Representative Jim Jordan has published a piece in the Federalist entitled "A Look Back On The Russia, Mueller, And Flynn Investigations." It is worth the time it will take you to read it.
Grim, your very legitimate question about whether Americans have an obligation to increase their risk in order to provide some economic benefit for the third world I submitted to my son's "Ask Me Anything" podcast out of First Methodist Houston. I put it in the specific context of whether American Christians should be advocating for this, rather than a "Do Americans have an obligation?" The pastors answered it yesterday. I have it downloaded already (my wife has listened, I have not) because I am a subscriber, but it is not listed on the site yet. https://www.fmhouston.com/ama/ However, it is already listed on your podcast download app if you want to take that route. They usually go less than 30 minutes.
They are all less conservative than we are, but more conservative than the average Methodist pastor. Well, Brandi may be more typical. She is conservative by Duke Seminary standards, but that's not saying a lot. I knew I had to phrase it right to get their attention.
Grim, your very legitimate question about whether Americans have an obligation to increase their risk in order to provide some economic benefit for the third world I submitted to my son's "Ask Me Anything" podcast out of First Methodist Houston. I put it in the specific context of whether American Christians should be advocating for this, rather than a "Do Americans have an obligation?"
I'll be interested to see what they have to say.
My initial thought is that I wouldn't have put this in terms of a duty, but I can see why it makes sense in a specifically Christian context to do so. I'm not generally inclined to deontology ('the study of duty,' as you doubtless know, and the school of ethics that treats morality in terms of duties, e.g., Kant). It does make sense in a case where there is a clear authority, like Jesus.
I'm generally more inclined to virtue ethics, in which there are many considerations and the virtuous is the one who will make the best judgment about what to do in uncertain situations. It's my thought that we encounter uncertain situations all the time; and that the world is so constructed for a reason. You'll hear a lot more about this as you read my novel.
The farthest I would have probably gone with duty is that we have a duty to consider their interests, treating them as fellow-sufferers in a worse place than ourselves. What that duty imposes in terms of particular actions to be taken is going to vary depending on the individual's circumstances. I am still relatively young (45), and in excellent health and physical shape, and I happen to live with no one who is much older or compromised in their immune system. So for me, I'm moving to a model in which I no longer seek to avoid the virus, but do still seek to avoid situations in which there may be a high viral load. Another person who was older, or sick, or not in good shape -- well, there are many reasons you might take a different path. Such a one might still meet the duty just by not actively opposing efforts to re-open to whatever degree the local authorities are permitting by those who feel it's right for them to begin to venture out.
7 comments:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6prujmv6cce8hi0/Dr.%20Anthony%20Fauci%27s%20ex-employee%2C%20was%20jailed%2C%20finally%20tells%20all..mp4?fbclid=IwAR0Liw8o0S6ONPk4ozL96wLuDzpTVfnAlyblJ-EApAgaclv8fJLWgVRPXTo
American Rule of Law is a joke.
It's all coming out in 2020.
Grim, your very legitimate question about whether Americans have an obligation to increase their risk in order to provide some economic benefit for the third world I submitted to my son's "Ask Me Anything" podcast out of First Methodist Houston. I put it in the specific context of whether American Christians should be advocating for this, rather than a "Do Americans have an obligation?" The pastors answered it yesterday. I have it downloaded already (my wife has listened, I have not) because I am a subscriber, but it is not listed on the site yet. https://www.fmhouston.com/ama/ However, it is already listed on your podcast download app if you want to take that route. They usually go less than 30 minutes.
They are all less conservative than we are, but more conservative than the average Methodist pastor. Well, Brandi may be more typical. She is conservative by Duke Seminary standards, but that's not saying a lot. I knew I had to phrase it right to get their attention.
It is worth the time it will take you to read it.
It didn't take much time to read "We were right about everything."
Well, brevity is the soul of wit.
Grim, your very legitimate question about whether Americans have an obligation to increase their risk in order to provide some economic benefit for the third world I submitted to my son's "Ask Me Anything" podcast out of First Methodist Houston. I put it in the specific context of whether American Christians should be advocating for this, rather than a "Do Americans have an obligation?"
I'll be interested to see what they have to say.
My initial thought is that I wouldn't have put this in terms of a duty, but I can see why it makes sense in a specifically Christian context to do so. I'm not generally inclined to deontology ('the study of duty,' as you doubtless know, and the school of ethics that treats morality in terms of duties, e.g., Kant). It does make sense in a case where there is a clear authority, like Jesus.
I'm generally more inclined to virtue ethics, in which there are many considerations and the virtuous is the one who will make the best judgment about what to do in uncertain situations. It's my thought that we encounter uncertain situations all the time; and that the world is so constructed for a reason. You'll hear a lot more about this as you read my novel.
The farthest I would have probably gone with duty is that we have a duty to consider their interests, treating them as fellow-sufferers in a worse place than ourselves. What that duty imposes in terms of particular actions to be taken is going to vary depending on the individual's circumstances. I am still relatively young (45), and in excellent health and physical shape, and I happen to live with no one who is much older or compromised in their immune system. So for me, I'm moving to a model in which I no longer seek to avoid the virus, but do still seek to avoid situations in which there may be a high viral load. Another person who was older, or sick, or not in good shape -- well, there are many reasons you might take a different path. Such a one might still meet the duty just by not actively opposing efforts to re-open to whatever degree the local authorities are permitting by those who feel it's right for them to begin to venture out.
Andrew McCarthy's piece is good too: https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/flynn-and-the-anatomy-of-a-political-narrative/
https://www.exopolitics.org/will-general-flynn-exoneration-impact-ufo-ssp-disclosure/
This is not my analysis, but it does make sense, especially as I am not a Flynn expert. I never paid much attention to DC Byzantine shenanigans.
That type of covert work will get you backstabbed or Epsteined.
The analyze by Salla is interesting and if Flynn is appointed anything under Trum, it almost literally becomes guaranteed truth.
Post a Comment