Carborendum

Amazing. Keep up the good work.

I went to visit two families to administer the sacrament today. So I took two containers of blueberries with me from our garden. While I was on the way, the EQP told me over the phone that the second family had already begun meetings at the church with the Bishop. So, I didn't need to go to them. When my sons heard the news, one of them said,"Great! We get more blueberries." Just a month ago I would have gone along with that reasoning. But something has changed in me as I've been more into my garden than in past years. I told him to put all the blueberries into a single container to take to the first family. I could feel the disappointment in their hearts. I told them that we are fortunate to have people in our lives who are in need. How often do we get to share something that will make people happy? How often do we get to do that with people who are in need? Gardening is a wonderful thing because one cannot really grow a garden without knowing that no matter what we do, God is the one who makes it happen. For the practical conservative economist in me, I reasoned that there is no such thing as asking for more because the garden produces whatever it produces. You can't force it. You can't ask it. You're in no way entitled to more. It's a matter of rationing, proportioning, & prioritizing. For the theist in me, we have a lesson about grace and works. For all the work we put into it, God (or Nature/Nature's God/The God of Nature) is the one who makes things grow at all. There is a certain partnership. But in the end, God can do it without us. We cannot do it without God. There is a certain humility that comes from that recognition. Recognizing this, I found that I had started the garden because I wanted to eat the fruits. But now, I'm more excited about sharing the fruits. I'm more excited about giving things away -- especially to people who are in need. Gardening has changed me. I wonder what gospel parallels that conjures up . When I explained all this to my sons, my sons quoted."Doing good is a pleasure. A joy beyond measure. A blessing of duty and love."

Based on recent current events and many comments regarding the situation, I'm going to make a statement on racism. It is just my personal observation. It is based on experiences of hundreds of Asian immigrants I've known, across half a dozen states, and just as many foreign countries, over the course of 50 years. But it is just a personal observation. Racism has always been around. It is not unique to the US. In fact, the US is probably among the most racially tolerant nations on earth. Not perfect, obviously, especially considering recent events. But if you honestly believe we're the worst -- or even near the same category as the worst -- you haven't been to other nations where it is literally a problem worth killing for. I have felt it in my life. And I also know it has gotten a lot better over the many years of my life. America is getting better. Other nations aren't. Racism is much worse in less developed countries. In this century (already 20 years old) racism in the US is at least commonly acknowledged as being stupid if not worse. Other nations consider it normal. They say things like, well sure, they're (insert race here). So of course they're (insert racial stereotype or characteristic here). DUH!! And no one calls them out on it. It's the expectation. Mexican kids in school particularly gave me troubles because I was a small kid. As you all know, I usually never back down from a fight--even if I have no hope of winning. I just don't give up that easily. Sometimes I got beat up enough that I had to take a break from standing up for myself. But I eventually did. And quite often, I'd win the fights -- even when they were twice my size. The point being that they picked these fights because I was small -- and because I was a different race than they were. I had Mexican friends who were just as small. But they never got picked on. And they made it very clear to shout racist epithets to ensure I understood their motives. The crazy part was that some of the guys in those groups never participated in the fights. But they did at least participate in part of the taunting and encouraging. When they were by themselves, they behaved like my friends. And I guess I still don't understand that mindset. By the time I got into high school, people behaved better. There were still stereotypes There were still ethnic jokes Not as many epithets. In fact, the last one I heard was in my freshman year at BYU. So, no the Church is not immune. No more fist fights I think I once related the stories of people setting me up with a girl (when I was single, of course) because she was the only Asian girl they knew. And then I ended up marrying a white girl. When I got passed over for picking teams, I understood it was because I was small, not because of my race. One would be a fool to pick me for their basketball team. If you go to Korea or Japan, you'll find two highly developed nations who are also highly racist. But they're equal opportunity haters. They hate anyone who is not their own race (and by race I mean Korean or Japanese respectively). Koreans generally hate Americans -- especially white Americans. They also hate Japanese and Chinese. They really look down on everyone. Japanese are so racist that even if you're speaking perfect Japanese to them, they refuse to speak Japanese back because that would be acknowledging that you're human. They also hate Koreans and Chinese just as much. Sure, businessmen and diplomats know not to bite the hand that feeds them. And shop owners know to greet Americans with a smile and nice tones. But as soon as they're gone, they give out audible sighs and grunts. By contrast, all the Asian immigrants I knew used to just accept America and try to blend in. All the hatred and racism disappears from them. They even forced their children to stop speaking the language of their homeland and learn to be fluent in English. Many of the parents opened up businesses and simply smiled. They did not let out the sighs and grunts. They just ran their businesses and sent their kids to school to secure a better life for them. Asians were told the following: Learn to speak English fluently. Get proper education and training in a field that pays well. If you have these two things, you'll figure out all the rest. It is your drive and your abilities that will get you ahead. Now compare that to Blacks, and Hispanics. What are they taught? If you speak like them, you're a sellout. If you get good grades in school you're a sellout. You can't get ahead because of "da man". Government will figure it all out and save us. How have these philosophies been working? Well, we can see it in the lives of people who do the opposite of the above. Black people who value education, language, and hard work get ahead. Asians who don't, fall into poverty. Muslims (BTW, they don't easily fall into either category across their various national origins) also succeed and fail by these formulae. The startling pattern I've seen is that among the recent Asian immigrants for the past 15 years or so, Asians are buying into the "sellout" philosophy. And more of them are falling into poverty. It will a take another 15 or 20 years for those effects to show up in statistics. But I've seen it happening. Luckily, the successful Asians of previous generations are still valuing these things and teaching them to their children. But this is the "different kind of racism" I experience as an Asian adult.

That's an interesting take. Most of the other politicians who have weighed in (both D & R) have taken the same tactic as Trump. Rather than trying to deflect blame to out-of-state agitators, they say something like: But for Both a Dem Mayor and Dem Gov to both say that it it largely out-of-state agitators Then cry "conspiracy theory" when conservatives take their words at face value is putting excessive blame on conservatives who did nothing but listened to what they said. I was just repeating what was reported. As far as Soros...I had thought that the callback to the Church Lady would have been enough to indicate a little tongue-in-cheek. I guess not. But, to your point: I am not exactly on board with the idea. But I'm not as closed to it as you are. Recognize that you're thinking of honest law-abiding citizens. I don't think any law abiding citizen would either get hired for such a gig or be prone to agitation by agitators. Either of the following options can be proven to have happened enough that it is not out-of-the question. 1) The fact is that the "agitators" don't need to be in the thick of it. They don't need to actually DO anything. They just need to get others to do it. That's the hope. They supply the explosives and so on (honestly, what the heck were people doing with explosives?). Pass them around to "otherwise-peaceful-protesters-who-happen-to-be-so-angry-that-they-are-leaving-their-jobs-and-families to participate to-the-point-they-are-a-powder-keg." And then they can slink into the background and not get caught. That's what they're hoping for. 2) Do most of the people there truly have completely clean records? Do they have day jobs? Do they have family to worry about? What responsibilities do they have regularly? I have no doubt that SOME (and honestly no idea what percentage) have clean records until now. But to hire someone with multiple petty crimes on their records to go to another state where they have had no priors for just another catch and release is not too far out of the question. In the next week or so, how many of those arrested are going to either be out on bail or possibly given amnesty (considering the outrage and extenuating circumstances)? So if, as a lawyer, you can educate me: How many states have extradition for bail jumpers? How easy is it to enforce? How often is it enforced? Does the state of residency go find the bail jumper? Or does the state where the crime was committed have to go out of state to go pick them up? In a practical sense, are they going to be able to do so when a tremendous number of people jump bail for the same event? And what if those officials are somewhat sympathetic to their cause? Are they going to make it a priority? I honestly don't know. I'm just wondering about the difference between theory and reality.

It appears that the mayor issued a correction due to incorrect initial information he'd been given. It wasn't "all" of the arrested. It was about 80% of them. As an initial estimate, close enough. But I accept the correction. And the Democrat governor agrees with the mayor. But... If both the Democratic Mayor and the Democratic Governor are saying the same thing. But the police records say the opposite, what's going on? (The article didn't actually say what "opposite" meant. But I'm going to believe that it was 80% in-state and 20% out-of-state). There is a LOT more in that article that I can't just keep quoting for volume. But there is no question that outside groups are involved in most of the violence. As far as I can interpret from all the information coming in, it seems that many from within the state are hoping to have peaceful protests. But there are out-of-state organizations that are indeed agitating. And those agitators are pushing just the right buttons to bring along many in-staters to the criminal behavior as well. Other topics in the article: Possible white supremacist involvement (some saying this is a red herring). Following social media indicates anti-government from both the left and the right were independently pushing these riots into violent behavior. Bill Barr spoke on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3jY7rT-X4&feature=emb_logo Apparently, the outside agitators was a real deal. While Barr specifically states that "most" of these agitators were "far left." The only questions seem to be Just how many were from out-of-state? Who (both individual and group) were they?

It appears that the mayor issued a correction due to incorrect initial information he'd been given. It wasn't "all" of the arrested. It was about 80% of them. As an initial estimate, close enough. But I accept the correction. And the Democrat governor agrees with the mayor. But... If both the Democratic Mayor and the Democratic Governor are saying the same thing. But the police records say the opposite, what's going on? (The article didn't actually say what "opposite" meant. But I'm going to believe that it was 80% in-state and 20% out-of-state). There is a LOT more in that article that I can't just keep quoting for volume. But there is no question that outside groups are involved in most of the violence. As far as I can interpret from all the information coming in, it seems that many from within the state are hoping to have peaceful protests. But there are out-of-state organizations that are indeed agitating. And those agitators are pushing just the right buttons to bring along many in-staters to the criminal behavior as well. Other topics in the article: Possible white supremacist involvement (some saying this is a red herring). Following social media indicates anti-government from both the left and the right were independently pushing these riots into violent behavior. Bill Barr spoke on the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3jY7rT-X4&feature=emb_logo Apparently, the outside agitators was a real deal. While Barr specifically states that "most" of these agitators were "far left." The only questions seem to be Just how many were from out-of-state? Who (both individual and group) were they?

Announcement from Mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=vNrHsXmSSGg&feature=emb_logo Everyone who was arrested from the protests were from out-of-state. That's right. NONE of the protesters were locals (at least of those who were arrested). These people were being hired to protest. I wonder who that could be behind it. Oh, I really don't know... maybe...

If

Here is the EO text. You make a very good point. And I'm not sure if I agree with Trump's action on this. But I do think I see what correct principle he's applying. This is a good point. They can be neutral and maintain their legal protections. OR They can be biased and give up their legal protections. They seem to want it both ways. That doesn't wash. I also see the other side of the argument is the private party wishing to establish standards (which they are the sole judge). One of the most rational arguments I've found was from Forbes. The author compares a social media platform to a restaurant. And the analogy hold up quite well. Certainly, we have no complaint about restaurants having this authority. So, what is it that we're complaining about? The answer is that there is one glaring difference between what is happening with Twitter vs what happens at a restaurant. Expected engagement. In a restaurant, the expectation is that We have mild interaction with both the restaurant staff (who serve our interests as well as others). We also have very limited interaction with other patrons. Given that expectation, we can complain if the neighboring table is being too loud. On social media We can keep our conversations to those in our circle of friends. We can block people or ignore posts. We can open ourselves up to the entire range of posts and truly participate in a public square type debate. If we choose option #3, then we shouldn't be barred from saying anything that wouldn't be considered criminal in a court of law. If we don't want to, we can easily choose option 1, 2, or hidden option 4, ignore social media. Thus far, they have been given immunity because they are supposed to be as neutral as the stones which pave a public square or the grass that adorns our parks. But when they take it upon themselves to effectively police purportedly criminal behavior, this would be akin to policing via their own private security force, not reporting it to the police department. And if they apply those property rights in a non-neutral manner, they can be held liable for things said that they did NOT take action on. But if they're being neutral, then they can have a valid claim on that protection afforded them as a neutral platform. *********************** This could go round and round, on and on. Like I said, there hasn't been enough legal history to thoroughly establish how we should treat this. But there are currently decent arguments both ways. He may have the right to enforce this. Or it may be a matter of complete government over-reach. We won't know until sufficient precedent has been established.

We don't have to imagine any "what if" scenario. We already went through it with H1N1 and Avian Flu under Obama. Fox News did nothing like the histrionics that we're seeing from CNN today. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obama-declares-h1n1-flu-national-emergency It says nothing about any incompetence on Obama's part. It points out the conditions, the numbers, and the challenges. It in no way disparages Obama's role in it. Although there was plenty of cause.

I remember being told other accounts existed. But there was no way to access them without something like the internet, unless you happened to live in the SLC area. They simply weren't readily available. I had a mild curiosity about them. But it never really mattered much to me. I just figured it was like:

Thanks for the compliment. Unfortunately, I can't take as much credit as I'd like to. A lot of it has to do with the soil, the rain, climate, etc. That I can't control much. We are in the 500 year floodplain, so we naturally get lots of mineral deposits all the time. It is very sandy surface layer with a clay lower layer that allows lots of moisture retention and good drainage at the same time. The weather this year has been perfect. Hot days, cool nights. Rain several days in a row, then several sunny days. Sometimes it rained plenty at night and sunny days. PERFECT!!!

So apparently I missed a few big ones. This was one that was just a few feet away from that 3 inch one I posted the other day. It was hidden by weeds. I also found another one that was about the same size but it was in a deeply leaved area. I couldn't get close enough without endangering the plant. Scale: That is an 8x16 block. Here is a slightly smaller one. Perspective makes it appear smaller than it is. It is actually around 4 or 5 inches.

Thank you. Yes. I mentioned it before in the "slow return to normal" thread.

That is certainly the way we'd hope that the data would be analyzed. But the problem is that they are all 100% counted as COVID deaths in all the statistics we've been given. FACT: At least SOME of the deaths were PRIMARILY due to COVID. FACT: At least SOME of the deaths were PRIMARILY other causes. FACT: Some of them were a combination of causes that all contributed at a significant level. FACT: We will never know what percentage goes into which of these three categories because it was never recorded. But we can be confident in knowing that the COVID reported statistics we're hearing are very inflated. How much? We don't know and we'll never know. My mother had COVID. Even though she was very old, she recovered rather quickly. She died of a heart attack a couple weeks later. She was counted as a COVID death. Why? Not because the doctor wrote it on the death certificate. Nope, that said "heart attack." But some schmuck gathering statistics on COVID only asked one question: Did she test positive for COVID. Yes. So, he wrote it down. Nevermind that she had it WEEKS PRIOR.

In other words: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/05/29/us_covid-19_death_toll_is_inflated.html

So, here is my patch today. Compare to the picture at the OP of this thread.

So, the latest growth shows a bunch more female flowers. Some of them have already dropped the floral top and are developing into melons. This one is around 2-1/2 to 3 inches long. Both plants have grown so much It has gone beyond the bed boundaries (10' x 20' for two plants) and the whole bed is pretty densely populated with leaves. So, I found this one and a few others on the sidewalk. By the end of next week, they should be ready for culling. Or I may want to keep them smaller. I don't want to carry a 30 pound melon off the ground. If it is 20 pounds, that will be fine by me. Most larger melons at the store are around the 10 to 20 pound range.

I have no problem believing that. But is there a scripture that specifically links hypocrisy to "a wicked and adulterous generation"?

That would be "seeking for a sign."

To go along with the remainder of your post, I'd point out that (quite honestly, both sides) don't care about facts or consistency anymore. They care about "How can I criticize the other guy for doing something great while I praise my guy for doing something really badly?"

And so, who were the RLDS folks in this story?

Funny. My one and only interaction with one was when I was a missionary, a man tried to pass himself off as "I'm a Mormon too." But we covered a very large area with multiple wards and ward buildings. And he had no idea where our churches were or where the ward boundaries were. Yet he had a decent knowledge of doctrine and history. But both my companion and I couldn't shake the feeling that there was something off about the guy. Later on, we discovered that the place he said he went to church was an RLDS building. Mystery solved. Except... I still don't know what on earth was motivating the guy to try to deceive us like that. It seemed to serve no purpose other than to make us think he was weird.

That is interesting. I actually didn't get that vibe with any of the others. I'll tell you what put it in that category. And I'll admit it is tenuous. But still... flashbacks are simply vague impressions anyway. Ilhan Omar said three things about it. We are justified in our anger and desire for justice. We can rebuild objects. But don't hurt people. I'm not commenting on the right/wrong correct/incorrect or political leanings. I just heard these things and got a quick "beautiful mind" type connection to the fact that Nero was said to have actually started the fire because he wanted to bypass the Senate and rebuild Rome the way he wanted it. Sounds like a liberal ideal of destroying symbols of capitalism (such as places of commerce) so they can rebuild it in their own image. Nero blamed the Christians for starting the fire. Sounds like liberals always calling Trump's "dog whistles the underlying cause of any racist behavior (perceived or real). Nero didn't necessarily want to reduce the population of Rome because they were a tax base and also a source of soldiers. Ilhan doesn't want her district to decrease in population lest she be re-districted out of office. No, I haven't really thought it through. But these ideas just came to me in a flash. Maybe they mean nothing.

Speaking of Rome. . . Did anyone else get flashbacks to Nero when they saw pictures of Minneapolis burning?