Archive for the uncategorized Category

Digital Detox

Posted in uncategorized with tags , on February 20, 2019 by andelino

I knew I had lost “control” when a good friend “confronted” me over coffee. In the 30 minutes we had been chatting, I had checked my phone about 11 times. I wasn’t “counting” — but she was.

“Is this just a nervous twitch for you now?” she asked.

Of course not. I had a list of excuses: “What if there was a Slack message about a breaking news story I needed to cover? A reply to my story on Instagram? A family emergency? Except it was a Saturday, and I wasn’t working. The replies to my funny video about chickens running loose at a local bodega could wait. And if my family really needed me — they would call.”

That was a defining moment when I realized that — like many others in the US who average over four hours a day looking at their phone — I was addicted to my mobile device.

As we’ve gone from inbox zero to inbox infinity, there’s a growing realization that staring at our phones all day probably isn’t great for our mental health. A whole new industry has cropped up around cutting out, limiting, or modifying our dependence on popular — let’s say ubiquitous — technology.

Chain hotels are locking away their guests’ phones to ensure a more blissful vacation. Young gamers in suburban Seattle are attending AA-style meetings to cope with withdrawal from the “dopamine” hits that come with successfully shooting a target on a virtual screen. And there’s a whole new sub-genre of self-help books designed to coach people on how to “dial down” their reliance on digital technology.

These programs can be labeled under different names — “digital wellness, digital Detox, digital minimalism” — but they’re all addressing the same issue.

We’ve lost control over how we let “tech” into our lives.

Ironically, some of the first groups to find coping mechanisms for tech’s ubiquitous reach were the hyper-aware Silicon Valley elite. Early dissent started within tech’s inner circles — like former Google ethicist Tristan Harris, who coined the idea of “Time Well Spent” — and spread to tech employees who spent their days building apps and their off-time raising their children not to use them.

And while the research around the effects of cell phone use is still developing because it’s a relatively new topic, there’s a general scientific consensus that cell phone “addiction” is a real problem.

Even tech bosses like Tim Cook, Jack Dorsey, and Mark Zuckerberg have publicly acknowledged the powers of their tools to “damage” your mental well being — and some have built features into their technologies that try to gently ease people out of “overuse.” Some have criticized this approach, saying that if tech execs really wanted to help people with smartphone “dependence,” they would change their products to be inherently less addictive.

Here’s the reality: That would require tech companies to radically change their business models. Like most people, I figure I have more control of my daily “smartphone habits” than I do over limiting tech giants’ revenue targets, so I started researching ways that I could “regain some control” over how much time I spend looking at a shiny screen.

Here’s are some of the most popular methods, where they came from, and whether they actually seem to be working for people.

30-day cleanse

The idea here is pretty simple: Cut your phone use for a temporary period of time to break the cycle of addiction. With this approach, you’re essentially treating your cell phone apps like a giant buffet of desserts. Cut the chocolate-sprinkle donuts and cookie-dough ice cream out of your diet for a set period of time until you curb the sugar cravings, then slowly reintroduce only the stuff you really need into your diet.

Cal Newport, a computer science professor who has written best-selling books about working habits (and somehow managed to achieve commercial success in the 21st century without Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook), is publishing a new book devoted in part to this idea, called Digital Minimalism. In it, lays out a philosophy around how to accept but reduce the presence of technology in your life, including a 30-day digital de-clutter program.

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, Newport make the case for the digital minimalist philosophy, writing that it “dethrones” the smartphone “from a position of constant companion down to a luxury object, like a fancy bike or a high-end blender, that gives you great pleasure when you use it but doesn’t dominate your entire day.”

Newport isn’t the first to dish out advice for practically changing digital habits. Catherine Price’s recent book, How to Break Up with Your Phone: The 30-Day Plan to Take Back Your Life, warned how to know when you’re addicted to your phone, and a guide for phasing it out (trick: You don’t do it all at once). You can do this anywhere; beyond the cost of the book itself, it’s a pretty cheap method.

The big question with these kinds of programs is, what happens after your self-induced time out? Do people really cut out the apps that they don’t need? The whole idea of a digital Detox period is pretty new, so it’s just too early to say with any certainty how effective these programs are in sustaining long-term change.

App limits 

Sam Kirschner, head of operations at an early-stage venture capital firm, wasn’t looking for a full-on digital cleanse as much as a reasonable digital diet plan.

So he only lets himself on Instagram for 15 minutes a day, and averages less than five minutes a day on Facebook. Built-in timers on his cellphone operating system help him enforce that.

“My main reason was productivity,” wrote Kirschner in a message. He said he finds too much Instagram and Facebook distracting, and ultimately “didn’t want to be a slave to these companies serving me ads.”

If you have an iPhone, the Screen Time feature, which is built into Apple’s iOS, is the easiest option. You can limit how much time you spend on each app. After a five-minute warning, you’ll be stopped from using the app. There’s an option to override your restriction with a pass code. For people like Kirschner (who definitely has more self-restraint than me), the warning is enough to get him to get out of the app.

Google’s Android has a similar set of features you can download, with an app called “Digital Wellbeing.” Google’s version is more aggressive — it truly locks you out when you’ve surpassed your app limits. But it’s less proactive about reminding you of your habits, since it it doesn’t send you weekly usage reports the way Apple does.

A lot of people find these weekly reports to be more of a nag than a motivator, though — and there’s no evidence yet as to how much they are truly affecting user behavior.

Facebook and Instagram also have their own time-well-spent features that monitor how long you’re using the apps, allow you to set limits, and block notifications for certain time for periods. Snap and even some dating apps like Bumble have similar options.

For me though, the problem with any kind of one-off tweaks for limiting apps is that setting up your phone to only let you use precisely the apps you want, when you want, can feel like an impossible exercise. The same goes for customizing notification and badge settings.

It’s time-consuming and hard to anticipate which apps you’ll need when. One friend, who put limits on social app usage, ended up locking herself out of some logistical apps that she actually needed, including Lyft. Of course she could fix this, but as apps pop in and out of our lives, going by this program is a constant balancing act of utility versus trade-off.

Dumb phones 

For someone like me who doesn’t want to bother with optimizing settings for dozens of apps, getting a “dumb phone” could be an attractive option. Dumb phones, like early cell phones, generally are either not internet-connected or aren’t optimized for heavy app usage. You can use this instead of or in parallel with your smartphone so you’re a little less obsessed with it. Palm and candy-bar Nokia phones are popular options.

But there’s something counter-intuitive about buying an extra phone to stop me from using my existing phone. And since you can now essentially convert your iPhone into a “dumb phone” through the Screen Time setting called “Downtime,” which blocks all apps except the ones you choose and still lets you call and text, there’s no unique utility for me here.

D.I.Y. self-restrictions 

I was impressed by how, despite all the built-in tech tools and formal programs out there, a lot of people took more D.I.Y. approaches to rationing their media use. As Kashmir Hill has chronicled for Gizmodo, it’s extremely difficult trying to free yourself from big tech companies’ products completely, even if you’re committed to quitting. For more people, it ends up being a series of self-determined negotiations for cutting bits and pieces of tech out of their lives.

For example, many people delete Facebook and Instagram from their phones, so that they’re limited to using it only on their laptops — where they’re less inclined to scroll into oblivion.

One person who still wanted Instagram and Facebook apps on her mobile device but wanted to limit her use, found a more nuanced hack: “setting her Instagram and Facebook apps to only use WiFi rather than data. This way, she could only use the apps when she was at home.”

Another friend conveniently forgot his Facebook password and purposely has never bothered to log back in. So far, it hasn’t bothered him.

There’s something appealing to me about people coming up with their own mechanisms to regulate their cell phone use instead of waiting on tech companies to add more nannying features to the latest software upgrade.

Retreats 

For people who find self-induced restrictions too hard to enforce or just want an escape from their cell phones, there are actual retreats. These can cost you: A creative writing detox retreat in Ibiza runs around $2,200 for a week of connection-free bliss (sans airfare).

Since spending thousands of dollars to have someone babysit my cell phone is out of the question for me, I’m more likely to follow the advice of people who schedule regular weekend camping trips to places they know they won’t have cell phone service.

Turn it off 

There’s also a seemingly too-obvious solution to all this: Turn off your phone. Some people do it for a couple hours at a time, or on one designated day of the week. For people who lack the self-discipline to do this, there are lock-boxes and charging beds and all kinds of physical devices meant to isolate your phone if you don’t trust yourself to keep it off. But at the end of the day, many people find just turning off their cell phones and putting them far away works just fine.

Going gray 

Despite the fact that phones continue to get bigger and brighter and better to look at, some people are dead set on weakening the visual appeal of their devices by making their phone screens gray.

Gray-scale is a built-in feature on iOS and Android that’s meant for people with visual impairments, but is now widely used by people trying to fight their smartphone addiction. The idea is that if your phone is less pretty to look at, you’ll look at it less.

While this may be true for many, others still ultimately fall into the addictive trap of social media. As the Guardian’s Alex Hern writes:

“Once you’re actually in a social network, the slot machine effect continues to work just as well as it always has: pull to refresh, see if you’ve got more likes, look at the new posts that appear, rinse and repeat.”

Professional help 

Tech-addiction therapy is a new and growing field in psychology. There’s a movement among experts to get it included as an official disorder in the next edition of the leading American psychology manual, the DSM-5. Internet addiction has already been considered a psychological disorder in China since 2008, where government-approved facilities try to cure tech addicts.

While it isn’t as widely pathologized in the US, cell phone dependency is certainly a topic that psychologists can treat patients for.

All these methods are essentially coping mechanisms to deal with the underlying problem that the popular technology that connects us can also suck us into an addiction.

There’s a bigger discussion to be had about how tech companies can systematically decrease the stickiness of their own products — perhaps at the expense of their own bottom line — rather than focus on “digital wellness” fixes.

In the meantime, we’re here, left to “fighting” our own devices.

Misgendering

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2019 by andelino

The “LGBT Community” can’t even escape the fury that comes with the “incorrect use of gender pronouns.”

Julia Beck, a lesbian activist and former member of the LGBTQ Commission for the mayor of Baltimore, got in a “little trouble” after she called a male rapist “he” when “he” actually considered himself a “transgendered” woman.

During a conservative discussion panel at the Heritage Foundation on Monday, Beck told the story she described as “unbelievable and absurd as it is common place.”

“I got kicked off of the Baltimore mayor’s LGBTQ Commission as the only lesbian, simply for stating biological facts,” she said. “After a months long witch hunt I was found guilty of ‘violence.’ My crime? Using male pronouns to talk about a convicted male rapist who identifies as transgender and prefers female pronouns.”

Beck went on to expose the “foolishness” of the Baltimore LGBTQ commission for their concern of using correct “gender pronouns” as opposed to their concern for a male “rapist” infiltrating a female prison based on how he identifies.

“It doesn’t matter that he sexually assaulted two women in a women’s prison after being transferred there on account of his ‘gender identity,’ she continued. “Oh no, it is far more criminal for me to call a male rapist “he” than it is for him to rape.”

The lesbian activist was brought before the Baltimore Transgender Alliance (BTA) to have her “fitness as a leader” assessed and she describes her experience as “worst than you can imagine.”

The president of the BTA, who is a man that identifies as a woman and a lesbian, accused Beck of “transphobia” and everything went down from there.

“Biological sex was a thing of the past,” she described one man in the meeting as saying.

Her response: “How can we be homosexual, if sex is fake?”

After her experience at the BTA meeting, Beck accused the “T” in LGBTQ of “entirely eclipsing the L, G and B,” with their focus on eclipsing the “L.”

She also spoke out against the “left’s tactics” to include children in this “gender identity crisis.”

Take a listen to her story below:

The real crime here, of course, was the denial of his “chosen gender identity” by the knuckle-dragging, close-minded, reactionary “traitor” to womankind, Julia Beck.

The “delusional” lesbian Julia Beck had mistakenly assumed that being a “sexual minority” entitled her to stating biological facts without clearing them first with the High Commissar of “Pronouns and Dangling Participles.”

A speedy show trial found her guilty of “violent transphobia” and sentenced her to the status of a cis-lesbian non-person with the pronoun “it.”

Beck was tried by the “revolutionary” tribunal at Baltimore Transgender Alliance (BTA), where men with “penises who self-identified as lesbian women” stripped her of her rank as a commanding lesbian activist and demoted her to a lowly “private” dyke.

The verdict stated that “biological sex” was a thing of the past and that anyone who said otherwise was a “Trump-loving Nazi.”

Instead of admitting her guilt, signing a teary confession, and doing hours of public self-criticism, the stubborn self-identified woman took a stand and engaged in despicable acts of “gender terrorism and sedition,” asking questions that threatened the very “foundation of the trans-movement.”

Among other transphobic things she claimed that biological sex was an “immutable” fact, otherwise there would be no
“homosexuality.”


This dramatic development touched on the most “existential” issue of our time:

  • If biological sex has no meaning, where do homosexuals come from?
  • If gender is a matter of choice, what force causes people to be attracted to the opposite sex, or to the same sex for that matter?
  • If sex is arbitrary, what was the fight for same-sex marriage about?

Have homosexuals been doing it “wrong” throughout the millennia, instead of simply “changing their sex” for the common good?

Most importantly, why do homosexuals bitterly “cling” to their biological gender? Is it time to “sacrifice” them to the revolution as “crypto-conservatives and enemies of progress?”

Obviously there are two more crimes and two more criminals in this story. The female inmates who were “raped” are both guilty of “sexual immorality” and should immediately be stoned to death.

It is the only way they can atone for their “criminal” behavior and society be protected from any further criminal behavior. These cis-gendered females were undoubtedly wandering the prison “unveiled,” thereby creating “lust in the penis,” whether it was a male or female penis.

If you want a vision of the future … “imagine a lesbian being denounced for improper usage of a personal pronoun when describing a male convict who is preparing for taxpayer-financed penis removal surgery which will greatly enhance the possibility of his committing suicide, and who raped two women inmates because he was confined in a women’s prison because he claims to be a female bull dyke lesbian and …… I’ve lost my train of “thought” …….

Oh, well.

We must fight this “drooling insanity” of forward thinking.

Green New Deal FAQ

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on February 16, 2019 by andelino

“Green New Deal FAQ”
February 5, 2019
Blog Post

What is the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a “10-year plan” to create a greenhouse gas neutral society that creates unprecedented levels of prosperity and wealth for all while ensuring economic and environmental justice and security.

The Green New Deal achieves this through a World War 2 scale mobilization that focuses the robust and creative economic engine of the United States on reversing climate change by fully rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, restoring our natural ecosystems, dramatically expanding renewable power generation, overhauling our entire transportation system, upgrading all our buildings, jump-starting US clean manufacturing, transforming US agriculture, and putting our nation’s people to work doing what they do best: making the impossible possible.

Any large-scale transformation of society can create the risk of some people slipping through the cracks. That’s why the Green New Deal also calls for an upgrade to the basic economic securities enjoyed by all people in the US to ensure everybody benefits from the newly created wealth. It guarantees to everyone:

  • A job with family-sustaining wages, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security
  • High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools
  • High-quality health care
  • Clean air and water
  • Healthy food
  • Safe, affordable, adequate housing
  • An economic environment free of monopolies
  • Economic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work

The front-line communities that are already facing the ravages of climate change and pollution and working-class communities reliant on fossil fuel industries must be prioritized in any transformation of our society to a renewable energy economy. That’s why the Green New Deal lays out a comprehensive plan that ensures training, investment, and the economic and environmental benefits of the transition prioritize these communities that are most at risk.

In short, the Green New Deal fully tackles the existential threat posed by climate change by presenting a comprehensive, 10-year plan that is as big as the problem it hopes to solve while creating a new era of shared prosperity.

What is the purpose of the Green New Deal resolution?

The goal of the resolution is to define the scope, scale, and purpose of the Green New Deal. It is intended to define what is necessary for any legislation that aims to be “Green New Deal” legislation. The resolution puts forward 5 goals to be accomplished through a 10-year plan that involves 14 transformative industrial and infrastructure projects and 15 supporting principles for social and economic justice and security necessary to accomplish the Green New Deal.

Why is such a large-scale mobilization necessary right now?

A recent IPCC report declared that global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate. This calls for global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions of 40 to 60 percent by 2030. The U.S. contributes 20% of global emissions. To hit these global targets, the US must not only get to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society by 2030, but it must also lead this change abroad to avert climate catastrophe.

Is getting to a greenhouse gas emissions neutral society in 10 years possible?

It is possible if we have the political will to do it.  When JFK called for us to get to the moon by the end of the decade, people said it was impossible.  When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2 at a time when America was producing 3,000 planes a year, the world laughed.  We ended up building 300,000 planes and winning the war. We built a highway system to connect this continent, split the atom, and created the Great Society. The American people are capable of doing great things when our nation comes together to tackle big challenges.

Is there any support for the Green New Deal?

92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal according to latest polls. Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal. The previous resolution to create a select committee for a Green New Deal had 45 endorsers in the House, and this new Resolution is launching with the co-sponsorship of 60 members of the House and 9 Senators including many major Presidential candidates.

Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program led by the government? Why can’t we just rely on regulations, taxes, and incentives such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels?

The level of investment required to make the Green New Deal successful is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all their resources into this investment, the aggregate value of investments would not be sufficient.  That’s why we must utilize World War II era and New Deal-style financing which commits to long-term benefits instead of short-term quarterly returns.

The speed of investment required must be as swift as possible. Even if all the billionaires and companies in the world could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors.

Additionally, private companies do not make massive investments in risky projects that will only earn a moderate return — even if they are necessary to save the planet. The government, however, has the time horizon to be able to patiently make investments in exploration of new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of government investments in “new” tech that subsequently spurred a boom in the private sector include DARPA-projects, the creation of the internet – and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla.

We don’t need to just stop doing the destructive things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires upfront investment. In the same way that a company trying to change how it does business may need to make big upfront capital investments today in order to reap future benefits (e.g., building a new factory to increase production or buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its IT system), a country that is trying to change how its economy works will need to make big investments today to jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power the new economy.

Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn’t work – e.g. the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US renewable industry but, even with such investment-promotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral economy as quickly as needed.

This resolution sets out a non-exhaustive list of several major projects that need to be completed fast. These projects include upgrading virtually every home and building for energy efficiency, building 100% greenhouse gas neutral power generation systems, removing greenhouse gases from industry and agriculture, and more. These projects will all require substantive investment.

We’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver of the investment program. Given the magnitude of the current challenge, the tools of regulation and taxation, used in isolation, will not be enough to quickly and smoothly accomplish the transformation we need to see.

How will you pay for the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a massive investment program, not an expenditure. The question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what is the cost of inaction, and what will we do with our new shared prosperity created by the investments in the Green New Deal.

We will finance the investments for the Green New Deal the same way we paid for the original New Deal, World War II, the bank bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and decades of war – with public money appropriated by Congress. Further, government can take an equity stake in Green New Deal projects so the public gets a return on its investment. We already know that investments in infrastructure create huge returns on investment. The interstate highway system returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost. Similarly, investments in upgrading and transforming industry are a chance to grow the wealth of our nation dramatically.

For a more detailed view on paying for the investments in a Green New Deal, check out these articles:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rhockett/2019/01/16/the-green-new-deal-how-we-will-pay-for-it-isnt-a-thing-and-inflation-isnt-either/#44f107594d7f

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/opinion-green-new-deal-cost_us_5c0042b2e4b027f1097bda5b

Will this hurt communities that rely on fossil fuels jobs?

The Green New Deal will prioritize creating high-quality, family wage-supporting union jobs in communities that rely on fossil fuel industries. It will ensure that all communities have a better alternative for high-wage work before they transition away from fossil fuel industry based work.

Is this an environmental plan? Why do you have things like universal health care and other social safety net measures in here?

The Green New Deal is a plan to make a full-scale transition of our economy that puts jobs and justice first. This plan will require a strong social safety net so that every U.S. person can make this transition comfortably and nobody falls through the cracks in the process. If we want to be able to mobilize our economy fully, we can’t afford to have employees stuck in their current jobs because they are afraid to lose health care or workers unable to participate because they can’t afford the education and training programs. We also need to be sure that workers currently employed in fossil fuel industries have higher-wage and better jobs available to them to be able to make this transition, and a federal jobs guarantee ensures that no worker is left behind. We believe that the economic securities and programs for justice and equity laid out in this Green New Deal resolution are a bare minimum of what we need to do to successfully execute the Green New Deal.

Why does the Green New Deal call for net-zero emissions in 10 years instead of zero emissions? Is this saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels? Does the Green New Deal ban all fossil fuels?

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to jump-start the complete transition of our society away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources and to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. The resolution outlines the plan to virtually eliminate greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of the economy through a World War 2 scale mobilization of our society to create the renewable energy infrastructure and clean industries as fast as possible.

The Green New Deal sets a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, at the end of this 10-year plan because we aren’t sure that we will be able to fully get rid of, for example, emissions from cows or air travel before then. However, we do believe we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, restore our ecosystem, and more to get to net-zero emissions.

The Green New Deal also calls for any infrastructure measures before Congress to address climate change and additionally calls for an end to the transfer of pollution overseas.  This provision goes farther than just calling for a ban on new fossil fuel infrastructure. Instead, it tackles all greenhouse gas emitting and pollution emitting sources in our economy and global trade. However, the more important driver to phasing out fossil fuel usage in the Green New Deal is the large-scale mobilization that will make new fossil fuel infrastructure or industries untenable.

The Green New Deal is a 10-year plan to reorient our entire economy to be pollution and greenhouse gas emissions free while ensuring every person in the U.S. benefits from this enormous transformation of our society.  This means creating a plan to develop the supply of clean energy, industries, infrastructure, transportation, and more for workers and front-line communities in conjunction with transitioning off fossil fuels. Only banning fossil fuels won’t build the new economy to replace it. The Green New Deal is a plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically.

What comes next?

Representative Ocasio-Cortez is planning to immediately begin work on Green New Deal legislation to fully flesh out the projects involved in the Green New Deal. She also plans to work with members of Congress to incorporate existing legislation into the comprehensive plan for a Green New Deal.

During a Martin Luther King Day event in New York City, our favorite Socialist cutie, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez uttered what could be her finest example of idiocy in her short, but rich, “history of idiocy.”

She said that we had “only 12 years to save the planet from climate change, or we were all going to die.”

I for one am “utterly” confused. Why do we need a 10-year “New Green Deal” plan if the earth will “end in 12 years” according to “wunderkind” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

Revolutionary Pope

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , on February 14, 2019 by andelino

At the “World Youth Day” Jorge Mario Bergoglio preached a revolutionary “New World” message.

America is led by a “crazy” and “unchristian” leader. That’s the opinion regularly spouted by the far left, and it’s also the “belief” of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, better known as “Pope Francis.”

In 2016, Pope Francis called border walls “unchristian,” right after holding mass just on the Mexican side of America’s southern border.

Recently, he returned to the subject, as he returned to the region.

On the pope’s flight to Latin America, a journalist asked the him about a U.S. border wall. The pope said that walling off the entire border “is madness.”  

“It is fear that makes us crazy,” he added.

Then he arrived in Panama for the Catholic “World Youth Day” celebrations January 22 to 27, 2019. Held every two to three years, this is a major “event” on the pope’s calendar.

This year’s event was on the smaller side, probably a sign of how the “sex-abuse” scandal has “damaged” the Catholic Church worldwide.

He used the occasion to exhort them to “build a very different world.”

Popping up in the pope’s speeches were criticisms of “migration” control. He used one homily to speak against the “senseless and irresponsible condemnation of every immigrant as a threat to society.”

People should instead be “builders of bridges,” he said.

He explained that walls are, in fact, so bad that locking people in prisons is wrong. “This attitude spoils everything, because it erects an invisible wall that makes people think that, if we marginalize, separate and isolate others, all our problems will magically be solved,” he told a group of prisoners.

“When a society or community allows this, and does nothing more than complain and backbite, it enters into a vicious circle of division, blame and condemnation.”

Pontiffs behind giant stone walls should not cast stones about Donald Trumps proposed wall is how some people see the Pope’s holy “war of words” with the Donald.

It’s been pointed out that Vatican City — Pope FrancisHQ — has been surrounded by a “massive protective wall” for centuries.

In fact, the wall was first built in 852 A.D. to fend off Muslim attackers. It was expanded to its current size in the 1640s. The wall, in all, measures 2 miles … surrounding 109 acres.

As usual, another recurring theme in the pope’s speeches was “climate change.”

He said in prayer that “Your Son’s way of the cross continues in the plea of our mother earth, profoundly wounded by the pollution of her skies, the barrenness of her fields, the contamination of her waters, trampled underfoot by disregard and a fury of consumption beyond all reason.”

But the pope’s message was more than a list of “condemnations of conservatives, climate change and capitalism.”

He also “exhorted” the young people to “say yes” to changing the world through “social activism.”

God’s vision for the world is not “a promise far off in the future, having nothing to do with the present,” he told young people.

Instead, he told them, God “calls you in your communities and cities to go out and find your grandparents, your elders; to stand up and with them to speak out.”

He spoke to them about a “new world now being born.”

“World Youth Day,” he told them, would turn Panama from a hub of migration into a “hub of hope” for “a more humane world.”

It was this call for “social activism” that led George Neumayr at the “American Spectator” to comment, “His sermons could have been written by Nancy Pelosi.”

“Pope Francis spends much more time talking about this life than the next one,” Neumayr wrote. “He is given to statements such as ‘Another world is possible,’ but he isn’t referring to heaven. He is referring to a revolutionized political order.”

It’s a good observation. The revolutionary pope puts forward a “vision of the gospel” very different from the one in the Bible.

The Apostle Paul wrote that “If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” 1 Corinthians 15:19

Paul described our current society as “this present evil world” and exhorted Christians to instead put their hope in “the world to come.”

Jesus Christ told His disciples to “change” their actions. And He was not afraid to “criticize” leaders in the world, especially “religious” ones. But He never called for Christians to “overthrow the Roman Empire and build a new world.”

The revolutionary pope, however, made clear that he doesn’t want his followers to wait for this “new world” to arrive, but to go out and build it in a very “practical” way, now.

In the past, Pope Francis has made clear that he wants to “topple” the global system of free-market capitalism. He has called it “a new tyranny” and “the dung of the devil.”

When the pope insists that nations must open their borders, that Christ demands more spending on climate change, and that capitalism is from the devil,” who is he condemning?

When he “exhorts” Christians to create a new world, whom do they have to “tear down” to make that happen?

It is very clear the pope is preaching “against” the United States of America. And at the “World Youth Day,” just like during his 2016 trip to Mexico, he was doing so on America’s front porch.

If revolutionary Pope Francis is to be taken at his word, he could not possibly wish for the leaders of the capitalist system to thrive and prosper, continuing to inflict its “tyranny” on the world.

If he believes the free market is a “force of destruction” then he would feel not only justified, but “obligated” to use his power to weaken it.

This is a pope who will “hug” dictators, “kiss” the feet of invaders and then “reserve” his harshest “criticism” for the world’s most powerful “democracy” that has led the world in “promoting true freedom.”

This “revolutionary” pope has made clear that he is staunchly “opposed” to some of America’s foundational ideals.

The Bible makes clear that God’s Church is not involved with “politics” of this world. But by Pope Francis’s recent activities and statements, it becomes clear why this should “deeply concern us all.”

Fifty or 60 years ago, no pope would have dared say some of the things this “revolutionary” pope has said. Intervening in America’s political system would have “provoked” a major backlash.

src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/5j5F6Liqvg8&#8243; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture” allowfullscreen></iframe>

Today, it has stirred little more than “amused” talk about Donald Trump versus the Pope.

The pope is a “revolutionary,” and he is stirring public opinion against not just the U.S. president but America’s “core principles.”

He clearly preaches against ”free markets and limited government”, core principles of the U.S. Constitution.

Pope of a “New World”’ Order
Liberation Theology
Pope Francis hates the Catholic faith
Was the pope complicit in Argentina’s “dirty war?”
POPE SAYS “I appeal not to create walls but to build bridges.” FROM ATOP 1,000 YEAR OLD VATICAN WALL

Bad Orange Man

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on February 11, 2019 by andelino

The 2019 State of the Union address was a majestic, eloquent and powerful “Reaganesque” defense of American values that people haven’t heard in a really long period of time.

President Donald Trump, aka “Bad Orange Man” appeared before a divided Congress to appeal to lawmakers’ sense of unity at a moment of deepening partisan spite.

His calls for conciliation were met with mostly stone-faced silence from Democrats, who bitterly oppose his agenda and accuse him of hastening the decline in cross-party cooperation.

It was his first time addressing the Democratic-majority House, and his political nemesis, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, offered timid applause reluctantly with pursed lips while sucking on her dentures.

“We must reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution,” Trump told Congress near the beginning of his State of the Union address, claiming in his speech that he is putting forward “the agenda of the United States.”

Yet it didn’t take long for Trump’s “irritation” at Democrats to rise to the surface.

“An economic miracle is taking place in the United States and the only thing that can stop it are foolish wars, politics or ridiculous partisan investigations,” the President said to only a smattering of applause. “If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation. It just doesn’t work that way!”

Democrats have promised they will use new investigative powers to probe everything from Trump’s tax returns to his policy decisions to members of his Cabinet.

The special counsel Robert Mueller is also continuing his look into the Russian meddling “hoax” during the 2016 election.

My, how times have changed. Not too long ago, Democrats were expected to wear “white” at meetings and social event!

This very image was taken near Chicago, and proves the point! Follow Nan and the “white dresses women,” vote as they vote, do as they do and you won’t go wrong.

Throughout the speech, stone-faced Pelosi sat with pursed or puckered lips and a grim expression on her face, sucking on her dentures, rolling her eyes and shaking her head as if Trump spewed lie after lie, with a few bombastic partial truths thrown in for good measure.

Shuffling printout papers of Trump’s speech in her hand, the “Queen of Condescending Applause,” was bordering on rude as if the entire speech was a bit of “gristle” that must be endured before it could be discreetly “spit” into a napkin.

As I was carefully watching what Auntie Nan “applauded” and what she did not, it didn’t really tell me what she “thought” about things and stuff.

But since Nan is so much “smarter” than everyone else and knows what’s “best” for America, I think it is a good thing to follow her lead in what she “hates or loves.”

Nan hates African Americans, Latinos, and Asian having jobs. These sort of people should not have jobs, at least so it seems from Nan’s complete lack of enthusiasm when the record low unemployment numbers were spoken. She did not clap any at all at this news, so it must be a bad thing. Handicapped people shouldn’t have jobs either, for the same reason. Bad Orange Man was very bad to talk about these people having more jobs.

Nan also hates it when people get off food stamps. Being dependent on the government to put food on your table is a good thing and getting people able to feed themselves is bad. It is also bad to lower taxes, because that would mean less money to spend on keeping people on food stamps. Nan did not clap for people getting off food stamps.

Nan hates America producing so much energy that it exports it. I think this may have something to do with her hating African Americans and Latinos and Asians getting jobs, but I’m not sure about that. It may be that she hates American winning. She didn’t clap for that, either. Of course, it doesn’t really matter if I understand why it is bad. It is enough the Nan hates it for me to hate it, too.

Nan is dead set against confirming nominations. Instead of either an up vote or a down vote, she doesn’t want to have any votes. Nominations are bad, and confirming them is worse.

Nan hates the idea of reforming the Veteran’s Administration. This could be because she hates anyone who says a government healthcare program is not running at tip-top efficiency and providing top-notch service. It could also be because she thinks soldiers are icky and don’t deserve good health care. So what if a veteran has to wait a couple of years to get a CAT scan? They always talk about how tough soldiers are, right? They can take it!

Nan really hates the idea of border security and legal immigration. She is so generous and loving, isn’t she? On the other hand, she really likes drug dealers, coyotes, and human traffickers, because she didn’t clap once when Bad Orange Man said they were bad people. She hates any kind of border wall because it is immoral and a waste of taxpayer money. She already has a wall around her house, so we don’t need another one.

Nan hates other countries paying their share of NATO bills. If those countries have to pay for guns and tanks and planes and soldiers, how will they have enough money to feed and house and entertain the people who are flooding into Europe from other places? In the same way, she hates the idea of charging tariffs based on what other countries charge us. That’s just not fair. She didn’t clap for any of these things.

But just in case you think Nan only hates stuff, she also sat silent on some other things that Bad Orange Man said that proves she does love some stuff.

Nan loves killing babies that have just been born. When Bad Orange Man talked bad about New York and Virginia passing or trying to pass laws that protect babies that are about to be born, or babies that got born anyway, she looked mad. She didn’t clap even a little bit.

Nan also loves partisan investigations. These make America strong, I guess, and what’s the use of having an FBI if you can’t use it to cripple your political opponents?

Nan loves socialism. She looked like she had just bitten into a cat turd thinking it was a tootsie roll when Bad Orange Man declared that “America will never be a Socialist country” which is grounds for impeachment.

Nan loves Iran having nuclear weapons, and she loves the idea of Genocide for Israel. I guess those two just go together.

I sure am glad I watched Nan while “Bad Orange Man” lectured Democrats on Mueller, Illegal immigration and Socialism.

Now I know what to “hate” and what to “like” and I don’t even have to “think” about it.


But it wasn’t until the end of Trump’s “harangue” that the woman who sits third in line to the presidency issued a literal profanity “fuck you clap” to the president on national television and in front of a room full of the country’s most powerful people.

Immoral Walls

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , , on February 5, 2019 by andelino

Tucker Carlson ran a segment on his show Tuesday night dedicated to The Daily Caller’s latest installment of “Walls Across America,” a series dedicated to pointing out those who have walls around their homes while “disapproving” of President Donald Trump’s desire to “build a wall” along the nation’s southern border.

“Well that couldn’t be clearer. But wait. There’s a caveat. There always is. Some walls aren’t evil at all. Some are necessary and good. So for those of you keeping track of the theology at home, we offer you now a brief tour of walls the Democratic Party has deemed perfectly moral,” Carlson began. “We begin with border barriers in Tunisia and Jordan. Democrats voted to pay for those walls, so obviously they’re okay. Israel has walls too.” 

He continued:

“Here in the U.S., it turns out we have plenty of moral walls too. Just this Sunday, Kamala Harris announced her campaign for president. For security, huge swaths of the streets of Oakland, California, were blocked—walled off, you might say. With her own security at stake, Senator Harris had no problem with this. They were moral walls.”

And there are many more “moral” walls. Benny Johnson of the “The Daily Caller” has set out across America to find more of them.

And as you might have guessed, a huge number of the most “moral” walls we have “protect” the homes of Democratic donors.

Carlson added, “Well, it’s quite a list and there are more. But it’s not surprising, the more you think about it, there’s really only one immoral wall on earth. No, it’s not in China. The Chinese are highly moral, ask Dianne Feinstein. The immoral wall is the proposed wall on our southern border, the one that might keep future Democratic voters out. And for that reason alone, it’s immoral.”

Johnson has previously traveled to the walled homes of billionaire Democratic donor George Soros and former President Barack Obama.

Trump continues to push for the construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, but the funding remains unclear. The government was shut down for 35 days over the issue, the longest shutdown in history. The president agreed to reopen the government for three weeks, despite not getting any funding for the wall.

Now that Donald Trump has become President, we should find out, “Does God have anything to say in the Bible about Trump’s idea of building a wall to protect Americans from illegal undocumented migrants with criminal records?”

You would be surprised!

In 2016, Pope Francis called border walls “unchristian,” right after holding mass just on the Mexican side of America’s southern border. Last week, he returned to the subject, as he returned to the region.

On the pope’s flight to Latin America, a journalist asked the him about a U.S. border wall. The pope said that walling off the entire border “is madness. It is fear that makes us crazy,” he said.

Popping up in the pope’s speeches at World Youth Day were criticisms of “migration” control.

He used one homily to speak against the “senseless and irresponsible condemnation of every immigrant as a threat to society.”

People should instead be “builders of bridges,” he said.

 

Walls for me but not for thee
Zuckerberg Builds Giant Wall Around Hawaii Property
Walls protect Katy Perry — as she calls for ‘no barriers, no borders’ after attack
Wall around Obama’s DC home complete!
Is There A 10-Foot Wall Outside Obama’s House? We Went There To Find Out

 

How Dumb Is Roger Goodell?

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , on February 4, 2019 by andelino

David Portnoy, founder of the popular website Barstool Sports, rendered an opinion on the “intellectual” capacity of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on Tuesday night’s edition of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

Portnoy, who was famously kicked out of the Super Bowl Opening Night at Atlanta’s State Farm Arena on Monday night after security found out he was present without credentials, argued that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell would be better served publicity-wise by simply granting his well-known website press credentials.

“Yes, we are,” Portnoy told Fox News host Tucker Carlson, responding to a question about how the founder of a legitimate website could be charged with criminal trespassing. “But when you challenge authority and you challenge Roger Goodell, it generally ends up with a lecture, sometimes behind bars, sometimes with police officers. In this case we had 10 guys that looked like they work for the FBI with little NFL lapel pins thinking they were the toughest guys on the universe trying to rough me up.”

Portnoy speculated that Goodell’s animosity toward him and his website have to do with his support of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, as well as the fact that he is “one of the few people” to challenge the NFL commissioner.

“How dumb is Roger Goodell?” Tucker asked. “If you’re going to arrest somebody, hassle somebody, you probably should not make that person the head of Barstool Sports. It’s not smart P.R., is it?”

“He is one of the dumbest humans who’s ever lived,” Portnoy responded. “He’s a rock. He has no brain. It’s like an old Atari game, just bouncing back and forth. There is no win for when you hassle us. There’s no win. If you put cuffs on us, we go to jail, it is a national media story.”

If Goodell would simply grand “media” credentials, Portnoy speculated, it’s a “non-story.”

“But he is so stupid,” he added. “He is just the stupidest leader that we have ever encountered. It is really embarrassing.”

“So, Roger Goodell is a mouth-breather,” Tucker said. “You made a compelling case for that.”

The two ended the segment by discussing how much money Goodell makes and how he managed to land in his position.

Trump called NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell ‘a dope’ and ‘a stupid guy,’
Why Hasn’t NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell Been Fired Yet?
Good God, Roger Goodell Is So Stupid
NFL treated me like ‘a terrorist’

%d bloggers like this: