Still Having a Hard Time with the Great American Political Divide

 Sure, I'd like to be able to have effective discussion s with liberals, give and take in which we don't say insulting things, or try very hard not to, but earnestly try to muster the evidence to defend what we think is the truth.   We average peopole don't do much to hold on to evidence unfortunately.  I don't.  I wish I had it when I need it, I know it's out there somewhere because I heard it, but I didn't do anything to keep track of where I heard it or where to find it.  My impression is that in gerneral liberals are far worse about evidence, trusting in narrative alone.  Since I can prove that many of their narratives are founded on lies I know this is obviously a bad policity but they aren't going to give up the habit easily.

Yes I wish it were possible to have such discussions but for the most part it just isn't.  I know some take the attidue that there's no point in even bothering to tell a liberal what we think because it doesna't todo any bgood.  I think sometimes this mayb e sjustified that somethingmes it's just a cop out.  that is, I defend it as the right attitude when you are talking abotu family members and very close long time friends where the relationship is more important than the argument.  Or a spoiuse in particular.  Yes.   But when yoyu are talking about mere acquaintances you don't have to deal with every day I think it is porobably a cop out to avoid saying what needs to be said in the face of some liberal assertion said in a publig c place in particular and certinly if it's on social media.  It begs to be answered.  Even if it would do no good with that particular person, there are other people listening and they need to hear it.

Then smetimes, after years of trying or years of avoiding discussing such things with a friend, to the point that there's very little of the friendhip left to be shared anyway becauase both of you are heavily involved in the political world and care most about that and not that much about the ordinarly things of life that are all that's left to talk about when you are avoiding the big issues...  THEN , I'm beginning to think anyway,  it's worth making it clear that you find the friend's opinion so odious and evil, even if you do ascribe it to deception and not to malice, I mean the friend's being deceieved of course, that it is likely a good think to say you so abhor and condemp the opinion that you are willuing to give up the friendship until the friend at least shows an interest in hearing something of the other point of view.    

That's hat I'm thinking at the moment.

Every day I'm assaulted by the liberal point of view on the internet or on the radio where I listen to conservative tgalk shows but the station is owned by an alphabet news compoany that inserts something into every news report that insinuates wrongdoing by trump or conservatives.  It's wearing and depressing and all the more so knowing that librals listening to the same stuff don't notice it at all and have no idea at all how conservatives are being persecuted every day by the liberal powers that be.  

\\They don't notice that this is not news reporting but opinionating, something supposedly assiduously avoided by true journalists.  On the left it isn't avoidied.  they seem to go out of their way to insert a denigraintng or insinuating word into a report.   If talkinga bout trump's objection to how a \n election was conducted, they ave to insert the word "unfounded" or "false" to describe his point of view.  this is an egreegious violating on of the tenets of journalism as I always understood to be the case.      

Otherwise they just uauote the nastiest assessment by a leftist they can find to air in the report.   Oinion or not it's treated as valid commentary, even as evidence, and listening liberals just take it tstraight, see no problem at all, and have their own opinions shaped without their being aware of it.

this is going to ocontinue throughout trump's presidency I'm sure.   Sincw prayer helped a lot during the election phase it's clear we need to keep praying our hearts out that people on the left will continuie to to walk e up and see the light and embrace the real truth instead of their delusional truth.

Evil for Good and Good for Evil As Usual

 Jusy heard trump denounced as so abolutely immoral we who support him are obviously held in pretty low esteem even if that part wasn't said.

the fact of the matter is, as I try to say in the latest addition to my previous post, that Trump is the best thing that ever happened to America, will work to restore everything that is right and good to our nation and get ride of the evil and corrupt influences we've been laboring under for the last few years, and really, decades.

How this complete reversal of the truth could eeven be possible is hard to grasp.  

A Podcast on the J7 Miscarriage of Justice among so many others

I'm adding this late on Monday the 27th.  The post below is terribly garbled because it is hard to go back and correct things and get it right since my eyes are so bad and I don't think I'm up to making it any berter at this point.  There is a URL in there to the mentioned podcast but you have to move th cursor arouhjd a bit to fdind it.  Sinc3e capturing a URL is so difficult for me I'm not going to try getting hold of it again.  the podcast is pretty good at laying out the terrible injuistice of the January sixth arrests and imprisonments, focusing mostly on clips from tucker Carlson's interview with Julie Kelly who did thorough research into the revent despite the destruction of many documents and fvideos by the authorities that most probably contradict the accepted narative about its being an insurrection.    The people were false imprisoned.  Even those who did act violently have already served sentences longer than usually given for the kind of eoffense they are charged with.  Trump was right to pardon them all and now we hope that this will all be exposed for the horrific miscarriage of justice and violation of the Constitutjional rights of ordinary American citizens that it really is.  Tucker Carlso entire interview with Kelly shoyuld be out there somewhere too, and his documentary as well.

The sad sad thing about all this is how effective the left has been at vilifying their political opponents with the mjoral and criminal charges they themselves are guilty of.  Trump is completely innocent of just about everything he's been accused of, the whole thing is made up from corrupted evil imaginations, as are all the charges brought against innocent conservativve American Citizens.   We hope for trump's Presidency to bring all this to light and finally right the wrongs.  But it's going ot be a tough abattle and we may not be able to win it completely although God has been mer ific tgo us in permitting us a lot of righting of wrongs alreadyu.

Tehydn't want to know anything about the other side of the issues.  They are completely confvinced by the evil propaganda they've been hearing for so many years that trump is the evil party and they just have no patience for half a minute with anything that purporsts to show them they are wrong.  There is no way to fight such an attitude.  You can't make someone attend to information they've alraedy prejudged as fase.     

I'm sglad so man;y have had their eyes opened but there are some who are just so dug in to their false view of it all there is no ophope for it I'm afraid.   Everthing tgrump has done in his fist days in office is with the intent and very likely the soon achievement of retroing America to some semblance of our former righteous standing in the rworld.  

Sad tothink some will never get the message and that we have to continue to suffer from the anger, the misplaced anger of people who are so egregiously misled as to continue to support an evil and corrupt political party.

ddedater:  I did find Julie Kelly on Yo

u tubefter

 all.  I put in Julie Kelly J7 and found a discussion of a documentary by tucker Carlson about J7.

/* * * * * * * * * * * * *

.

ucker & Julie Kelly Expose the Truth Behind the J6 Coverup as Wray Resigns!

And now I see I've completely messed up the paragraphing on this post.   Sorry about that.  I'll try to fix it later if I can.

As usual I'm having a hard time copying out the URL to a video about the documentary and I can't even read the title on the screen very well but it's something like Julie Kelly Exposes the .....ime Before  or something like thatAs

 Yesterday i was able to find maybe dozens of interviews of Julyie   Julie Kelly at You Tube.  today I can't find one.  I've tried every sayway I can think of to bring them up if they are there and nothing comes up.   So I can only conclude that they've been cnsored byt he Lefty management of You Tube for he usual political reasons.  She wrote a book about the January Sixth event that is propagandistially called an insurrection in which she showed through her own research that the whole thing was a setup.  Gosh imagine that.  I knew that, most on my side knew that, but half he country jut bought tuhe usual fake news and probably wouldn't even hear about this book anyway.  It takes a little work if you want to avoid bing deceived these days, but few have the motivation.  but to b fair they are used to trusting their sources and haven't yet learned that they aren't to be trusted.   

We need some more Elon Musks to buy up all these raitorous social media sites.

Sane Liberals Take on Some of Trump's Executive Orders

BeLater:  added some paragraphs at the end.

 of recent events, particularly of course the election and inauguation of Trump, I'm back to appreciating Bret and Heather of Dark Horse Podcast, which isn't so much the case when they are into their biological evolutaionary focus.  They are refresingly articulate and sane on the cultural and politial issues of the day, and I paritcularly enoyed the latest pocast 261, in which they give their reactions to some of Trump's executive orders.

 ThI will note, however, that once again Bret defends his view of MAGA as being better if you leave off the final A since he belevies that we can't say America was ever great when some people didn't get to benefit from that greatness, or to put it another way, it wasn't great for these other people.  Blacks and Native Americans.  And again I have to object tht ameria is great completely irresxpective of any people group or individual experienc3we within init and if we don't always keep that in mind we miss the whole point of what America is and why it was known to be the great force for good in the world up until the left took over a few decades ago anyway, and in a certain sense even in spit ofof their efforts to destroy it.

Tht said, I like their take on the executive orders and on Trump's position to be perhaps the best President we've ever had which many on the right alwaready think anyway.  Bret points out that Trump has a real affinity for the ordinary American citizen, seems to really care about us all and ants our good opinion far more than the good opinion of anyone in power.  He's quite right about that.  It was Trump who went to North Caronilna and talked to the people displaced by hurricane Helene, while Biden and Harrise were off doing other things.  it was tTrump who got Musk to bring in his starlink system to provide communication for the people there that had been lost because of the hurricantne.  And trump just yesterday visited North Caronlina gain to find out that nothing had been done to improve their istuation, always on the ground talking to the people themselves who are suffering from loss.  It's the same with his visit to MacDonald's to make and serve friesto the people driving through.  The Left is absolutely deaf to the real Trump and why he appeals to ordinary people even as a separate thing from his policies which are also attracive to the ordinary citizen.    So I'm glad bret recognizes that.

I also agree with his idea that instead of renaming the Gulf of Mexico th Gulf of America it should be renamed the Gulf of the Americas.  I like thta a lot.  I was uncomfortable with his renaming the Gulf at all.  There's just no need that I can see.  It isn't harming us in any way to be called the Gulf of Mexico, it's just a geographic designantion.    Oh well.  Anyway I'd really like to see Trump change his mind and take Bret's suggestion and rename it again.

In general I hate the renaming of anything.  It's hard on our poor heads to hve to remember that the new name refers to the same place we knew iunder the old name.  that goes for all the renaming of foreign places such as Beijing for Peking an Mumbai for Bombay.  It's like they just create a whole new world in which it's hard to locate anything we once3 had at least some idea was in a certain place and had a certain character.  Mumbai just sounds like it must be some other city than bombay.  Same iwith Beijing.  the people who do this renaming have no feeling at all for human experience.  unch of conceited bureaucrats.

\\Anyway, there is such a thing as a sane liberal.  Unfortunately it's a liberal who has gone to the trouble to investigate the issues, and since most of them don't, but just go on following the same path laid out by the same leftist day after day there aren't many sane liberals yet.  Oh but God did answer prayers that I for one sent up for more liberals to come over to vote for trump, so there are quite a few , enough for that purpose anyway.  Still, we need a lot more.  

HHeather says she understands the conservative point of view on the environment to be that human beings have the right to do with the creatures of the world whatever we want to do and she's opposed to that idea.  Well, I'm opposed to it also at least the way she understands it,   I never liked Rush Limbaugh's way of mocking the tree hugers as he described them and all that.  I agreed with him that they go way too far, an as Bret and Heather seem also to agree decisions about the environment should be in the service not only of protecting the environment burt doing it in a way that promotes human flourishing.  Too much of the time it seems the decisions made about the environment are made without the slightest regard for the w3ellbeing of humanity, sometimes even with the attitude that we are less important than the creature theyh want to protect.  So what if our cities burn down because we no longer cleared away the flammable underbrush in the forests that provide shelter and habitat for some woodland creatures.  So what if the Pacific Palisades burnes to the ground because there is no water in the reservoirs because somehow or other it was necessary to save a particular kind of fish.  

OK so saving tghe fish may be done in a way that is good for humanity too, but it doesn't seem to have ben done that way in this wdase.  OK so if you clear all th brush away you may inadvertently set up the conditions for a worse fire hazard over time.  OK.  Obviously there is a lot to be taken into account, but clearly none of that is being dtaken into accou ntnt.  The town of Paradise in northern California burned down because of lawas against clearing away the underbrush from the forest, and it looks like Pacific Palisades burned down for a similar reason.  

So a Far more complex way of thinkiing about all this needs to be brought to bear and the current environmental laws have to go.    Bur I want to point out that although there may be those in the conservative camp, and Rush Limbaugh may have been one of them, who defend human rights to the absolute exclusion of any concern for what we do thte enivornment in our promjects to sustain our own wellbeing, but I take the biblical point of view and I would think many other conservatives do altdo, which is that our mandate to have charge over all the earth as given by god is certainly no mandate toe destroy it willy nilly as we ravage it for whatever we think we need.   The mandate is a charge to take care of the earth, to husband it to use the oldfashioned word for it.  dDomsticating the animals and the edibles are part of the mandate.  Learning to grow food in the best ways for the best purposes;  making gardens where there is unruly wild vegetabition is another part of it.  The Japanese in particular seem to have taken that part of the creation madate particularly seriously and spend a lot of effort on creating vbeautiful gardens.     

Then they come to the topic of energy production ahnd the damage the windmills are doing to wildlife near the seashore.  I'm so glad thais is getting addressed.  it's not only at the seashore howevewr but everwhere that the windmills are a blight, not only not producing enough energy to be woth the building of them, but ablight on the landsacape, and a danger to birds wherever they are located.  What people don't hear about is that teams of people are required to drive to the windmill sites to pick up truckloads frull of dead birds on a regular basis.  Nobody wants to criticize this supposed better alternative to fossil fuel but the fact is that it's far worse in a million ways.   And those solar panels that lie flat on the ground, sayi n the Jojave deservt, also kill birds by radiating the heat of the sun back into eh sky so that when birds fly over them they are instantly cooked to death.   These supposedly better alternatives are a failed experiemtn that needs to be brought to a halt immediately wherever they are installed.    Oh, I think solare panels built inon housese may be afe and OK, not totally sure but I think maybe.  Still, Iv'e seen designs that depends completely on harnessing passive heat that work fvery well, houses designed to absord heat into brick walls where it is stored for long periods of time for instance.  The house has to be designed with the position of the sun in mind from every angle so that it heats only what you want hheated and stored up while lett ing the rest of the house be col.  Anyway there are other ways tof thinking about the energy problem that need to be considered.

OK there are also problems with drill baby drill but to some extent we do try to take that into account and for now it is probably better to go with this and dismantle the alternatieves

e GOAT? The 261st Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying but of course with the idea that the whole project needs to be improved for the sake of the enirvonemtn though it can't be given up at the moment.

Continuing Leftist Perfidy in National Cathedral, in Nevada, In L.A. and Bweyond

It was a big relief to hear that Trump has demanded an apooogy from the so called bishop in the National Cathedral who had the insane rudeness to address him personally from the pulpit in an oblique complaint about his policy to restore the country to two sexes and deport illegal aliens from the country.   Unblievable disrespect to the office of President, or to any human being for that matter, to criticize him personally in such a public way.  The woman is beyond any kind of defense I can think of.

When challeneged by a reportetr she said she was only trying to help people who were being harmed by Trump's policies.  She'd asked him to havwe compassion on the transgender wpeople who were now scared of what would happen to them because of his edicts, and she so helpfully informed him that not all the illegal aliens in the country are criminals.  and he just sat there and took it as I have heard, while J D Vance who was istting with him got agitated and looked around during the bishop's inexcusable shaming of the lader of the free world.

Of course nobody in the LGBT Community by the mere styatemewnt that we as a nation will only recognize two sexes.  There is no threat implied.  Live as you lease, nobody is stopping you.  All that is changing is that those who see the situation differently are now freed from the tyranny of habinh to bow to your way of looking at things, which is a violation of our frreedoms.   As for illegal imigrants, the gall of the woman to suggest that trump thinks they are all criminals.  the Gall.   the insanity, the stupidity, the gall.

If you put National Cathehdral in the search line at the top left of this blog some posts I did in the past should come up in which I blast that so called church for its abject unChristianness as it werer.  it's perhaps a social justice club or osmething of the sort, it's certainly leftist and political and has nothing whatever to do with the Christian religion.  The building should be closed while the current occupants are banished from ever returning, both preachers such as they  are and their happy listeners whoever they may be, shut down tight for a period of spiritual fumigation.  it should bw sold to a true Christian Church or it should be turned into a museum.  Anything other than what it now isk which is a blight on our nation and probably worse than that, a negative spiritual influence that brings down god's wrath on us.  Trump and vance and their wives should not have come anywhere near it in the first place.  It's one of those many antiAmerican and antiTruth institutions that I understand litter the city of Washington D. D.   Yes, it may wevery well just sit there and emanate evil influences unpon the nation.  the sooner we are rid of it the better.  don't let it continue to poison us.  but who is listening?  

of course they aren't going to let up on trump just because he won the election .  They talk nice at first, and maybe some of them do have the sense to relaize they have to give up their leftist habits, I can hope of rhtat anway.  I hope as trump's time in office moves along many on the left will come to see their folly and join their friends who ahve already defected.   Trump is so exactly what we need at this time, tough unmoveable, right about most of his policies, perhaps not all but most, and a strong proponent of all of the mm ,, a strong sadvocate. A strong doer, a man who doesn't let grass grow under his feet, he's out there already mjaking things right in America and in the world.  Thank You Lord.  But we need to keep praying our hearts out, and oh Lord, cn You Pplease getg ride of that abomination of a religion that emanates rthose evil spiritual fumes?

understand the cathedral itself is a pretty building so I don't advocate tearing it down, just fumigating it and bringing it into the service of the true Christianity.  No more ecumenical prayer meetings, no more apostate sermons.

I also want to co9p-lainj about a couple other leftist crazy reactions to trump's executive order.  Here in Nevada we have a senator who thinks cutting taxes on the rich is to benefit the rich and that we should do something to incluede the middle class in the tax cut.  How ignorant can they get.  They never learn.  Just as they are stupid enough to think that Trump is stupid enough not to know that not all the alienas are cirminals they also are stupid enough to think he is stupid enough to give tax cuts to the rich for the sake of the rich.  Common sense would be enough to save them from that I would suppose but apparently they have none of that .   The tax cuts on the rich benefit the whole nation, they actually bring in more tax revenue than comes in when the rich are heavily taxed.  but of course they are heavily taxed anyway.  those who complain that they don't pay their far share,  good grief what a phrase, have no clue what the rich already pay in taxes.  As my brighter tells me, he being the best source of this invoformation for me when I forget it as I have aknack for doing, the top ten percent of the highest income earners pay eighty seven perscent of the taxes.  Eighty seven percent.  Got that .  Eight seven percentg.  From only Ten Percent of the taxpaying population.  got that.  breaking that down further, the two TWO percent pay forty two percent of the taxes.    The rest are paid by the middle group of taxpayers, somke sixty five persectn of the population of taxpayers, thirteen percent of the taxes from ;sixty five percent of the population.  And the lowest twenty five per cent of th epoupulation down't pay any txes at all, but get something called Earned Income Credit, which is wone of those leftist socialist insnaities.  So there you have it.  Stop saying the rich donw't pay their fair share.

And when the taxes are cut for the rich they are freed to invest in the nation, to expand their businesses and start new businesses, to hire an army of new employees.  That is exactly what happens.  More people are working and more people are paying taxes because they are working.  Under Reagan I understand that the tax revenue doubled as a result of his tax cuts on the rich.  

I also hear tell that JFK did the same thing and benefitted the economy in the same way.

Then again in Nevada we have this Attorney general who thinks trump is violating the Constitution by putting an end to Brith Right Citizenship.   I would think that anybody would know, just from common sense, that the fourteeneht amendment could neot ever have meant that anyone who just happens to visit the country and happens to give birth while within our boundaries has brought a new American citizen into the world.  That is such an insane idea that just on the face of it you should know it's not what was meant.  But this one is going to go to the Supreme Court because there are apparently quite a few confused Attorneys General who are challenging rump on it, bringing lawsuits abgainst him.  So we can only hope that the Suprememe Court has its its about it.  You never know these days.

I think I'll stop here.

Later:  OK I hve to apologize for calling anyone stupid.  I shouldn't lose mytemper like that.  It certainly doesn't make for an atmosphere in which discussion could be possible, so I am truly sorry for it.  I'd change it if I could see it but I can't.l

It is also ridiculous to think that Elon Musk would make a Nazi salute to a crowd of MAGA supporters, even if he was a Nazi, which of course he is not.

I also want to add here that aiI saw a recent Rachel Maddow clip in which she is co0plaining about Trump's appointment of the ambassador to France, qjoting him as saying he made the appointment becaue the guy wanted it, and she goes on and on about trump's supposed wrongheaded reasons for his appointments.  Of course his appointments are so clearly ased on political policy and the ability and motivation to get the job done that this complaint is ludicrous.  Of course I say think s nowt knowing anything about the person appointed to be the babmbassdor o t France and maybe there is an exception to be made there.  Maybe this one was made for the wrong reasons.  This I don't know.  But knowing as I do that the Left does lie all the time about Trump, for instance by quoting a part of something he said while leaving out the rest, that in his case he may very well ahve said a great deal about the person's qualifications or the job becsides mentioneing his desire for the job, and maddow simply left it out.  I don't know.  But it's such a familiar leftist strateg I wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is exactly what she diedid.  

Listening to some more of Maddow I'm geting the impression that she mostly gives a long nearrative about whatever it is she believes to tbe the scase but doesn't provide evidence for it.  A long description of Tulsi gabbard's supposed early life in a cult includes pictures of the cult leader but no actual evidence of anything she claims Gabbard actually did or said.  Where are the sound bites at least?  Where are the witnesses actually on record rather than merely said to exist.   Same with the appointment of hte ambassador to france.  She said Trump said this and that but didnt' actually show him saying it.  Not that I necessarily doubt it, but that sort of thing is really necessary when you are making such claims, and as I said, I wouldn't be surprised anyway if things he said in the same speech contradict her claim anyway, which she simply left out.  I don't know.  I guess I just don't trust a leftist as far as I could throw her.

I think it was on  a recent Mark Levin show that he quoted someone who did a great job of listing all the ways the Left has promoted a false image of trump to the public, naming each in turn and calling it a hoax, and I wish I had heard the first part of that because I missed the person's name and don't know how to find that list again.  The Charlottesville Hoax, the Bloodbath Joax, the Dictator Hoax, the Russian Colusion Hoax, the Hush Money Hoax, the property assessment hoax, the riged election  oh I mean the overturning the election hoax and so on and so forth .  It was a great list.

J D Salinger and the Narcissistic Personality

 It'a frustrating when I have ideas for blog posts so close together as this one that follows on the one aout Israel I wrote just a few minutes ago.   This one will rise to the top of th epage and that one move down while I'd really lik e it to have preeminense ce ofr a while at least.  But I have this new topic fresh in my mind and if I put it off I may never write it at all.  that happens.

Because one of my grandsons is reading J D Salinger's Cather in the Rye for school I decided to see if I could find it as an audio book at You Tube because although I thought I'd read it I hadn't.  It's so famous it's easy to think you've read it when all you know about it is from reviews and things people say about it.  And then you read it and it's way more than all that.  Yes I did listen to it.  I can't exactly say I LIKED it, that's the wrong wrord somewhow, but in way I do have to like Holden.  In a way.  But I don't want to discuss the book here.  I don't think it's necessary but if it seems to e I'll say something about it later on.

Then I read Franny and Zooey and Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters, and A Good Day for Bananafish.  And heard may interviews with people who either knew him personally, Salinger I mean, or had ;written a lot aout his books and that sort of thing.    Some women are heard from who present a less than lovely portrait of Salinger.  Especially Joyce Maydnard.

I wanted to read her book, listen to it that is, where she writes about her time with him but it's one of those teasere things where I got to heard some of it but then it refers you to a page that wants you to sighn up to hear more, right at the point in the story where she's starign to describe her pexperisnces with himj of course.

But she said enough in an interview I heard, and so have some others who are up on the story, to get a picture of the man that interesetingly fits almost too perfectly with what I've been hearing recently about the narcississtic personality.  An unlikeable man underneath a carefully cultivated very likeable exterior.  Cruel, uncaring, tyrannical, cold, emotionally abusicve.   

He has some sort of facination with chilcrdren.  Holden in a Catcher in the Rye is especially fond of his little sister, Seymour in A Good Day for Bananafish seems to cultivate children as friends.  Salinger started relationships with at least three women in their teens, married two of them when they turned nineteen, no not at the same time, years apart.  Waited until they were nineteen.  But I get the feeling he would have preferred to have a closer relationship with them when they were younger.  From everything that has been written and said by him and others I don't have the impression that he had a sexual attraction to tchildren, but of course if that were the scase he'd camouflage it anyway so it's hard to know.  It sounds more like a an idealization or emotional obsession.  But again he would camouflage it if it were an erotic fixation of course.   But it culd have been mental rathern than physical .  Some suggested that.  

He married one of the young women and had two children with her.  She finally left after about ten years if I remember fightly, having endured much tyrannical controlling abuse from him.  Another rlationship ;he started when the girl was fourteen and when some years later he had sex with her that abruptly end ied it for him and he simply broke it off.  With Joyce Maydnard he "love bombed her" for a long time through letters and she was sure she would be happy hmarried to him although she was only eighteen and he fifty four at the time and went to live with him and married himj.  But they were together only a year when he suddenly told her he wanted to end it, uite absruptly, she should go to their ohome, get her things together and leave.  Just like that.    these behaviors are described as typical of the narcissistic personality in many of the videos I've een hering.  the love ombing and the abrupt rejection.

In A Good day for Bananafish, Seymour takes a little girl into the ocean on a raft and at one point imnpulsively kisses her bare foot to which she protests.  He has gone tdown to the beacdh without his wife who is in their hotel room.  When he returns there she is asleep and he lies down on the other bed and ;shoots himself through the temple.  

There is another story I couldn't  find in a form that I could hear well, it was way too fuzzy sounding, callee Seymour, an introduction, which gives a lot more decription of this man Seymour though those who discuss it say it doresn't answer the question fo qhy he killed himself.  \He carried the gun around in his valise so he probably had the idea for some time but had he planned it for that day?  As I was pondering this I decided that something about the encounter with th elittle girl is what pushed him over the edge.  Something about an unfulfilled desire for the child.  He as not happy with his wife, that was suggest in an early ier story, Raise Hight the Roof Beam Carpenters.  He mjight even have wanted to push her in some way by killing himself in the nxr bed.  \

Anyway this is how I put together what I think could be the underlying mindset of Salinger as he wronte the story.   He marries oung women, no doubt not as young as he'd like but young, then throws them away when they become too adult for him.

Oh well,  I can' speculate about such things I guess.  Why not.\\

I did start thinking that the man has such a comjplex emotional life  and probably a life laden with shaeful aspects or aspects of it that would not go over well with mots people so would have to be campuouflaged somewhoe, and that his writing would be a sort of therapy, a way to express his deepest desires in  some kind of code that would hide them from others while keeping them clear to himself.  What all these things might be of course I have no idea though I've mentioned one above.  Another is that I wondered why he shocese the name Glass for the family whose members he writes about in so many separate short stories, such as Seymjour, wwho is Seymour Glass.  Why Glass?  It's an odd name isn't it?  Glass as in mirror?  His characters all reflect some aspect of himself?  Somehting like that?  he writes beautifully.  He creates marvelously natural dialog.  I suspect there is also a code in there somjewhere that epxresses something very deep in himself for himself only.  

Glass as in glass houses, not throwing stones and all that.  Glass as in breakable, brittle and vulnerable.  But glass as mirror above all I suspect.

Oher themes come flodding in but I'm not usp to all that right now.  He was in the war, at D Day, at the Battle of tht eBulge. at the liberation of the Dachau concentration camp.  He's half Jewisyh.  He'd lived before the war for a time in Vienna with a Jewish family, all of whom were killed in the camp[s.  Somebody suggested that Catcher in the Rye ws his way of dealing with the war.  Not somethihn gI can see but it would be interesting to haear how it fits.    

Peace in Israel?

Trump said if the hostages weren't returned to Israel by the time he took office all hell would reak loose in the Middle ast.  OK, usually he is good at geting things done that need to be doneand the treturn of the hostages held by Hamas to Israel is long overdue.  But there's a lot more to this than geting the hostages back, this involves a deal that does't sound good to me.  Mark Levin laid it out on his show today.  This is a plan for the war to cease, not just a plan for the rturn of the hostages, it's a plan to end the fighting and involves an excahnge of Israeli hostages for Palestinian prinsoners.  If I'm getting this right.  

But it's ninety eight hostages, and some unknown number of rhtme are dead so the actual living hostages are a smaller nuimber than that,  But on the other side it's THOUSANDS of Palestinian prinsonesers, terorists who would fight for Hamas against Israel if let out.   According to Levin such an exchange was made some time in the past and the freed prisoners mounted an attack on Israel as a restul.  What kind of a deal is that?

Trump seems to be happy with whatever deal was made, and Charlie Kirk on his program tonight is lauding it as a great achievement.  really?    

I'm a strong Trump supporter but I was already a bit shaken by some things I heard about how his tarif plan might not be such a good idea.  On that one I have a wait and see attitude since I've also heard that in some scircumstances a tarif works very well for America.  Wati and See.    But I'm more shaken now about his Trump action if it is as I've been hearing.  he's a staunch supporter of Israel so how could he be happy with a deal that would force Israel to stop before fulfilling her objective of taking out Hamas completely, besides forcing her to give back THOUSANDS of prisoners who will only join forces with Hamas and continue the usual reign of teror.  

This is a very disturbing idea.  How can Trump supporters be happy with it?

 Somwww.youtube.com/watch?v=o2u54a1FL28&t=3039s

So Is the Rapture Now on Hold? – Pastor Mark Henry and Alex Newman

Steven Meyer almost gets why evolution doesn't work

 In his interview by Joe Rogan, Steven Meyer says he believes in microevolution but is skeptical about descent from a single common ancestor.  he is really saying what I've been saying about how there is variation tht is built into the genome, but he's calling it evolution and eseems to leave it open although he says he's skeptical about itg.  What he actually says, however, affirms what I've been saying abourt variation though he uses different terms for it.  I've been making it a major argument against evollution lately and he doesn't quite do that, but his terms are nevertheless desdriptiove of the same processes that make evolution impossible.  All that is possible given what he acknowledges, is variation, or what he is claling microevolution, which really isn't evolution at all.  variation is not evolution.  SIt's simply different combinations of genetic codes that allows for many different versions of given traits, but the traits are built into the genome and the variations can't do anything but p[roduce different versions of those traits.  You can get many varities of dogs or cats or horses or cows or bears or birds or fish, but you can't get anything BUT a dog or a cat or a bear etc.  That's something that should be clearly enough recognizable by anything one who gives the facts an honest thought.   There is no way for variation to get outside the genome as it were.

Meyter puts it in different terms but he is saying the smae thing.  

Paraphrasing someone else, he says that the mutation[ selection model sdoes a goot job of explaining the modigifation of preexisting forms,  but it can't explain the orgin of any of the gidffernet groups.  So it can explain how the different beaks of Darwin's finches are formed but can't explain how birds got here in the first place.   Mdodification yes, innovation no.  

So you can make changes in what already exists but to get something new, some entirely new function, say a new way of digesting food in the difference from one animal to another, you chave to have new code.  but all we have in the genome is a given code with built in alternatives that cause the variations.  this can never lead to something entierely new, some completely new function or gtrait which would define the difference between one animal and another.   He points tout that the method of darwinism is random changes in the code, but that it is well known that random change only degrades the function of code, it doesn'[t lead to new functions.   

Seems to me threr is enough evidence already that mutation doesn't do anything but degrade fucntion.  the supposed beneficial changes that coulde supposedly lead to new forms are extremely rare and all we really ever hear about are the vast majority of mutational changes that either make no clearcut change in the protein product or lead to genetic diseases, of which there are now thousands.  

I've arrivesd at the point of thinking it's silly thereat there is aoso much discussion about this when it seems obvious that the genome olimits all that change to mere variations or different versions of the same thing and that th you can never get anything new  from a genom.  I also think it is obvious that the variations are built in, that it's all a product of the fact that each gene has the two different versions known as alleles, that bring about different products, the most familiar one beting the blue eyes versus brown eyes.  It's all about homozygosuity versus heterozygosity.  All the variaqtionsz amount to shifts in these forms of a gene from generation to generation.    Mutation has nothihgn g to do with any of it.  that has always been merely an assumptiona and it doesn't work at all.  Not at all.  They dstick it in because they have rjeected the creation model which has the GENA  created whole for each Kind.   They have to imagine it being formed and there is no other way than mutation although it doesn't work at all to anything of the sort.  

It's high time this obvious fact was recognizined.  It's the undoing of evolution and it's right in front of your face.      

yTurns out I am unable to capure the URL but this disscussion occurs fairly early on in the interview of Meyer by Rogan so it should be easy enough to find.

Listening further I find him taklking about a regularory system that determines the body plan of a given animal, and one oint I've been making is that body p-lan for each kind or species appears to be particularly stable and unot amenable to variation or changes of any sort.  This seems to be forne out by the studies Meyer is talkoing about.  The amount of change that would be required to get a completely new body bplan or a new species from a different apecies is simply undoable.