No real surprise. Google has been politically involved in the Arab Spring and finding their way to the Oval office. Throw Facebook into the political maelstrom and what we have is the beginning of the thought police coming into fruition.
(Washington Times) An explosive report released Thursday suggests that Google manipulated its search engine to boost Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton by burying unflattering stories about her.
A video posted by SourceFed, a news and pop-culture website, accused Google of attempting to boost secretly Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.
“Thanks to the help of our editor Spencer Reed, SourceFed has discovered that Google has been actively altering search recommendations in favor of Hillary Clinton’s campaign so quietly that we were unable to see it for what it was until today,” said SourceFed’s Matt Lieberman in the video.
I found the video above on Trump against… anyone by KIA. Most of ‘s commentary related to the video is in the commentary. This is typical, I fear.
‘s point is simple enough.
United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.
In his 2011 judicial questionnaire to become a federal judge, Curiel revealed his history with La Raza. GotNews.com originally reported this Tuesday, and The Daily Caller has independently verified. (continued here at dailycaller.com)
Now that Donald Trump is the presumed nominee, much of the mainstream media is now coming out with their knives, hoping to help H. Clinton can take him down. Hence they are hoping they can use the Trump University lawsuits to their advantage.
Perhaps we need to use our imaginations in self-defense.
Translated, “la raza” means “the race.” Imagine the outcry if white attorneys from Mississippi, such as this author, started a a legal association called “The Race” with the stated mission to promote the interest of white, Southern communities. Hollywood stars and entertainers, such as Bryan Adams, would boycott the state in perpetuity. (from here at breitbart.com)
Trump University has not been open since 2010 (from here). So why the lawsuits have yet to be settled is a puzzle. Nevertheless, press coverage of the story back in 2011 suggests Trump’s presidential aspirations were anticipated.
Was Trump University legitimate? I don’t know. I don’t trust the press coverage, and I don’t see much reason to trust that judge.
When it comes to the subject of race and sex in this country, we have grown more irrational, not less. Consider today’s historic event surrounding H. Clinton’s presidential campaign.
It’s worth stopping and reflecting on this point: Faced with a man who changes his policies on a dime, who has dispensed with any normal semblance of a campaign, it is the woman — the first woman, possibly —who will be positioned as the reliable one.
This is not subtext. It’s in the text of the speech Clinton gave last week directly taking on Trump’s foreign policy, such as it is. “We cannot let him roll the dice with America,” Clinton said. She added, “Do we want him making those calls – someone thin-skinned and quick to anger, who lashes out at the smallest criticism? Do we want his finger anywhere near the button?” She presented herself as the battle-tested candidate, the deliberative one: “Unlike him, I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft.” So much for the danger of letting a lady have the nuclear codes. Clinton might as well have accused him of going through male menopause. (from here at msnbc.com)
The fact H. Clinton is under a FBI criminal investigation is not a big deal to the news media. The fact she is notoriously incompetent doesn’t seem to matter. Even the fact she only has the delegates she needs to sew up the nomination because of super-delegates does not rob H. Clinton of her historic moment. What matters is that she is a woman. What matters is that the Democrat news media wants H. Clinton, and they don’t want Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. So they cannot be trusted to report the news without bias.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. — Martin Luther King, Jr. (from here)
25 In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.
Is that verse saying Israel needed a king? Yes and no. 1 Samuel 8 makes it clear that we should not raise up a human king over us. Instead, we should accept God’s rule. Instead of doing what seems right in our eyes, we should seek to please God.
Why is it wrong to do what is right in our own eyes instead of God’s eyes? We are self-centered. We easily perceive the advantages for us. We too readily disregard whatever harm we might cause others.
To be fair, Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, does consider the rights of others, but even that consideration is self-centered.
The essence of Objectivist ethics is summarized by the oath her Atlas Shrugged character John Galt adhered to: “I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. (from here)
How seriously should we take such an oath? Knowing the nature of mankind?
Rand’s is one of the more thoughtful among Atheistic philosophies. Most of us, whether Atheists or Theists, make our choices more lazily. We don’t bother constructing ideological reasons, and we excuse that as pragmatic. Yet whatever Rand’s philosophy may have been, she did not subscribe to pragmatism (see Pragmatism). Nevertheless, to walk down a road armed with nothing but our own vision is to walk unarmed.
Now there is pragmatism and then there is pragmatism as a philosophical tradition. Here we will not get into pragmatism as a philosophical tradition. By the time the ivory tower academics have gotten done with a word, even they do not knows what it means anymore.
So let’s begin by considering the origin of the word.
pragmatism (n.) “matter-of-fact treatment,” 1825, from Greek pragmat-, stem of pragma “that which has been done” (see pragmatic) + -ism. As a philosophical doctrine, 1898, said to be from 1870s; probably from German Pragmatismus. As a name for a political theory, from 1951. Related: Pragmatist (1630s as “busybody;” 1892 as “adherent of a pragmatic philosophy”).
Apparently, the term has a peculiar background. Nevertheless, if we look up “pragmatic,” we can see the emphasis is on results, that is, “practical” results.
pragmatic (adj.) 1610s, “meddlesome, impertinently busy,” short for earlier pragmatical, or else from Middle French pragmatique (15c.), from Latin pragmaticus “skilled in business or law,” from Greek pragmatikos “fit for business, active, business-like; systematic,” from pragma (genitive pragmatos) “a deed, act; that which has been done; a thing, matter, affair,” especially an important one; also a euphemism for something bad or disgraceful; in plural, “circumstances, affairs” (public or private), often in a bad sense, “trouble,” literally “a thing done,” from stem of prassein/prattein “to do, act, perform” (see practical). Meaning “matter-of-fact” is from 1853. In some later senses from German pragmatisch.
Why would people see pragmatists as busybodies, that is, meddlesome? What was that all about? The problem is that pragmatists emphasize practical results. The pragmatist uses the end to justify the means. Consider. If a pragmatist has a productive paper mill, does it matter if his paper mill pollutes the stream that runs by his paper mill? The pragmatist can point to an immediate, practical benefit, but what is practical to one person may be a nasty, practical joke to the farmers downstream.
The self-centered nature of human beings is why some insist upon an alternative approach to decision-making.
wisdom (n.) Old English wisdom “knowledge, learning, experience,” from wis (see wise (adj.)) + -dom. A common Germanic compound (Old Saxon, Old Frisian wisdom, Old Norse visdomr, Old High German wistuom “wisdom,” German Weistum “judicial sentence serving as a precedent”). Wisdom teeth so called from 1848 (earlier teeth of wisdom, 1660s), a loan-translation of Latin dentes sapientiae, itself a loan-translation of Greek sophronisteres (used by Hippocrates, from sophron “prudent, self-controlled”), so called because they usually appear ages 17-25, when a person reaches adulthood.
Before making a decision, the wise person considers the matter and strives to make a decision based upon a complete understanding of the situation. What is desired? Why? Who benefits? Who loses? What are the ethical considerations? What are the precedents? What will be the long-term results? What principles and precedents can we apply to guide our decision?
Since there is no way to please every human being, the wise try to please the Creator. Knowing that each of us matters only because we matter to our Creator, the wise study to know God’s will. Therefore, some study the Bible as a book of wisdom, His wisdom for us.
Pragmatism, however, is a secular pursuit. It is easy to know our own will, but God’s? Ironically, the pragmatist considers even claiming to know God’s will presumptuous. For the pragmatist, each day is new, each project a new opportunity to display his genius and just do what works. What matters is his own experience, his own vision. What will work today is what today is all about.
It is well over a decade now since I decided to “read” the Bible. I went to the library and got an audio version of the Bible on CDROM. I listened to James Earl Jones read the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible.
I suppose some will say I did it the hard way, but listening to Jame Earl Jones was a pleasure. I suppose some will also say I am getting old enough that the language in the KJV is like my native tongue. Not quite.
What did listening to the Bible do for me? It convinced me the story it tells is true. It compelled me to study the Bible.
Nevertheless, I did not know what version of the Bible to buy; I did not even realize how many versions exist. Hence, I was not particularly happy with the first Bible I bought. Therefore, I recommend this article and the gentleman’s good advice.
Each of the above websites provides multiple translations of the Bible. We don’t have to go anywhere these days to find multiple translations. In fact, lots of people just download a copy of the Bible onto their favorite electronic device.
Note also that the notes and commentary within a Bible can be inserted independently of the translation, and the quality of the notes and commentary depends upon who provides those notes and commentary. So if you want a good study Bible, ask your pastor or someone you trust for a recommendation.
I was reminded yesterday in a group counseling session how problematic selecting a Bible can be. A young woman was discussing her difficult experience in a small Southern Baptist church that imposed teaching from the King James Version (KJV) Bible as the one acceptable for the church’s congregants. Yes, in the Bible Belt of 2016 there are still pastors and elders that strictly require use of the KJV only, and are actually called “KJV Only” churches. While I love reading the King James English, I can certainly see how 400-year-old English can be a barrier to delivering the Gospel. We have many great translations that serve many legitimate purposes, and KJV Only hurts far more than it helps.
Which Bible To Buy?
Many different translations are available in your typical Bible bookstore, so I understand how there can be some confusion. My advice for believers shopping for a Bible is…