John Hawkins of Townhall asked liberals what questions they wanted to ask conservatives, and he'd answer without snark. This is my take on those 35 questions. Read more...
We have this tendency to think of good as things like helping the poor, and yes, this is good, but, this is not the same as producing fruit. For what good is it when we have made the poor comfortable here, only to spend eternity in discomfort. This is why, or partly why, our works are meaningless. Our good works apart from Jesus are meaningless. Only when our works are the result of our faith in Christ do they become fruitful. If we, the branches, are not connected to the Vine, we are a dried up thing and cannot produce fruit. We produce fruit when we bring people to eternal comfort.
If you believe that Jesus is real, then you must believe Satan is real. Why? Because just as the Bible records Jesus as real, it also records Satan as real. Read more...
The Detroit Free Press is carrying this story: Critics say too many flying with questionable emotional support pets.
I guess I never really thought about how people got support pets, like those aiding the blind, but apparently anyone can have one. And like most things, it’s now being abused.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that if you need an emotional support pet, your therapist isn’t doing his job. While a pet can bring comfort, responsibility, and companionship, it shouldn’t be your emotional crutch. It’s not going to tell you when the situation you’re in is your fault. Get over it. It’s got mobile safe-space written all over it.
Apparently it’s time to start licensing them based on prescriptions from actual doctors.
Uh, oh. It looks as if climate alarmists are actually making things worse.
I’ve questioned the intelligence of fighting climate change (not climate change itself), and propose we adapt to it instead. I think it would be cheaper and more effective for mankind in general. Warming and cooling are part of the Earth’s natural cycles1; I don’t believe man caused it, and I don’t believe man can stop it.
I do, however, believe we can make things worse, and apparently, according to a new study, we can:
“Policymakers should reconsider their support for biofuels. This issue has been debated for many years. What’s new here is that hard data, straight from America’s croplands, now confirm the worst fears about the harm that biofuels do to the planet2.”
One of the reasons I find atheists less credible thinkers than the religious is because the religious are more open minded. When I say more open minded, I mean more willing to look at ALL evidence, regardless of the source, where atheists omit certain types of evidence because it doesn’t fit their narrow definition of science.
Peter Burfeind sums up this thought well in Aliens Don’t Exist, But They Tell Us A Lot About Atheists.
The “Occam’s Razor” answer science excludes but that actually faces the evidence is “We have no evidence of aliens because they weren’t created.” Exclusion of even contemplating this answer betrays a huge epistemic blind spot in the premises of science, at least among its modern defenders.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and assume that if you’re here illegally, you know it. The law requires citizens to be documented, and if you’re “undocumented,” I’m also going to assume you know to be undocumented is to be illegal. Regardless of the reason, knowing you’re illegal means you’re intentionally breaking the law.
If I break the law, even unintentionally, I expect punishment. If I break the law, intentionally, I expect a harsher punishment.
Why should I expect a lesser punishment for you when you’re intentionally breaking the law? I don’t. I expect fair, and fair is expulsion from the club, for breaking club rules. The rules aren’t new. They’ve been in place for years. We finally have a government administration that is going to enforce them.
Illegal immigration is a crime. It's a problem. Democrats are not making the situation better, they're making it worse, and people are dying because of it. Read more...
Ad blockers have been making the news quite a bit for the last few months. Publishers hate them, and consumers love them. I published my own feelings on the subject earlier this year.
Apparently, the number of users ad blocking has gotten to the point that some on-line sites are willing to block the ad blocker users. They are willing to lose customers, rather than address the reason for ad blockers in the first place.
But there are two problems that I see with the plan. The first problem is that my employer filters a lot of websites-anything it may deem malicious, or even possibly malicious, gets blocked. Apparently some of the advertising sources are blocked, so digital content would be blocked. There was period of time when articles at Forbes and MLive would not show. I have no control over that.
The second problem is that I-and I’m sure I’m not alone-am not willing to pay subscriptions for dozens of different on-line magazines or media sites. Which means if you block your site, consumers won’t read, comment on, or share your content. You lose word of mouth advertising for your news, and well as ad sales.
The argument is that digital ads pay for content, but I came across an interesting article a couple days ago with these even more interesting stats:
Media Approval Rating: 19 percent
Americans with high confidence in the media: 6 percent
So, based on these numbers, not only do consumers not like your advertising methods, they’re not overly impressed with the content you’re providing, which is probably an understatement. But, your brilliant plan is to block your sub-par content from consumers instead of looking at your own business practices. In the end, you may be doing us a favor, and for that, I thank you.
I don’t remember where I heard it, or maybe read it. But as a result of Trump winning the election, the accusation was leveled: People are afraid of a changing America.
Since most of the change we have seen over the last eight years has been forced by government-a top-down change-this election may actually show that people haven’t changed the way some people would like America to have changed.
For example, gay marriage was/is illegal in most states because when placed on the ballot, it was rejected by popular vote. The only reason this changed, is because Federal government overstepped its bounds and forced states to change; the Supreme Court should have refused to take the case.
So, I ask again. Has America really changed?