Do you know what you are reading here? Sure, Uncle Curmudgeon has lost his marbles, his birds have flown, his elevator stopped going all the way to the top. You wish! I absolutely need captions to understand what is being said in movies, on TV, videos. You probably don’t. That means you have missed one of the truly humorous experiences of life. No, not the weird things I answer when someone asks me a question that I thought I understood, and actually didn’t. My answers could be considered either humorous or senile. No, those truly humorous moments are when captions try to express the noises of inanimate objects.
I was watching my favorite show, Billions, when one of the main characters was having a crisis. She went into the bathroom to wash her face and get herself back together. Just before she put on her game face, the captions read, “faucet turns off, squeaks.” Then, in case you didn’t know what kind of courage it took to adopt that game face, the captions helpfully reminded you, with “dramatic music.”
Like I said, if you don’t use captions, you’re missing half the fun. Okay, you don’t need them…. or at least you don’t think you do. I wasn’t even aware of my hearing loss until a particularly glaring example of not hearing someone’s question. She really reamed me out for ignoring her. My back was turned and I wasn’t even aware she had asked a question. Perhaps you should consider a hearing test, just in case. But even if you truly don’t need captions, should you be intrigued by the silliness of captioning the noises of inanimate objects, turn them on for about a week. If you find that both seeing and hearing what the characters are saying enhances your experience, you may send me a thank you gift, emphatically not tax deductible, to PO Box 9397, Spokane, Washington. 99209. If it doesn’t enhance your experience, and distracts you enough to miss a plot twist in Game of Thrones, or whatever you binge on, then you have an excuse to watch reruns. Either way, you’ll thank me.
Today I read three business articles that dealt with counterproductive habits in the workplace. A website, quote-investigator, got the following question: When I mentioned this adage to a friend he claimed that it was in the Bible, but it does not sound very Biblical to me. Can you resolve this dispute?
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
Quote Investigator: “There is a biblical proverb that expresses a similar idea, namely Proverbs 17:28. Here is the New International Version of this verse: ￼
“Even a fool is thought wise if he keeps silent, and discerning if he holds his tongue.”
“The quotations that the questioner listed use a distinctive formulation that is certainly more humorous. In the biblical version one is thought wise if one remains silent, but in the questioner’s statements the word “wise” is not used. Remaining silent simply allows one to avoid the fate of being thought a fool or stupid. This maxim has many different forms, and it is often ascribed to Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain. However, there is no substantive evidence that either of these famous individuals employed the maxim.”
Among the worst verbal habits is overuse of “sorry”, sounding like you’re apologizing. For what? With some people, for everything. But you might wonder, when is it appropriate, and even courageous, to say, “I’m sorry”? How about never! Sorry means nothing, it’s a verbal tic, and deceptive. Sorry you were caught? Sorry that you made a common human mistake? Sorry might be how you feel, or think you’re supposed to feel, but who really cares? What about forgiveness? This is how my wife and I taught our children to ask for forgiveness, and to forgive:
1. State the wrong: “I called you a dirty name. I was wrong to do that.” 2. Eschew the excuses and reasons: Don’t try to explain why, they don’t care, it just sounds mushy, like you are simultaneously asking forgiveness and excusing yourself. 3. Explicitly ask to be forgiven: “Would you please forgive me?” 4. If it’s someone you love and not inappropriate, hug and tell them “I love you.” That’s how we did it. The fruit of doing that as often as you have wronged someone is fellowship without the undercurrent of resentment.
Once, when I had just been hired by a major company as a consultant, I suggested a way to market myself to my boss. He told me not to do it. Then I went and did it anyway. Then I was caught, because one of the people i called was already a client of another consultant. Then my boss called me into his office, and had invited his boss, who invited his boss. So I was confronted with my sin by the office manager, the regional manager and the division manager (it was a big company). I really wanted this position. My boss asked me, “did you do what I told you not to do?” This was my verbatim answer. “I am guilty. I knew what you wanted, but thought I knew best, and I disregarded your explicit instructions. I excused myself by keeping to the letter while disregarding the spirit and intent of your orders.” Have you ever seen a person dumbfounded? How about three? Their mouths were literally open. Before I could screw it up by saying anything more, the regional manager spoke. “None of us have ever heard a confession of guilt before. It’s always excuses or rationalizations or denials. We literally don’t know what to do. We came here prepared to fire you.”
The division manager asked, “what do you think we should do about you?” My reply: “Well, you could still fire me, but this would benefit the company more: How about I fully confess my guilt to all the advisers in the regional quarterly meeting coming up?” They rejected that suggestion as “too harsh.” Ultimately, they did nothing, because they figured my confession was evidence I had learned my lesson. Luckily for them, I had. But here’s the real kicker: At the regional meeting, the regional manager was introducing the new associates. He introduced me as, “the most honest person I have ever met.” Unbelievable? Maybe, but such is the power of a clear, short, self honest confession of guilt. I never said I was sorry, or hung my head. In fact, walking around looking down is another of those counterproductive habits. Be direct and honest, not arrogant.
“The extent of this Administration’s cynicism and cruelty cannot be overstated,” Pelosi spokeswoman Ashley Etienne said in a statement on Friday, April 12. “Using human beings—including little children—as pawns in their warped game to perpetuate fear and demonize immigrants is despicable, and in some cases, criminal. The American people have resoundingly rejected this Administration’s toxic anti-immigrant policies, and Democrats will continue to advance immigration policies that keep us safe and honor our values,” she added. Breathtaking, I know. Trump is the embodiment of evil. What is this particular furor about. It’s about Trump’s latest rhetoric trap.
“If the Radical Left Democrats all of a sudden don’t want the Illegal Migrants in their Sanctuary Cities (no more open arms), why should others be expected to take them into their communities? Go home and come into our Country legally and through a system of Merit!” Trump responded to the backlash of the White House plan on Saturday morning, April 13, to move illegal immigrants awaiting an asylum decision into “sanctuary cities”. What’s the problem pelosi? If a city is declared a sanctuary city, doesn’t that mean they welcome illegal undocumented aliens immigrants? Or are they angry that their virtue signaling might backfire? Of course Trump has no real intention of moving the illegals into sanctuary cities…..But I wish he would. I simply don’t understand her objection. How does moving the very people for whom the designation “sanctuary cities” was created, to any of those cities, “perpetuate fear” and “demonize immigrants?” Don’t the people of those cities want them there? Someone does, I mean who called them sanctuaries?
But her comments make sense if: most of the people who live in those cities don’t agree with the sanctuary designation; or they don’t want people who are here illegally to move in next door; or the behavior of the immigrants that get moved in will leave a bad impression. Maybe all three? Could it be that the virtue signalers are also snobs and hypocrites? And don’t represent the majority of residents? If that’s true, then Pelosi’s objection is valid. Perhaps most people who are citizens of this country don’t want self-styled elites to declare their homes sanctuaries for those whose first act inside the United States was breaking our law.
Yeah, I get that from their point of view, entering our “deplorable country” illegally is way preferable to living legally where they came from. If that’s the criteria for obeying our laws, let’s let everyone in who feels that way. By the way, who most vociferously objects to sanctuary cities? The people who went through our system legally to become citizens!
NEW HAMPSHIRE TEEN FORCED TO COVER UP TRUMP SHIRT, REMOVE MAGA HAT ON SCHOOL’S ‘PATRIOTIC DAY’. So reads yet another headline about suppression of freedom. Yeah, it might seem like a minor thing, MAGA hat crime, but it’s a perfect example of the “frog in the pot” parable, the one that is used to illustrate how we can gradually get used to something that would be intolerable if we were subjected to it all at once. The actual story here is: Ciretta Mackenzie, a freshman at Epping High School, told Boston 25 she had to borrow a friend’s sweatshirt and took off the hat after being reprimanded for wearing the “MAGA” gear on Monday – which was “America Pride Day” at school. The school’s principal said the iconic red hat and T-shirt violated the school’s dress code policy, which according to Mackenzie, doesn’t say anything about political clothing. “If it said no political gear, I could understand why it was dress code, but it didn’t say that, so I feel like I’m obligated to have my own opinion and other people can have theirs,” she said. “We don’t have to agree, that’s fine.” No young lady, it isn’t fine to stand for freedom, for your right to express yourself, if you disagree with the stultifying orthodoxy of the Perfectionist Progressives!
Why should anyone apologize or be defensive for what they believe, short of advocating physical harm or slander or libel? Isn’t freedom of speech what they told us we were ultimately fighting for in Vietnam? That’s what they told me, before handing me a rifle and pointing me towards the enemy! First we tolerate Twitterings against hatcrime, then harpies screeching old men out of the Palo Alto Starbucks and making students take off their “offending” hats and covering their shirts, and then CNN and MSNBC and WaPo slandering a teenager who was wearing the hat and innocent of wrongdoing. The froggies are barely stirring in their pots as the temperature rises to almost intolerable levels. It looks just like the Nazi strategy against German Jews. How does it inevitably end when you tolerate suppression of freedom, and worse, are expected to apologize for what you believe?
Ask a victim of an intolerant politically correct “rights” commission. Until very recently, the ridiculous harassment of Jack Philips, cake artist extraordinaire, by the Colorado human rights as long as you’re not a Christian commission (CCRC) was one lawsuit after another. Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop was under fire again —the first time for refusing to design the words celebrating two men getting married (to each other)—because he said his Christian beliefs prevented him from creating a cake that celebrated a transgender transition. An attorney had targeted Phillips with that transgender cake. That same attorney later asked Phillips to also design a cake with satanic themes and images.The US Supreme Court had already ruled in the previous case that was brought against Phillips by CCRC that governments and state officials cannot show religious hostility in their decisions. Now there’s new evidence that’s what CCRC was doing with their second legal attack against him.
But the state’s demonstrated and ongoing hostility toward Jack because of his beliefs is undeniable”, said his attorney. One commissioner had already been exposed for calling Phillips a “hater” on Twitter. And former commissioner Diann Rice had called religious freedom “a despicable piece of rhetoric,” prompting the US Supreme Court to rule against the Colorado commission for its anti-religious bigotry. This is the second time the state has launched a failed effort to prosecute him. While it finally appears to be getting the message that its anti-religious hostility has no place in our country, the state’s decision to target Jack has cost him more than six-and-a-half years of his life, forcing him to spend that time tied up in legal proceedings.”
ADF Senior Counsel Jim Campbell added, “He shouldn’t be driven out of business just because some people disagree with his religious beliefs and his desire to live consistently with them. We look forward to the day when Jack doesn’t have to fear government punishment for his faith or harassment from people who oppose his beliefs.”
That’s what I mean. Being harassed, driven out of business or a restaurant, is only the beginning. What if, instead of defending yourself in court or in the anti social media, or apologizing, you say “no”, “no”, “no.” No, I will not leave my meal, no, I will not take my hat off, no, I will not cover my shirt, no, I will not spend one cent or one minute of my time defending myself in court. I am exercising my right to believe what I want. Go ahead, do your worst. Stand there screeching, I will post YOU on YouTube. Tell me to cover my shirt, I will post YOU stumbling over your lame excuse. Sue me, hand me a subpoena, I will NOT show up in court, you will have to send the police to drag me off to jail while I have friends taking videos, and I will send them to my accuser, they will post him or her explaining why they sent the police.
Are those who believe in freedom still the majority in this country? I guess we would find out, wouldn’t we. That meme above, the hideous creature committing hatcrime? That’s how the leftys and the PPs see conservatives. Why should we be apologizing? You think they will apologize for that hideous characterization? I can’t resist ending with a quote from Takimag, about apologizing. “When calls for apology come, can claims for compensation be far behind? Thereby is raised that greatest hope of humanity, namely the dream of living, or becoming rich, at someone else’s expense. I can’t say that this hope has never occurred to me, and I doubt that there are many people to whom it has never occurred; but it is rarely realized, this hope, and even more rarely does it do any good when it is realized.”
Jonathan was the son of Saul, Israel’s just anointed king. A king, yes, but not necessarily a leader. There were people loyal to him, but mostly out of fear, or desirous of favors. Saul was hasty, harsh and selfish. Now Saul and his army were facing the dreaded philistines, outnumbered, and reluctant to begin the battle. But not Jonathan.
Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armor, “Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised. It may be that the LORD will work for us, for nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few.” And his armor-bearer said to him, “Do all that is in your heart. Do as you wish. Behold, I am with you heart and soul.“ – 1 Samuel 14:6-7. So Jonathan attacked the garrison with just his armor bearer, and his iron faith in God. Note the words of his armor bearer in bold. That’s true loyalty, for Jonathan was a true leader.
Then Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet, and his armor-bearer after him. And they fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer killed them after him. And that first strike, which Jonathan and his armor-bearer made, killed about twenty men within as it were half a furrow’s length in an acre of land. And there was a panic in the camp, in the field, and among all the people. The garrison and even the raiders trembled, the earth quaked, and it became a very great panic. – 1 Samuel 14:13-15. Obviously, the Lord was my bringing the victory. But Saul almost managed to screw it up with his ego. “His enemies?” No, they were enemies of Israel, and therefore of God.
And the men of Israel had been hard pressed that day, so Saul had laid an oath on the people, saying, “Cursed be the man who eats food until it is evening and I am avenged on my enemies.” So none of the people had tasted food. Now when all the people came to the forest, behold, there was honey on the ground. And when the people entered the forest, behold, the honey was dropping, but no one put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath. But Jonathan had not heard his father charge the people with the oath, so he put out the tip of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it in the honeycomb and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes became bright. Then one of the people said, “Your father strictly charged the people with an oath, saying, ‘Cursed be the man who eats food this day.'” And the people were faint. Then Jonathan said, “My father has troubled the land. See how my eyes have become bright because I tasted a little of this honey. 1 Samuel 14:24-29. To make matters yet worse, Saul valued his oath more than the victory or his own son.
Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.” And Jonathan told him, “I tasted a little honey with the tip of the staff that was in my hand. Here I am; I will die.” And Saul said, “God do so to me and more also; you shall surely die, Jonathan.” Then the people said to Saul, “Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it! As the LORD lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day.” So the people ransomed Jonathan, so that he did not die. 1 Samuel 14:43-45. The people had to ransom Jonathan from his father’s rash curse; they loved Jonathan more than Saul, even though Saul was the king. When David eventually replaces Saul as king, the people loved him like they loved Jonathan. When David and Jonathan met, the Bible says “their souls were knit together.” When Jonathan died in battle, David lamented his death bitterly, saying “your love was greater than women.” And David had plenty of love for women, but rarely does a natural leader find the friendship of another natural leader. David and Jonathan were rare leaders, and forged a bond that was broken only by death.
In fact, just read the posts, use the links. From here on in my post, I present excerpts from Takimag.com. Check it out. If you find yourself offended at Taki writers, or me for promoting them, let me offer an apology in advance: TOUGH! Did I spell that right?
BLACK WOMAN SAYS WHITE PEOPLE “OWN TIME” Brittney Cooper is “an associate professor of women’s and gender studies and Africana studies,” which sounds about as intellectually challenging as swatting at tsetse flies. She also says that the concept of time has “a political history bound up with the plunder of indigenous lands, the genocide of indigenous people and the stealing of Africans from their homeland.” That sucks! You know who doesn’t have a concept of time? The Australian aborigines, and look how well that worked out for them. Maybe white people are onto something with this whole “time” thing.
MIDDLE EASTERNERS RESENT BEING CALLED WHITE To be fair for once in our friggin’ lives, we’ve never considered Middle Easterners to be white. Anyone with a functional pair of peepers knows that they tend to range in hue from mocha cappuccino to the color of goat urine. Americans of Middle Eastern origin are starting to also notice that they aren’t white, because they aren’t getting any of the handouts that nonwhites are entitled to in this rampagingly white-supremacist country. Sarah Shabbar, whose ancestors were Jordanian, says that she didn’t have a big deal with being considered white until she got to college and realize that there was no special free money set aside for Arabs.
ANDREW YANG SELF CONSCIOUS ABOUT HIS WANG Last year in his book The War on Normal People,Yang recalled being taunted by non-Asian bullies in school about the astronomically high statistical possibility that he was packing a tampon between his legs. He wondered? There’s only one way to find out. We thought Asians were good with things such as numbers and measurements.
BLACKS-ONLY POLITICAL EVENT IN GEORGIABecause we are a nation driven apart by division and separatism and difference and disunity, we all need to come together as one, and in order to achieve this, we need to keep all the white people out, and if you don’t understand this, we’re going to report you to Facebook for being a white separatist. Last week in the beautiful but crime-ridden coastal Georgia town of Savannah, a black church held a black meeting with black politicians and posted a “Black press only” sign on their welcoming doors of inclusion. According to the black people who attended, there was talk of inclusion and unity, but if you have a problem with excluding white people, you don’t realize that this country guarantees freedom of association for everyone but white people, you whitey-white bigot
NON-OBESE MEN URGED TO CUDDLE WITH EACH OTHER WITHOUT ACHIEVING ERECTIONS In order for men to shed their toxic veneer of masculinity like a bunch of snakes molting their skin in a serpentine circle jerk, they must come together and cuddle one another so long as they don’t have back problems, aren’t fat, and promise that they won’t get boners in the process. This is the goal of the Men’s Therapeutic Cuddle Group, some squirrelly weekly get-together in suburban Philly designed “to provide a safe, structured, and platonic environment for men to experience ‘the three As’: Acceptance, Affirmation and Affection.” As long as you have a penis, they don’t care if you’re black, white, yellow, brown, or teal, but they warn that “men with back or knee injuries, or those suffering from obesity may find it difficult to fully participate.” The group insists that all cuddling be nonsexual in nature and demands that all men shower before attending. However, they note that “most men experience some level or arousal during cuddling. This is completely normal…we’re all guys. We just ignore it. There is no shame here!” That’s precisely the problem—there is no shame there. There should be.
VIBRANT IMMIGRANT SUSPECTED OF DISMEMBERING A WOMAN WHILE SHE WAS ALIVE Because diversity is our strength and because illiterate Nigerian savages need to be imported to do the dismembering that Italians won’t do, it is no surprise that a Nigerian drug dealer with the hyper-ironic name of Innocent Oseghale is currently on trial for the murder of an 18-year-old Italian girl whom he also allegedly dismembered—while she was alive.According to a witness in Mr. Innocent’s trial, the accused began stabbing indigenous Italian Pamela Mastropietro immediately after raping her and then, assuming she was dead, he left the scene to summon help in dismembering her. After they returned and started severing her foot, she allegedly cried out for help, spurring the vibrant migrants to stab her until she shut up forever. If this is progress, we’d rather live in the Stone Age. People seemed more considerate back then.
I like what Dennis Prager writes normally, and after reading the following, I am in awe of his courage. Do I agree with him? I do agree that women who do women’s marches are malcontents, and have little to complain about as a whole, but as for their individual lives, those may be a mess and the marching is a poor substitute for fixing their own situations? Jordan Peterson has said that psychology research shows that people are far more likely to view their group (whom they identify with) as oppressed than themselves as individuals. In fact, many individuals who have never been personally oppressed or persecuted still believe their group to be oppressed, or so they say. Peterson thinks this an odd phenomenon. I think it’s perfectly sensible. It is so much easier and feels so much more righteous to march and protest on behalf of others than to fix your own situation!
Am I saying that the majority of the women who march and protest in favor of women’s rights are really unhappy about their own circumstances? Yes, that’s what I believe, even though I don’t know those women personally. I have known a few a long time ago and it was that way. Whose decision was it whom to marry, whether to marry, where to work, what occupation to pursue? It was generally that of the individual. Oh yeah, not always, but in America, mostly. So, Dennis Prager started his essay by saying…
But a big and troubling thought hit me while reading the book. In the 56 years since “The Feminine Mystique” was published, every complaint Friedan made regarding the situation of the American woman has been addressed. Few American women are forced into “housewifery.” The few women who choose to place marriage and home over career have truly chosen to do so; it is the rare young woman for whom marriage and family are greater goals than a successful career. Nor do women any longer go from high school to the wedding chapel. They go from high school to college and often graduate school. In fact, far more women go to college than men.
Yet, if you were to listen to many American women today, you would think nothing has improved. Every women’s group and millions of individual women say women are “oppressed” despite the fact that virtually nothing remains of the “feminine mystique” described by Friedan. Feminist groups describe the state of American women in dire terms. Young middle-class and upper-class women, many attending the most expensive universities — paid for by their parents — are among the greatest malcontents in American life. In fact, women today, including young women, who lead lives the very opposite of those described in “The Feminine Mystique,” are about twice as likely to be depressed as men. And that statistic is true for women across all economic, racial and ethnic groups.
So, then, what was my big and troubling thought? If women are as likely — perhaps more likely — to complain about being oppressed today when they aren’t oppressed as they did when they were oppressed, and if women today are nearly twice as likely as men to be depressed, and if women at elite colleges — where they are pampered and more assured a financially successful future than most men living now or who lived in the past — are particularly angry and malcontented, simple logic suggests two choices: Either women remain as oppressed as in the past, or women tend to be malcontents. Given that the reality is that American women — especially the ones who do the most complaining — are not oppressed, we are left to conclude that the female of the human species may tend toward being malcontents. The simple-minded will respond to this exactly as they were indoctrinated to respond — not by asking, “Is it true?” but by accusing the person who offers this suggestion of sexism and misogyny.
So, allow me to respond in advance: This is no more an attack on women than describing men’s nature as aggressive is an attack on men. Each sex has built-in issues that an individual has to overcome in order to develop into a mature and good person. Men have to deal with aggression and the sexual predatory aspect of male nature in order to develop into mature and good men. Women have to overcome the power of their emotions and their chronic malcontentedness in order to mature into good women. But in our disordered society — a society that has rejected wisdom — in raising their children, two generations of Americans have told only their sons, not their daughters, that they had to fight their nature. The feminization of society has brought with it the destructive notion that only males have to suppress their nature. Feminists really believe females are superior, so why would women have to fight any aspect of their inherently beautiful nature?
He then puts it in a larger context, trying to proxy feminine thinking with left and masculine thinking with right. However, that’s a reversal of the traditional hemispheric theory. The theory is that people are either left-brained or right-brained, meaning that one side of their brain is dominant. If you’re mostly analytical and methodical in your thinking, you’re said to be left-brained. If you tend to be more creative or artistic, you’re thought to be right-brained. This theory is based on the fact that the brain’s two hemispheres function differently. This first came to light in the 1960s, thanks to the research of psychobiologist and Nobel Prize winner Roger W. Sperry. The left brain is more verbal, analytical, and orderly than the right brain. It’s sometimes called the digital brain. It’s better at things like reading, writing, and computations. However, a 2013 study utilizing MRI technology kind of debunked the theory. Still, Prager’s comments about the political left and right are, I think, accurate.
Though life in America is a blessing for the vast majority of its citizens, the left constantly complains about America. Indeed, the better America gets, the louder the left’s complaints about America — about its racism, sexism, misogyny, homophobia, bigotry, xenophobia, inequality, systemic bias, etc. The right, on the other hand, regards life’s difficulties as inherent to life, not inherent to America’s flaws, and doesn’t much complain. Like men, conservatives complain less than liberals. And just as male and female feminists demand that American men complain more — that their lack of complaining is a form of “toxic masculinity” — the American left demands that Americans complain more.As I’ve said many times, what does a white heterosexual male know of these things? I don’t know about you, but if that’s me, then quite a lot.