Skip to main content

Feel like this is too controversial for my Buddhist blog

I posted about how NYC isn't going to allow unvaccinated home players to play in Major League Baseball, the Mets and the Yankees, as per the regulation on whatever that you have to get vaccinated if you work. The pandemic seems to be waning and everyone focuses on the fact that fans and away players don't have to be vaccinated. My point is that if you think it's a good step, then maybe more should do it but that others don't do it doesn't mean we need to get rid of it. People have different priorities and different political views, but I found the discussion vastly stimulating. I dislike the idea of virtue signaling, because you're calling someone a fake and it would be better to just say why you think they're a fake instead. Various moves were made. They thought it was off topic to discuss virtue. The opposite of no-virtue signaling wasn't a thing and complained about my exploring the topic they brought up, they just imagined a takedown, not a discussion. Aside from conservatives who think liberals are virtue signaling, they're fake and not as good as they think they are, are there non-political examples of people in history who spouted one thing, and then were obviously a faker underneath? I guess it's common fraud and advertising and PR and rhetoric to flip the script, and counter accuse, and to be the first to flip the script makes the other person pointing it out unoriginal, even if it's true. I mean I'm pretty sure that Republicans accusing Democrats of things is an admission that they're doing it more often than you'd think. The line between good and bad runs through us.

Nimmo seemed to think the only law he has to follow is in the collective bargaining agreement. I guess it's on his mind, or his ram is all filled up with it. 

One person said, they didn't want to discuss virtue like in the dhammika sutta. I looked the sutra up and by gosh it is about virtue. I quoted the sutra:

"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world."

To me that means we should preserve life, over other things. I read that 40% of the Covid deaths could be put at the feet of Trump. I'm sure conservatives deny that, and whatever it's speculation. But I do think it's clear that Trump caused more deaths by not doing anything as president. He dragged his feet. People who argue against this need it to be untrue. 

Now if you could say he saved lives over here, and that is connected to this, the argument would be more complicated, but I don't think that's the case. 

So, while I'm not sure conservatives necessarily kill more people, I do know that the current iteration of Republicans does kill more people. Wouldn't that be a clear argument that Buddhists shouldn't vote for Republicans in this current political climate. 

Pro-gun and lax laws, kills 35 children a year. I've read articles where people admit that if that is the price you pay, they are OK with that. 

Lack of access to abortion ends up killing more women. I'll admit the life that is part of the women's body is something maybe if it could live on it's own should be given a chance, but I don't think it's separate from the woman, even after they are born. Mother and child are one for quite a while after birth. 

The response to Covid, anti-vaccination, anti-masks, etc killed so many people. 

It's not that hard to say that the current Republican party is a death cult. The 5 deaths are permissible in the January 6th "legitimate political discourse".

Free market is good, but not with insulin or so many other things, price gouging etc. 

Health care is an obvious no brainer if you think life is important. 

Nuclear proliferation, the billions we spend on it...

And on and on and on. I mean Democrats are more often at the helm doing times of war, and I'm sure the democrats. 

Maybe I've been radicalized too much. Trump really got me hating people who think that death is an acceptable outcome.

Then Eric Adams flip flops the very next day and is going to give an exemption to sports and entertainment. That's some political theater.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Character list of Inherent Vice the novel

Fay "Shasta" Hepworth played by Katherine Waterston in the 2014 movie Larry "Doc" Sportello: Our hero, gumsandal.  Shasta Fay Hepworth: Former beautiful love interest. Mickey Wolfmann: Real estate tycoon, Shasta's sugar daddy, paying for apartment in Hancock Park. Mrs. Sloane Wolfmann: wife. Has her own side piece Mr. Riggs Warbling Deputy DA Penny Kimball: lawyer from district attorney office, who fooled around with Doc for a time. Works next to Rhus Frothingham (female book, male in movie).  Aunt Reet: Aunt in real estate. "Bigfoot" Christian Bjornsen: Hollywood detective and actor. Married to Chastity. Spoiler: His partner Vincent Indelicato is wacked by Adrian Prussia, but Puck did the actual job. Mrs. Chastity Bjornsen: Gets on the phone on page 260 of the paperback to defend Bigfoot's day off from work. Calls Doc Mr. Moral Turpitude, accuses him of running up Bigfoot's mental health bills.  Denis: friend who he goes and gets a pizza with

Democracy or democrazy?

Admittedly the choice between corrupt democrats and corrupt republicans isn't the political choice I want. I'd rather vote my way towards fairness, elimination of poverty, anti-trust laws that fight the consolidation of corporations (you read about grocery stores lately?), education, infrastructure. What you do get is a vote for democrats that vote to end rail strikes ( source ) because they can't carve out of the profits a sick leave, versus reality denying, Russian bought, obstructionists who might lower taxes, and want smaller government. The Ron Swanson's of the world who hate government and work in government. I've been running into people who believe the corrupt choices aren't worth even making. Reasons not to pay attention.I've thought that a few times in my life, but I don't think that now.  There are real choices about health care for women, and even just an attitude towards democracy. It's hard to fight past the rhetoric, and understand eve

Consent

You couldn't have a better title to a memoir in these times. You can read about Humbert Humbert, and other male narratives, but the female narrative of the statutory rape is fulfilled by this book. I feel slightly ill while reading this book. What she goes through is off, and it's hard to put a finger on it besides  Hebephilia . All the collaborating details from her mother, to her doctors, to her father. Vanessa Springora will be remembered for other things, she is a director and a publisher. I'm not sure if  Gabriel Matzneff will be remembered for other things. At least not on this side of the pond. I do have a kind of jealousy for the appreciation of the intellectual life in France.  Matzneff cites Lewis Carroll , and others as having the appreciation for youth. I read his Wikipedia page. That led to other questions about photographers who take pictures of their children. That led me down a creepy path. As much as Springora tries to not make it sexy, I wonder how many