase that came out of that movement is this: “Believe Women”
What is a woman? — Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
Or how bout this trope?
“Women make 73 cents for every man’s dollar.”
So again the question is,
What is a woman? — Biden’s SCOTUS pick, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson
How about this: “women remain underrepresented in CEO positions.” You get the point.
