Archives for category: Uncategorized

I don’t know that I will get around to reading the subject book, but this article was quite useful.

https://www.jaymedenwaldt.com/2020/12/weirdest-apologetic.html

A good write up of what I expect is a good book, good information.

https://looker-dashboards.ok.gov/embed/dashboards/76

81% of deaths in Oklahoma asserted to involve COVID-19 are over 65. Adding from age 50 pushes the total to 96%. The disease is not dangerous to people less than 50 years old. It isn’t.

Oklahoma reports its first death asserted to involve COVID-19 was 18 March 2020, thus 260 days to 03 December 2020, for an average of 7 deaths per day. The fact that the average death rate has gradually increased throughout the period since would concern me if I had any confidence in the data. First, the case data is only misleading. It offers only obfuscation. Case numbers are demonstrably a linear function of testing numbers. (Check the mathematics for yourself.) Case numbers provide no useful information whatsoever. Death numbers are affected by the case numbers, and death numbers are corrupted by government influence due to politics and due to monetary compensation considerations. Further, panic and fear drive mistakes and bias. Finally, the unimaginable numbers in the quantity of testing and results and the ever-increasing involvement of more and more people results in inevitable honest mistakes that are not caught and corrected for many reasons, not the least of which is simply lack of time for checking and double checking. (Not to mention all the money being made by testers and laboratories.)

https://oklahoma.gov/coronavirus.html

As is obvious from the graphic from Oklahoma, deaths have been growing very slowly and steadily [no jumps, no causes for alarm], with hospitalizations growing only slightly faster, but steady, while cases increase at an ever-increasing pace. Rationality dictates that these data force us to conclude the case numbers are meaningless. Further, nearly all the cases are recovered. Obviously, the virus is not significantly lethal for anyone younger than 65.

Panic is unjustifiable. Fear is the only thing we have to fear. Fear that disables and isolates, causing long-term detriment to us all, especially our young and our poor. The least among us bear the brunt of the burden we impose with coercive restrictions and mandates pretending to protect them.

Toward the end of April when the official case count exceed 3000, the death rate was 6%. By early June, cases exceed 7000 with the death rate at 5%. Nationally, we had a bit of a bump early in the summer as the expected second wave hit. By the first week of August cases exceeded 40000, but the death rate was below 1.5%. Here at the beginning of December, the official case count is over 204-thousand, with the death rate having fallen below 1%. Obviously the case count provides no information, no useful predictive indication. Case numbers only provide confusion and fear. We need to stop it. We need to be testing only people who have the most significant symptoms at significant levels, and we need two tests of differing types so as to eliminate the false positives. Still, it is too late. There is no hope. The virus will have to fade into the background of its own accord, or perhaps because of vaccines, but our nonsensical fear and panic will continue to cause suffering for far longer than we will ever admit; suffering we caused ourselves. Regarding COVID-19, the least harmful action was no action; a possibility politicians refused to consider for fear of being accused of not trying.

If you recall, Matthew related this incident similarly. John recounted it with significant differences. I like Mark’s account. Some interesting nuances.
Most of Jesus’ listeners would have been aware that Jesus was referencing Deuteronomy 15 in regulations for dealing with the poor and people who had suffered loss.
I think in our day, we need to extend the analogy to the sick, and to those who are feared for potentially being sick.


Mark 14:3 And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head. 4 There were some who said to themselves indignantly, “Why was the ointment wasted like that? 5 For this ointment could have been sold for more than three hundred denarii and given to the poor.” And they scolded her. 6 But Jesus said, “Leave her alone. Why do you trouble her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 7 For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you want, you can do good for them. But you will not always have me. 8 She has done what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial. 9 And truly, I say to you, wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will be told in memory of her.”


Would have Jesus accepted the close and intimate offering if he’d known the offeror was infected with COVID-19? Wouldn’t the naysayers have reacted the same if the woman wasn’t wearing a mask?

I think we all understand Jesus wouldn’t have drawn back. The example took place in the house of a leper. Jesus never refused the sick. He never will. Of course, those who took offense would have been just as offended as those who, today, take offense at maskless passerbys.


If the virus runs unhindered, we humans will pull through stronger than ever. If fear and isolation continue to hold sway, well, I don’t think future generations will remember the alarmists as favorably as we remember this supplicant.

A thoughtful fellow commented on how someone could argue for mandating a moral good. He pointed out how nearly everyone agrees religion is a moral good, but we all insist on freedom of religion. Of course. (Wise man, isn’t he?)

I add that available evidence shows clearly that individual religious observance is beneficial for the individuals and their groups. On the other hand, available evidence shows masks have no benefit with regard to viruses, and they result in grave harm to individuals and groups in psychological factors. Masks and distancing interfere with what makes us human; we are communal, and masks break the communion.

I here provide a link, https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article, to a definitive study from authoritative sources that establishes mechanistic measures do not impede virus transmission. Masks do not slow the spread of viruses.

The study was completed before politics entered disease research. If you look, you can find several older studies concluding the same, though most aren’t as thorough and definitive. I’m not offering any supporting evidence regarding religious practice, but you all know that, and you can look for yourself if you want evidence. When religions are abused for evil, it is by authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is always bad regardless of the level of application or the means. Authoritarianism can be inflicted by science and experts as easily as by religious officials. It can be wielded by bosses or politicians or police or menial bureaucrats. The result is the same, coercion. Coercion is evil.

Masks don’t help. Please don’t mandate masks. If you call for the imposition of masks and other socially harmful measures, understand I define your actions as evil; you are causing unnecessary, unjustifiable suffering. Perhaps you don’t care about my opinion, but if it is evil, are you willing to live with that? Are you intentionally inflicting evil on society and your fellows? I say so.

I ask why? Why are you willing to coerce your neighbor when coercion is certainly evil? Are you afraid? Then I say grow up.

Paul VanderKlay generally says things worth listening to and incorporating.

PVK comments on the video below, and he quotes from Andrew Klaven toward the end. Yeah, good stuff. https://www.andrewklavan.com/

I’m adding Klaven to my “hope to read” list.

“If we concede that one thing is morally better than another, it can only be because it is closer to the Ultimate Moral Good, the standard by which it’s measured. An Ultimate Moral Good cannot just be an idea. It must be, in effect, a personality with consciousness and free will. The rain isn’t morally good even though it makes the crops grow; a tornado that kills isn’t morally evil—though it may be an evil for those in its way…True, objective good and evil, in order to be good and evil, have to be aware and intentional. So an Ultimate Moral Good must be conscious and free; it must be God.” Andrew Klavan (The Great Good Thing)
The same goes for rationality and reason.

https://youtu.be/FNzupCSz02Y

I have erred. There is hardly a more axiomatic truth than, “coercion is evil.” Some draw the line at physical violence; some at aggressive, insulting, in-your-face shouting-level speaking, but I draw it at knowingly, intentionally manipulating or deceiving, no matter how politely.

I trust I haven’t deceived anyone, but I have grown manipulative. I’ll do my best to correct that.

Laws, in general, are coercive. Yes, I hold that most laws are evil. Perhaps I should say most laws are more evil than the thing they were intended to prohibit. (Authoritarian prohibition doesn’t work.)

COVID-19 has created a catastrophe in the USA. While the virus itself is tragic and horrid, the aftermath has weakened our society such that I believe we are in the last days of the American experiment. Lincoln feared we would not long endure at only four score and seven years. We have made it a ways past that, but I think we’ve lost the plot. I am not optimistic about the world we are leaving our children and grandchildren. They may have their own bloodlettings, tragedies that might make the world wars and the communist slaughters seem trivial in comparison.

Still, humanity has been in sad shape before. No matter how bad it gets, brighter days lie beyond. I weep because I believe my generation and the current generation should have seen it coming and avoided it.

For those with apocalyptic suppositions consistent with Pentecostalism, I do not suppose we are in those last days. I’ve grown to suppose we should take the promise to Abraham as more literal than the description of the end times common among the tribe of my upbringing. That is, I expect the descendants of Abraham to number as the stars before that great and terrible day of the Lord. No time in history has better matched the premillennial interpretations better than WWII. We are still here.

To the point: I am firmly convinced that persuasion is an illusion, and the only true persuader is the pain and suffering resultant directly as consequence of one’s own belief and actions. When we suffer, when our children suffer, directly as a result of our choices, then we change our minds and our practices. Nothing else persuades, at least nothing humans can wield in any sense.

It seems to me we all unconsciously understand this fact; though I’ve yet to meet anyone who humbly accepts it. (I have much to grow into regarding that particular humility.) People pretend persuasion is real. People like Scott Adams admit most of it is hypnosis and trickery, but that is simply manipulation. Such persuasion techniques lure some into one’s fold, but nothing like rational mind-change and growth is involved. Argumentation never convinces anyone. The rare instances of seeming persuasion result only from truth-seekers who happen to find better truth while in your presence and under the sound of your voice. Your arguments didn’t convince them. They were already convinced, and you just happened to help them realize it. Because one’s effort to persuade are ultimately frustrated, everyone degenerates to coercion, or at least the desire to get one’s own way. Consequently, when we can’t persuade people to do what is right, we attempt to force them for their own good. It is the foundation of all the evil humans commit against each other.

I tend to forget persuasion is an illusion. I intentionally commit myself to truth and reality as best I can manage, and I tend to assume my arguments, my presentation of facts and rationality, can somehow lead people to better truth. It is easy to be fooled into thinking there are means of persuasion. No.

No matter how sound my argument, no matter how demonstratable and replicable my facts and figures, they mean nothing to the one who wasn’t already approaching them to begin with.

Facts do not matter.

Truly, to us humans, facts don’t matter.

We pretend to “believe” in facts. We assent to science. Still, to most people, science is merely a secularized religion and blind faith. Facts do not matter to us in general.

You can’t understand something when your livelihood depends on not understanding it. https://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/11/30/salary/

What applies to understanding applies to persuasion. People believe whatever they want to believe for whatever reasons (or emotions) they find sufficient at the moment.

One cannot get from an is to an ought. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

We all know that. We all pretend our science, our reasoning, our facts, our data, “clearly and obviously” show what ought to be done. Yet, policy is merely politics. There is no science nor facts involved except by happenstance.

I’m above average regarding what is. Really. As haughty as it is to say so, I do understand the is of things better than average. That is, odds are I understand whatever it is we are talking about better than you. You can take offense at that, or we can continue.

Regardless of how well I understand a thing, even if my understand is closer to ultimate reality than all other observers, I have no authority to impose what you ought to think about it. Whether I am perfectly right or absolutely wrong about it, there is no difference with regard to what anyone ought to do about it. My rightness or wrongness regarding the facts does not usually affect the morality of it.

The COVID-19 virus caused political panic, and our governments imposed grave hardship on our society. The least among us suffered most, and the infection spread unabated, and many died despite illusions of control.

Because facts don’t matter, I’ll not compare the infection-epidemics of the last century. Any story anyone wants can be woven from the history and the scant data. What is clear is our governments overreacted. It matters not how much or what might have been done differently or better. The fact remains, our governments overreacted at all levels, but facts don’t matter.

Typically, viruses spread quickly, and deadly viruses tally deaths frightfully. So was COVID-19. Then, it subsided just as viruses typically do, and our governments mostly became more rational again, but the rot is extensive and the loss of the plot of our national story is too far gone. Politics and the fears that drive politicians have held sway, and the madness of the crowds has only grown darker and more destructive.

Lacking control, and politicians find lack of control to be an existential threat, the politicians flailed about for anything to grasp and control. The pain and suffering resultant from lockdowns was sufficient to dissuade many politicians of trying that again, so they settled on ritualistic outward shows. Face it, the mask is no more than a social-religious purity rite. One can point to countless superstitions and religious rituals that are the same. While there is no evidence the rite is at all efficacious for the need, it obviously does something; “it helps” is so easy to say when this or that can be shown to be reliably demonstrated, despite the fact that none of it addresses the disease or the realities of transmission. It looks good to the majority; thus, it must be so. Facts don’t matter.

I can point to many more research papers than you can, but facts don’t matter.

Masks are of no practical value, but facts don’t matter. This is where we stumble from the is to the ought.

Masks are not medically significant, but they are an outward show, and they are supposed (they ought) to be of at least some moral significance. See the difficulty? The fact cannot argue for the ought. The moral significance is not something science or medicine can address. The moral significance is a cultural and religious issue, thus, a social-religious purity rite is the obvious outcome.

In the USA, we hold moral significance in the separation of the church and the state. The government, at every level in our nation, ought not impose any religious practice on anyone. We, as a culture, find it morally reprehensible to impose the beliefs of some onto others. It is our moral consensus, the majority opinion, faithfully held and executed.

Yet, our governments are imposing an outward moral practice, a social-religious purity rite, upon us all regardless of our own individual morals or convictions.

Can you acknowledge that mask-wearing is a moral issue?

If you can, can you not see that many individuals will have moral convictions in opposition strong enough to die for, strong enough to fight for, even kill for?

Why would you want that?

Is your fear of the virus so overwhelming that you will trade the life of the person willing to die for his beliefs over the person who might not be able to overcome an infection, an infection that is likely inevitable eventually anyway?

I started by saying I erred. I tried to manipulate people emotionally with shortcuts to my arguments here.

I hold it self-evident that authoritarian impositions directly harm the lest among us, especially those with less mental stamina than average, those who just might be pushed into suicide or unrecoverable mental illness by the authoritarian imposition.

While mask-shamers assert refusing masks endangers others, I am just as certain mask-mandaters are endangering those who could not resist the power of the state, the police, the fine-collectors, and the jailers.

Thus, I erred, I sinned. I repent. While the mandaters and shamers were trying to coerce me and others resistant to being told what to do, I was trying to coerce them for opposite reasons. The basis is moral. It cannot be resolved without relationships, trust-building, and proven good faith.

Thus, I find the reason for coercion and mandate. Power corrupts, but it temporarily enforces the morals of the powerful.

Get it? Some say, “But not everyone will do what is right.” Of course. Fundamentally, you have no authority to say what is right. While you are so fallible, your highest ideals and notions of what is right are as filthy rags. Of course, not everyone will do it. Many will believe it is wrong to do it. They believe you are morally wrong. You have no authority to assert otherwise; thus, you grab power, you call a vote to rubber stamp your edict, and you make pretenses that your coercive evil acts are justified. No, it is not justified. It is merely hypnotic manipulation of the mob. Mob rule is never justifiable.

No, your evil coercive acts bread more evil and coercion. Soon, it is the Soviet Union. Soon, it is the Gulag and every third person is a government informant seeking some small favor and morsel of the power for turning you in.

Only love can drive out hate. Only relationship, trust, and cooperation can find and build societal moral consensus. Seizing power and forcing mandates, restrictions, and social-religious purity rites may work quicker, but is far more brutal. It is the opposite of humane. We pass more and more laws and emergency edicts at our peril.

It is not just a mask.

Call me crazy, but taken to the logical extreme, wearing face masks and observing (and enforcing) social-religious purity rites will disrupt most humans beyond our capacity to live civilly.

For thousands of generations, for heritage beyond all but the memory written in our genetic code, we humans have lived in close communion with one another, often touching for work, for communication, for cooperation, for comfort, for comradery, for communion, and for intimacy.

After a successful run of more than 100 years hardly observing more than common-sense hygiene practices and routine handwashing, we’ve all the sudden lost our collective mind and we are afraid, not only to touch each other, but to even approach each other, and the gravest, hateful sinner is the one you fails to don a face covering.

No, for the sake of humanity, no.

We humans cannot survive without closeness.

I suppose the face-mask fad will wax and wane like all fads and cults, but what if it doesn’t? What if politicians and the powerful find it useful? What if the authoritarians find the lust for control overwhelming and unrelinquishable? What if mob-mentality rules and nonconformists are scapegoated and actually stoned or shot or caged? That is not a world I would wish on the vilest among us. It is certainly not a world I’d want to live in.

More than enough experts have weighed-in regarding mask efficacy and lack thereof, and nuance is lost to most. Masks obviously do some with regard to reducing respiratory expulsions, but is it enough? Are normal respiratory expulsions, even with the currently feared virus, significant as a vector for infection and transmission? Evidence is mounting that it is not.

Evidence is leading to the standard vectors of face-to-hands-to-face and direct contact with infected people. Yes, transmission of this virus and some other viruses through the air do occur, but they are rare. Most occur with intimate or jubilant physical contact. We’ll be wise to not be too familiar and close in crowds and with strangers, but we cut ourselves off from physical contact at existential peril.

Coercion is evil.

Coercing and mandating certain behaviors establishes you as part of evil and part of the problem. Even if the mandates and coercion are actually for the better and efficacious, we destroy our humanity, we destroy our souls, in the enforcement. We cheapen life and individuality to the ever-increasing central power and authoritarian control. We become the brave new world, and, figuratively or literally, we all die.

Wear a mask if you feel like it, but please respect others and do not try to force or shame behaviors that you happen to prefer at the moment, especially with such new and unproven behaviors, behaviors that certainly go against all of human history.

I wonder if the policy makers ever considered other infectious diseases. Have we ever effectively countered seasonal flu? We have effective vaccines against flu each year, and standard treatments, and many thousands die annually regardless.

I noticed this pretentious article: https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/best-available-evidence-supports-physical-distancing-and-wearing-face-masks

A ginormous team funded handsomely by the WHO found only 44 useful studies in over 20,000 research papers reviewed. In other words, there is no science to speak of on the matter. No one can deny the science. There is no science as of today. The authoritative claims are simply pretentious.

I maintain my assertion that there is inadequate evidence to support any policy measures, especially masks. Leave people alone and encourage them to be conscientious and wash their hands, while practicing general good hygiene. Face covering and all other presumed or proposed measures should be left solely to the discretion of every individual.

Given the lack of explanation, it is difficult to ascertain anything regarding the article’s assertion that closer than 1 meter is too close. People seldom linger that close to one another. It seems a difficult assertion to support. I assert their claim that the more the distance the better is specious wishful thinking. They are hyping their own prejudice.

Is six feet a good guideline? I’m okay with that. I am opposed to codification and enforcement. Nothing says, “We care,” like sending armed enforcement officers to shoot you if you fail to comply.

It is amazing to see assertions that amount to speculation about idealized suppositions garnered from precious little evidence. It is simply wishful thinking proposed to justify the failings of imposed policy and restrictions of universal freedoms.

“The odds of developing an infection with a coronavirus were reduced by 78% when wearing any mask, compared with the odds of infection when not wearing a mask. When using masks that conform to the N95 standard, this figure increased to 96%.” Come on! That is nonsense. The assertion as made indicates essentially no one wearing an N95 mask could get sick. Absolute fantasy! Why are healthcare workers getting sick then? When researchers make such obviously absurd claims, they must not be countenanced. It is insanity. If there is any truth in the statements, it has been lost in the delivery. “Although the direct evidence is limited,” we will speculate in our favor anyway. Orwell would be proud.

“the authors acknowledged their analysis has some limits.” Far tighter limits than they are willing to admit.

The article even admits NONE of the studies considered were actual tests, randomized and controlled, NONE!!! Put plainly, there is no evidence to support policy imposition. Coercion is evil. Don’t be evil.

Finally, look at the old information. Various studies were suggesting that masks in all situations were an unjustifiable expense. None that I found directly suggested eliminating masks, but they argued that available evidence didn’t support the use of masks, even in operating rooms, and they suggested well-designed studies to answer the question. No one cared until it mattered to policy failure and politics.

Look it up for yourself. You won’t trust my evidence regardless.

From April this year, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191274/

“Results

A total of 19 randomised controlled trials were included in this study – 8 in community settings, 6 in healthcare settings and 5 as source control. Most of these randomised controlled trials used different interventions and outcome measures. In the community, masks appeared to be effective with and without hand hygiene, and both together are more protective. Randomised controlled trials in health care workers showed that respirators, if worn continually during a shift, were effective but not if worn intermittently. Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective. When used by sick patients randomised controlled trials suggested protection of well contacts.”

Worth repeating, “Medical masks were not effective, and cloth masks even less effective.”

The actions of Captain Crozier really bother me. The fact that so many laud his selfishness disturbs me deeply and weighs heavy on my heart.

Consider the following:
Guam is reasonably comparable to the combined cities of Moore and Norman, Oklahoma.

Assume 5,000 foreign-language refugees under USAF care are headed your way, to Moore-Norman. More than 100 of them are known to be infected with COVID-19, four of the infected were already mediflighted in. What do you think? By the way, you cannot leave. You are in lockdown and surrounded by the ocean (comparing to Guam). Would you be bending over backward to work with Tinker AFB to put all these refugees in your local hotel rooms, your local hospital? Think what military leaders would be facing. Consider how much the military did on Guan practically instantaneously, in mere days, accomplishing most of it before a letter went out that made more than one hundred million mothers in our country hate the military leadership, including the Commander in Chief.

Oh, and did I mention that taking these refugees into your community disables one of the most powerful weapons in the world? A weapon hundreds of millions of lives depend on being ready to fight, standing ready to defend?

Crozier shut out his leadership, his chain of command, telling them he was satisfied all was going as well as it could. Crozier didn’t care for you. He didn’t care for his crew. He was simply selfish. He considered his own safety above his career. If he cannot value his career, I certainly cannot.

Further, if Crozier loved his sailors, why is his concern superseding the love of Governor Lou Leon Guerrero for her fellow Guamanians? What if she had refused to let the ship enter her harbor? What if she had deployed Guam’s defenses with orders to stop the ship at all costs? Would the Captain unleash the weapons under his command against a US protectorate? What if?

Further, why is Crozier’s selfishness lauded while Governor Guerrero’s concerns are dismissed? The military is supposed to protect the civilians, not impose on them, and not make demands of them. Crozier emphasized the USA is not at war. Fact, the Constitution forbids the quartering of troops in peacetime. It is un-American for the military to demand lodging. The US Navy was requesting and making agreements as fast as possible. All that could be done was being done without violating American principles and our Constitution. At the very least, Crozier’s demands were un-American. Knowing such officers exist in our military bodes ill for our enlisted service members. The requirement to relieve Crozier was absolute.

Is it a fair assertion to state our military has become a cancer?

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/west-point-prof-pens-blistering-takedown-of-u-s-military-academies/

I advocate for a strong military, but haven’t we gone too far?

We must have a standing navy. I assert we do not need a standing army, at least not one capable of conducting warfare. We need reservers. We need standing capabilities, but an active army needs activity. Armies, by nature, need war. (War is hell.)

Air force? We need some. Don’t we have too much? Space force? Well, maybe, but too much seems inevitable from inception.

I advocate for less government, especially less entitlements. Isn’t our military treated as an entitlement in many quarters? Don’t we Oklahomans feel our military in our state is essential, that we are entitled to it here?

We need more balance and less government, including the military.

Because I work alongside many members of our military, I know it as a good thing. Our military service members are as good as any, any people regardless of grouping, every people of every grouping.

I’m promilitary, but I do think we have too much. We can cut back in ways that benefit all in the long run.

The article speaks to the institution of the military. It seems to me the article is correct. I cannot envision a military coup d’état in any conceivable future scenario, but understanding how our military might work against our society, “a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” is needful. We cannot fix problems we refuse to acknowledge.

While I find the point of the article valid, the article and the professor are too whiny for my taste. I think the problem is identified. We need it better and more rationally defined, and we need solutions. I suggest starting with refocusing the national objectives for the military, and refocusing the overall national policies, including foreign policies, to serve the interests of liberty here at home. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is applicable to all, to every individual, to every institution, including our government. I aver the greatest good in the world is individual liberty and responsibility. Refocus and reduce objectives, and reduce budgets accordingly.

“West Point’s high national rankings on annual college lists are due to its resources and reputation for the highest student academic standards. A closer look reveals, first, that the “resources” are courtesy of the American taxpayer—an over-inflated budget of $500 million a year, even though the school graduates only 950 cadets annually.” Three minutes of internet search did not let me confirm or refute. Anyone have references? Half-a-megabuck per graduated is unreasonable. We cannot continue such a course if it is even close to true. Much too much government.

While I find the point of the article valid, the article and the professor are too whiny for my taste. I think the problem is identified. We need it better and more rationally defined, and we need solutions. I suggest starting with refocusing the national objectives for the military, and refocusing the overall national policies, including foreign policies, to serve the interests of liberty here at home. “Be the change you want to see in the world,” is applicable to all, to every individual, to every institution, including our government. I aver the greatest good in the world is individual liberty and responsibility. Refocus and reduce objectives, and reduce budgets accordingly.

https://jesuschristsavior.net/History.html

For reference.

Be blessed.

Important enough I want to share it any way possible.

Source: Thread by @bearshrugged: “I was not going to do this as I do not like too personal information on the internet, but the latest Greta Thunberg video is too impactful. […]”

I was not going to do this as I do not like too personal information on the internet, but the latest Greta Thunberg video is too impactful. I do not care what one believes about the climate, but I do care that people understand what is happening with this young lady. 1/
I have a child with high functioning autism (aka Aspregers). Not every person with this syndrome experiences all of the resultant effects, and the effects vary by degree. Sometimes you cannot tell if a person has Aspregers at first blush, but it will eventually emerge. 2/
Two common characteristics that seem to follow in all cases are “literalism” and “rigidity” of thought. Also, hyperfocus on narrow topics is common. Aspregers was known as the “little professors” disease, because Aspregers kids could become experts in narrow topics. 3/
The expertise is not a creative expertise but a rote one. Causation and emotional understanding are difficult for Aspregers sufferers, especially children. Aspergers suffers also are very strict adherents to “the rules” once established in their heads. This ties to rigidity. 4/
If an Aspregers sufferer establishes a set of “facts” in their minds, it is very fixed. It is so fixed that even contrary facts presented to them are rejected in favor of the previously established “facts.” If the counter-information continues, the sufferer becomes frustrated. /5
The frustration turns to hurt and anger, because of the literalism, rigidity, and the way their minds attach to rules and items they have already establish as concrete. The concrete fact is often the first “fact” on the subject they hear. /6
Now imagine a person with these predisposed inclinations hearing for the first time 1) the earth is atmosphere is heating at an incredible pace; 2) humans are causing this rapid heating; and 3) the whole planet is going to die if it is not fixed in 12 years. /7
These three items, for a person not on the spectrum can be weighed, evaluated, and put into perspective. Contrary points can be reviewed and expectations adjusted. For an Aspregers sufferer, this is not easily, if at all achieved. The anxiety compounds. /8
You have both the anxiety of being told you are going to die, coupled with the anxiety and frustration of having contra-facts butting against your established “facts” and literal implications. Parents of children with Aspregers struggle against this convergence every day. /9
How does one teach perspective and thought flexibility to a person whose mind demands literalism and structured “facts” (this is why some Spectrum people are great coders)? The answer is patiently doing so. Demonstrating the safety of exceptions to rules, and alternatives./10
When I see Ms. Thunberg, I see all 9f the frustration of my child, with none of the attempts at perspective and flexibility of thought. In some ways Spectrum people appear robotic because of their rigid mindset, but they are not. The are frustrated, and hurt, and angry. 11/
For a person like me, seeing her rigidity makes me unhappy. However, seeing her frustration and tears at the UN makes me angry. Those pushing her into the spotlight on these issues deserve shame. She is not a robot. Her beliefs are tainted by the Spectrum that frames them. /12
She is being compelled into corners her mind has difficulty navigating, and does nothing but feed her fears (of literal death), and frustration that her mind’s eye does not square with the messy, grey, emotional world. Apregers sufferers must learn to navigate these areas. /13
These areas are instinctive for those of us not on the Spectrum. No matter where you are on this issue, remember Ms. Thunberg’s view is not your view. Someone should be helping her navigate her rigidity and anxiety, not using it as an “automatia” prop. /14

Reality overwhelms alarmism. For better or worse, we are going to continue to burn everything that will burn until we are generating more electricity than we need (globally) from nuclear energy. Deride the third-leg of the stool of life all you want. It will continue in spite of you. (Life depends on water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. Without one, all life on earth dies. CO2 is by far the least destructive of these three absolutely essential ingredients of life.)

Source: Developing nations surging energy use shatters UN & California’s climate alarmism crusade | Watts Up With That?

%d bloggers like this: