“The tyranny of a Covid amnesty”

I could have added this as an update to an earlier post today, but it deserves its own entry. Well-written, thoughtful piece by Mary Harrington:

The penultimate paragraph:

We all knew every pandemic policy would come with trade-offs. The lawn-sign priesthood forbade any discussion of those trade-offs. I don’t blame the class that so piously dressed their own material interests as the common good, for wanting to dodge the baleful looks now coming their way. But no “amnesty” will be possible that doesn’t acknowledge the class politics, the corruption of scientific process, the self-dealing, and the self-righteousness that went to enforcing those grim years of lawn-sign tyranny.

P.S. That may be the first time I’ve ever used the word “penultimate.” Did I do it right? 🙂

UPDATE: Francis Turner has a point:

I’m willing to forgive people but has to be a quid pro quo that is an acknowledgement that there is something to forgive.

The Three Rs of Forgiveness

In this article:

It has an interesting prerequisite to forgiveness:

After watching this video, I was reminded of the “Three R’s” of forgiveness promoted by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, talk show host, and author. She was one of my must-listen-to hosts in the early 1990s…

The approach Schlessinger offered to avoid “toxic forgiveness” involved Remorse (expressing real regret), Repair (taking action to fix the consequences of behavior), and Not Repeating the action.

That is worth considering.

This. Is. Unconstitutional.

You can hear one of the authors, Lee Fang, discuss the article with Tucker Carlson here:

More commentary here:

There are few terms more calculated to cause a political ruckus than “deep state.” Since the start of Donald Trump’s presidency almost six years ago, “deep state” has been a catchphrase for anything connected with the U.S. government that is opposed to Republicans .

For a few reasons, I broadly oppose the use of the term. But now we have incontrovertible evidence that, since President Joe Biden took office almost two years ago, powerful federal agencies have acted in exactly the manner that many Republicans feared. They’ve colluded with Democrats and Big Tech companies against free speech and conservative interests.

UPDATE: This is a worthwhile read: Read More

A Thread Worth Reading

 

Hmmm…

The Nine Most Terrifying Words

I miss Reagan…

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.

Reagan says it best himself:

Video from:

This Is Concerning

Their True Agenda

Although, my comment probably was more applicable to her response:

 

“‘Dishonest NONSENSE’: EPIC thread uses actual data to DRAG gun-grabbers like Everytown for ‘inflating’ school shooting numbers to scare people”

This is worth a read. It does not mean we don’t have a gun violence issue. Instead, you should read it, because truth matters.

“Hillary Clinton Did It”

Most of the press will ignore this news, but the Russia-Trump narrative that Mrs. Clinton sanctioned did enormous harm to the country. It disgraced the FBI, humiliated the press, and sent the country on a three-year investigation to nowhere. Vladimir Putinnever came close to doing as much disinformation damage.

You should read the whole article. It’s short and to the point.

It’s God’s Pulpit

Interesting article in today’s NYT:

NYT article

Fellow ministers…and Christian churches in general…it’s not your pulpit, it’s God’s. We need to treat it with reverence. Not just the pulpit: any association that could be rightly considered blaspheming His name.

Final note: I am not commenting on the legitimacy of the 2020 election nor whether one should question it.

Impressed with the New York Times

If you’ve been reading my Nibble Ninja blog, you know I lean conservative. However, I really wanted a good home-delivered paper, and the Denver Post doesn’t fit the bill (and not because of its liberal slant).

So, I am trying out The New York Times. First issue came today, and I have to admit I am impressed. It’s too early to know if that’ll equate to me continuing to spend what it costs to have it on my doorstep, but credit where credit is due.

Having said that, being that I am more conservative than most of its writers, I suspect I am more aware of cases in it where they are providing opinion instead of factual journalism. Can you also spot it in this front page article?