Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Rosie O'Donnell Moment, Trump

As you know, I've been on the Scott Adams discussion of Trump for some time. The whole column is worth the read, but this is especially true ... "rationalIZING not rational!". (I've maybe repeated that a few times too many).
"The central insight of these disciplines, Mr. Adams says, is that “people are never rational. They rationalize. So after the fact they tell you why they did something. And there’s plenty of science to support that. Now we can show that people actually make their decision before they come up with their reasons. . . . That was the perspective that I took when I saw Trump.”"
The title is about this ...
“The moment I realized there was something special was during the first debate,” he tells me over coffee in the kitchen of his spacious suburban home. “It was the Rosie O’Donnell moment.” Moderator Megyn Kelly had confronted Mr. Trump with the key premise of what Mr. Adams calls “a gotcha question of the highest order”: “You’ve called women you don’t like ‘fat pigs,’ ‘dogs,’ ‘slobs,’ and ‘disgusting animals.’ ”
“I asked myself: How would anybody else have answered?” Mr. Adams recalls. “If you denied it, it would look weak. If you embraced it—you really couldn’t. There was nothing you could say. He was completely painted into a corner by his past comments. No one could get out of that. And then he did what no one could do—he got out of it. He said: ‘Only Rosie O’Donnell.’ ”
"Only Rosie O'Donnell" -- a very unattractive person that has said ALL sorts of nasty things about any number of people. One can see him with his cherub smile, shoulder shrug, palms out -- the theatre is reminciedt of the left's favorite rapist, Slick Willie.

Slick Willie was once president. BO is president now. ANYONE can be president -- isn't it wonderful?

'via Blog this'

Most Dangerous Six Months

The linked article isn't bad, but on the long side -- the obvious conclusion, Trump still has a chance and he would certainly be better than Hildebeast. 

What struck me however is the following paragraph. If I had been a general in the USSR in 1980 -- godless, amoral, patriotic, etc,  I would have launched 10 nukes or so into the US and rolled the tanks into Europe. Given Jimmuh a call on the phone and said "It's over -- there is no advantage for you to end the world and kill 100's of millions of people. 

NY,  DC, LA, Pearl Harbor, Chicago and your major military bases are gone. If you unleash your submarine missiles, we will have our ICBMs in the air when they clear the surface. Both our nations will be utterly destroyed. As it is, your casualties are in the low 10's of millions, Europe will be ours inside a week, and the world will go on. Our system was inevitable anyway -- it just happened sooner than you expected. 

My reading of Carter is that he would have stood down. Apparently there was enough doubt in the Soviet high command that they let us survive that disaster of a president. 

Now this. 
"Many of us have been saying for a year now that the last six months of the Obama administration will likely be the most dangerous interlude since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 or the Carter meltdown of 1980. Restive aggressors abroad have long concluded that Obama is conflicted about American morality, power, and responsibility. After his faux deadlines, redlines, and step-over lines, his apologies, his mythographical speeches, and his deer-in-the-headlights reactions to overseas challenges, he appears to foreign opportunists to be indifferent to the consequences of American laxity and lead-from-behind withdrawal. "
The wild card for me with BO that never existed with Carter is that BO has declared that ending "the colonial powers" is his "dream" that he inherited from his father and grandfather.

Perhaps the "Iran deal" is deeper than we might otherwise imagine? I could easily imagine BO making a deal with pretty much any foreign power that would take him and his family to a safe and regal life. He has stated that "he is a citizen of the world", and his most emotional attachment is to his identity as a "Luo tribesman".

Say $100 Billion in payment, and his guarantee that no missile launch will be forthcoming from the BOistan -- perhaps the attack could even be covered as "terrorist". Again, 5-10 or even less nukes, with the added potential of a couple high EMP bursts that took out the whole electrical and communications system of BOistan for MONTHS. Pretty much nobody in the US would know what had happened or that we had surrendered until months after the fact.

By then, BO and family would be safely ensconced where they desired and a "New World Order" would be operational.

Do I "expect it"? No, but it is WAY more likely than a lot of the crazy ideas about "dangerous Donald".

'via Blog this'

Moral Outrage, Parenting, Progress

Why Do We Judge Parents For Putting Kids At Perceived — But Unreal — Risk? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR:

Those of us that grew up in era of Neanderthal parenting with spankings, no bicycle helmets, no seat belts even existing in cars, no child car seats,  free range kids, federally unapproved toys, etc probably have a bit different reaction to this. Oh, but our parents DID love us, we know because they dutifully made us wait an hour after eating before swimming so we didn't get "cramps".  That was "settled science" in those days.

We have all witnessed, or maybe even felt "moral outrage" at parents that let their kids run around unsupervised, failed to use a car seat, or gave a kid a swat -- these days we even have LAWS to FORCE people to follow the "modern ideals of parenting". Why, giving a kid a swat is CHILD ABUSE!

I always love how some animal exhibiting homosexual behavior is "proof" that it is "natural" and therefore good -- but watching a mother cat or dog deal with pups of kittens gives no clue as to the "naturalness" of giving them a swat!

The article authors seem to be mystified that just as everyone believes in something, everyone is going to judge something. When I was growing up, we actually had "real morals" -- like the money the rich guy down the street has isn't yours to take even if you can get the government to do it, don't sleep around, don't take drugs, don't gamble, etc, etc. We gave up all those old morals -- now theft by government is a virtue, sex with anything or anyone is wonderful, and the government is in charge of running the numbers (lottery), but has outsourced craps, slots, etc to the Indians. These days in more states every year, one can light up a joint, sit back and wait for prostitution and heroin to be legal -- heck, they may even force the rich guy down the street to buy them for you!

Either God or randomness gave us a moral compass, and it WILL get used. We are moral beings. For the previous thousands of years, those morals were "attached" to things that were considered by those old "non-progressive fools" to either actually be "good or bad", or were somehow "adaptive" if you think it is all an "accident". BUT we are MUCH smarter now, so we have a moral compass that has no "true north" to point at -- no matter, it works just fine anyway, but it confuses the NPR and psychologist folks.

The more surprising result was that perceptions of risk followed precisely the same pattern. Although the details of the cases were otherwise the same — that is, the age of the child, the duration and location of the unattended period, and so on — participants thought children were in significantly greater danger when the parent left to meet a lover than when the child was left alone unintentionally. The ratings for the other cases, once again, fell in between. In other words, participants' factual judgments of how much danger the child was in while the parent was away varied according to the extent of their moral outrage concerning the parent's reason for leaving.
Strangely (from the POV of brilliant progressives), people have a "moral sense", Now it may seem completely insane to apply it to things that only arrived in the last 50 years like seat belts, car seats, Pokemon games, bike helmets, etc -- but apply it we do, and SHOCKINGLY, we yet again don't have an "innate understanding of statistics".  Damn, whaz up wid dat?

Holy crap, people FEEL that "something bad is more likely to happen" if you are off cheating on your spouse and leaving junior to fend for himself, than if you have charged across the street to save the neighbors baby from a house fire! The psychologists are SHOCKED, shocked I tell you! that people don't come to the rational conclusion that "the odds of bad things happening" are  dependent on the age of the child and the time left, NOT on the activity that the abandoning parent is off to.

The left will continue to work hard to remove any innate sense of morality -- their usual technique is to exterminate those people who retain such a feeling in hopes that it will create a "more perfect society" (see Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc) after the only remaining people are able to reach suitably leftist conclusions on the basis of hard statistical evidence! If you are the sort that feels some pang of "injustice" that such clearly defective humans would be slaughtered, you are also likely the kind of reactionary that fails to see the justice of murdering 60 million babies for convenience.

Don't worry, such obviously non-adaptive thought is being weeded out -- the brave new world is visible now. Soon "moral outrage" will be a thing of the past and life will be much more rational!

One of the big benefits is that NPR and leftist psychologists will no longer be confused.

'via Blog this'

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Less Christians, Less Republicans, Less Blessing

Sometimes Satan's cackle is plain to hear.
"The trend away from faith is only bound to increase with time. According to Pew, about 36 percent of adults under the age of 50 have opted out of religion. At present, claiming no faith is the fastest growing “religion” in the United States. Between 2007 and 2012, the number of people claiming “nothing in particular” increased by 2.3 percent, those saying they were agnostics increased by 1.2 percent and those claiming to be atheists increased by 0.8 percent. No actual religious group has experienced anywhere near such growth during this time period. "
What a wonderful statement of faith -- "the trend is only bound to increase in time".  Satan himself could have written this article -- perhaps the similarity between "Salon" and "Satan" is no accident. If he did write it,  the "bound to increase with time" is just another lie -- Old Scratch is well aware after thousands of years that his "victory" is far from certain, and is in fact a guaranteed loss.

The US was a Christian nation (and a great one). BOistan is a tribal mess in rapid decline. God gave us free will, the nation chose to follow Satan, and it is in rapid decline -- no mystery there. "The Party" (TP-D) is proudly the party of Satan ... it may not seek to be, but man always serves, when he doesn't serve God, Satan is his master. As imperfect as it is, the Republican party is, it was the party of Christ while the US survived.

The power of God is also not a mystery -- world wide, Christianity is rapidly growing.
The global religious wildcard is China. Even today, demographers estimate that more Christian believers are found worshipping in China on any given Sunday than in the United States. Future trends, while difficult to predict because so much is below the religious radar, could dramatically drive down the world’s religious “nones.”
I'm cheating here -- my guess is that on the timeline we selected, China becomes a Christian Nation and is blessed, but it may well be one or more nations in Africa or South America where Christianity, the religion of blessing, has and is growing. We have free will, but I also believe that God has his finger on the scale -- he gave the US extended grace, we as a nation made a clear choice to die, as did Europe.

We could also seek repentance, although "Salon/Satan" would be highly disappointed and their faith would be shaken. Everyone has faith, the only question is "in what"?

'via Blog this'

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Hildebeast: "Colin Powell Did It"

Hillary Clinton’s ‘Colin Powell did it’ defense of her email practices is just plain wrong - The Washington Post:

Dear God, are we in grade school? Our level of personal responsibility is "somebody else did it"?

Only ... even the defenders of the leftist soul, WaPO can't quite stomach this level of mendacity.
  1. First, he doesn't recall ever telling her that
  2. The rules for email (unsurprisingly) became more strict since he was in office anyway. Just because a Democrat could be a member of the KKK in the '50s as Robert Byrd was, doesn't necessarily mean they could get away with it today -- well, unless they were a Clinton! 
  3. He didn't use ONLY a private email server stored in his own home as Hildebeast did. 
The bottom line, however is that the Clintons lie ALL THE TIME ... but they get away with it, because, well, they are the Clintons and they lie, break the law and get away with it and it is OLD NEWS! 

When you live in BOistan, that is just the way it is! 

'via Blog this'

Friday, August 19, 2016

Peter Thiel

The wild card in human history is PEOPLE. An example seems to be Peter Thiel, whose excellent "Zero to One" book I blogged on here.  Seems he is showing up a few places ...
Many media critics look down their noses at Gawker’s style, but they were enraged by the revelation that Silicon Valley billionaire Peter Thiel helped bankroll Hogan’s lawsuit. A free press is an important institution in a democracy, but journalists don’t have any rights the rest of us don’t.

Not only did Thiel allegedly have an axe to grind – Gawker had outed him as gay in 2007 — but Thiel’s politics are unsavory in the eyes of many on the left; He’s a libertarian who’s supporting Donald Trump. (I suppose I should also disclose that he’s been a supporter of National Review, where I am a senior editor, though his support hasn’t stopped National Review from being a vocal critic of Thiel’s preferred candidate.)
The left is always interesting to watch on "privacy". Slick Willie can mash interns and rape wives of donors as long as he is in good standing with "The Party" (TP-D) -- it's "a private matter", and looking into it is "peering in others bedroom windows".

Is it really anyone's business if Thiel wants to have his sexual preference as a "private matter"? Well yes, certainly! He is apparently GAY ... which he ought to be completely happy to shout from the mountaintops! Especially since he is a libertarian -- no "hypocrisy", since they are fine with one being gay, drug addicted, or "whatever", but the idea that he would want his sexual preference PRIVATE is something that the left really can't abide in a gay person!

But what TP wants isn't exactly "free press", it is PROTECTED LIBERAL PRESS.
It’s certainly fair to argue against the merits of the verdict. But no one is above the law. Not even journalists, never mind corporations in the journalism business.
Ah TP is above the law! In fact, it is above ALL law, it IS the law!  Did you miss the Clinton FBI discussion? TP MUST be above the law -- it follows no law but it's own, and no truth but it's own. It's lies are to be holy writ to those of us unwashed masses that refuse to bow before power of TP. How else are they eventually going to prosecute, imprison and execute us so BOistan can be a "more civil place"?

Guys like Thiel are the "outliers" ... the "iconoclasts" that TP didn't count on and wants to DESTROY! As long as a few of those are alive, there is still hope -- they are the Solzhenitsyns shining in the dark archipelago of BOistan.

What a wonderful thing to see!

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Who Am I To Dis A Brie?

In case you lost this earworm ... a booster shot!

Not Yours To Think About


In one of her emanations, the Hildebeast coveted the wealth of Trump for "us" (which usually means "The Clinton Foundation" for her). Mich Albon, author of "Tuesday's With Morrie" (yet another book that I read but never blogged on)  had this to say:
“If you believe that he’s as wealthy as he says,” she said, killing the tax “would save the Trump family $4 billion. ... “Just think about what we could do with those $4 billion.” 
I wish my mother were still alive. Just so she could say, “It’s not yours to think about.”
It's a good little short article that has that wistful sense of the time when we were America rather than BOistan and things like "what mother said", "wrong", and old tired ideas like "thrift".
This is dangerous and incendiary stuff. If we start getting excited about dead people’s money, it won’t stop at an artificial cutoff. Besides, it’s just wrong. It’s not ours to spend. It’s been through the tax ringer.
Albon chooses to not cover the main reason that I am against the estate tax. The GOOD of "inheritance".

America was a country where it was considered GOOD to amass wealth over multiple generations. It made things like "thrift" -- being "a good steward" an advantage to families that could raise children that "carried on the family tradition" which included growing wealth. It created the VERY real prospect that "your children would have it better than you" -- something lost in BOistan.

Everyone knows that BOistan is spending not only vast sums of current wealth, but even greater sums of what we know to be dwindling future wealth. America never had a president that failed to have even a single quarter of over 3% growth, it is no surprise that the first leader of BOistan has a hard time having 1% growth even after cooking the books!

BOistan is a nation of takers, not makers and it has no concept at all of "it isn't yours".

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Clintons As Role Models, Legal Corruption

How Hillary And Bill Clinton Became Millionaires : NPR:

This article made me think of a trip I made to White Plains with IBM in '84. At that time, the PC business was going gangbusters as was every other business IBM was in, from Mainframes, to S/38 to S/36, to Token Ring, to SNA (IBM's version of what TCP/IP ought to have been). At the meeting, we were treated to the litany "Only 20% of people graduate from College. IBM only hires from the top 10% of those graduates, and only the top 1% of IBMers get to come to a session like this -- you are "the best of the best""

I didn't say anything, but thought "Well, with the possible exception of me, the whole class would get their asses kicked in an average Northern WI bar, there HAS to be SOMETHING really wrong with that analysis".

There was ... IBM had a near death experience in the early '90s, and nobody finds much of anything special about IBM today.

The article assumes that "The Party" (TP-D) is going to continue to rule BOistan, and that the biggest problem they have is to recruit more bright young folks to be top level bureaucrats and maybe even "Presidential calibre" like the Clintons.

Maybe so.

It of course assumes what Slick and Hildebeast have done is legal ...
"The Clintons have always been very careful to walk about two inches inside the line," said Michael Johnston, a professor emeritus at Colgate University who is researching public perceptions of legal and illegal corruption."

There you have it -- according to the government funded media, you too could walk "two inches inside the line" and deal entirely in "legal corruption" and end up rich and in power like the modern TP heroes, Slick and Hildebeast.

I enjoyed this one ...
Hillary had better advice and more success with commodities trading. Her guide was James Blair, a close family friend and a Little Rock lawyer whose corporate clients sometimes dealt with government agencies. He helped her turn a $1,000 investment into a return of nearly $100,000.
Isn't that nice? Find "good advice" and you too can turn 1K into 100K with "legal corruption" just like our heroes the Clintons!

"Legal corruption" ... perhaps the cornerstone of BOistan politics.

'via Blog this'

The Face Of God by Roger Scruton, Science Is Psychopathic


I finished the EXCELLENT subject book  and had one of my "vast oversimplification aha moments". Let's call the book FoG (Face Of God).

The "Aha" is that Science is psychopathic! It has been staring me in the face for years, but this book finally brought it to the surface.

The psychopath and those high on the autism scale fail to see the conscious entity behind the face in other humans. They are to varying degrees "consciousness blind". Because they are such, they tend to varying degrees to lack any sense of morality -- remorse, shame, etc. They tend to lack a CONSCIENCE ... which is very much linked with human consciousness.

The whole FoG book focuses on subjects vs objects and the "I -You" relation which recognizes that we are all "subjects" (conscious BEings) Objects are not conscious in the human sense. Subjects are US ... or God. We have BEING ... we are little "i am's" ... God is **I AM**! (consider us the eternal dog food version). I suspect that God really enjoyed the joke of dog being God backward!

The book is based on the idea of "the face", and how it is a portal for the consciousness behind it.

"My face is a boundary, a threshold, a place where I appear as the monarch appears on the balcony of the palace" ... or the Pope appears to the faithful in St Peter's square. It isn't "I", but if you are not a psychopath or autistic, you can "see"(detect)  the "I" from my face.
"It [the face] shows the incarnate in the object, embraced by it's own mortality, and present like death on the unknowable edge of things".
"... the individual is revealed not only in the life that shines from the face, but in the death growing in the folds and wrinkles ...:".

Scruton prefers "I-You" as the standard human relation, but I would call it "I to I" with the obvious play on words. The whole essence of human life is RELATIONSHIPS between sentient BEings that have human consciousness. Everything else is just mechanism.

He ends the book with this ...

"Our disenchanted life is, to use the Socratic idiom, "not a life for a human being". By remaking human beings and their habitat as objects to consume rather than subjects to revere, we invite the degradation of both. Postmodern people will deny that their disquiet at these things has a religious meaning, but I hope that my argument has gone some way to showing that they are wrong."

For me, his argument is a pearl of great price in a mechanical world.

Science is in the business of "disenchantment", but like some sorcerer's apprentice, it takes pride in the fact that it has NO MORAL SENSE, nor "sense" at all. It doesn't "engender the Terminator" (SkyNet from the Terminator movies), it **IS** the "Terminator" ... of humanity, of morality, of meaning, of life, of love, of "god" ... only GOD is very much it's master, it is just that due to Free Will, our choice of science over God has crushed our sacred *I* (subjectness).

By definition, science totally lacks any recognition of ALL **I ams** ... to science, there are no subjects, only objects. Objects that can be reduced to component parts, classified, ordered and disposed of with "efficiency". "Morality" and "meaning" simply do not compute.

We have released science from the slave status which a TOOL that refuses to recognize the most basic element of humanity, the fact that we are SUBJECTS, not objects ought to always be constrained to by any sentient human who understands the nature of at least man, if not having the beginnings of understanding the nature of God and the universe (the beginning of wisdom).

I can't recommend this book too highly. My review COMPLETELY fails to do it justice. It is quite reachable, yet it is a profound statement on the human condition, and our profound peril in a modern world that has lost the  understanding of what it means to be human.

No Human ALIVE Has Seen Hotter July!

July 2016 was the hottest July on record.:

No human ALIVE ... meaning hottest July since, well  .... 1890, MAYBE.  The chart shows the temperature DEVIATION plotted against the BASELINE, which is the average temperature from 1981-2010 (the 0.0 line). Why is that the average temperature for the whole planet? Well, because the international climate industry has declared it to be so.
One interpretation of this chart is "hottest ever", another interpretation would be that we have "returned to the mean" ... like .1 above the mean, but MUCH better than .6 BELOW the mean where we were in 1890.


If we look at temperatures of the last 10K years, we are REALLY cold in comparison.

But anyone that presents data from prior to say "1860" is some sort of a "denier".

I grew up in a fundamentalist church. The mark of fundamentalism is WE WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS! The saddest element of the modern climate religion is that it is a fundamentalist religion, so ALL must either agree with it or be cut off from fellowship.

In the fundamentalist church I grew up in "the end times were here" -- and so it is in the climate religion. Those that refuse to believe are downright dangerous! Humans have been drawn to "eschatology" FOREVER ... it has ALWAYS been "the end times". "Ye will be judged"!

The difference is that now the secular world as opposed to the Church has decided "this is it", and "if you are not with us, you are against us" ... and it has gone so far we are going to prosecute you if you fail to agree with us "thus sayeth climate science"!

The secularists destroyed religion so the Catholics and the Protestants could get along -- now we are in the business of criminalizing disagreement on the weather and calling that "progress".

'via Blog this'

Monday, August 15, 2016

BOistan Divided, Drowning vs Abortion

DIVIDED AMERICA: Global warming polarizes more than abortion - The Washington Post:
The more people connect on a human level, the more people can “overcome these tribal attitudes,” Anna Jane Joyner says. “We really do have a lot more in common than we think.”

I read an article like this and wonder how the author would answer the following question;

Do you think the natural state of human society is:
A. Tribes
B. Plato's Republic
C. Marxist Communism or Socialism
D. Some yet unknown scientifically based advanced culture?

I'm assuming he thinks "D", but then HOW does one get there? Force?

We once overcame tribalism by believing in a set of transcendent truths that we called "Western Civilization" which was largely rooted in Christian values. Justice, equality of opportunity, individual responsibility, freedom, etc ... that kind of trash.

Science is like engineering on the starship Enterprise .... it lets you go fast, blow things up and make the doors go "whoosh"! It tells you NOTHING about what you "should" do. Annihilate the aliens or go down and see if you can have sex with them like Kirk and Riker might prefer -- those are NOT scientific questions!

On  a "human level", we are all tribalists. On a scientific level, we apparently take a lot of surveys and marvel that we are tribalists -- but somehow believe that if we all get together on a "human level", we will reach a decision that killing off the next generation is better than them drowning in the rising oceans. Or something.

Is the "fastest growing segment" of the population "young earth warmists" that believe that man arrived in the last 10K years after the most recent ice age, thus missing the last warming period equivalent to now 120K years ago, or the previous three other comparable periods in the past 500K years? Will appropriate surveys make the last 500K of geologic and climate history go away?

Science is WHOLLY unable to produce the "myths" on which to base a human society. It may well help a reasonable society, or even "tribes", have more "stuff", move around more, kill each other more efficiently, or distract themselves more completely, but that is ALL it is capably of doing.

No matter how many surveys you send out!

'via Blog this'

Trump Is Right on Voter Fraud

Donald Trump Voter Fraud Warning: He’s Right & Media Are Wrong to Dismiss It | National Review:

Not a very long read, but a very worthy one. Voter fraud is WELL documented in A LOT of places, if it looks like a Democrat is going to lose, or if they DO lose, we even hear quite a lot about it all of a sudden. Remember Diebold?

Pretty much everyone else in the world that votes requires an ID to vote. Democrats are well on the way to making that unconstitutional here. This isn't really a very hard position to understand if you care to. The author of the column, John Fund, wrote a good book on the subject a good while back "Stealing Elections" ... you really don't want to look into it if you agree with BO that Trump is crazy to suggest such a thing.

'via Blog this'

Hedge Fund Vote, $48M Clinton, $19K Trump

Hedge funds are playing a far bigger role in 2016 than in past elections—and Hillary Clinton has been the single biggest beneficiary.
Much as with Brexit, "the smart money" likes the rigged economy. "Follow the money" is often the refrain of the left, but this time they seem to like "the sounds of silence" on that front.

Will the common folk vote against their jailers in the BOistan? It remains to be seen, but at least we know who the jailers like!

Absalom Oh Absalom, Perspective

The past month has not been the best for daily scripture, but some progress has been made. This AM this is where I was at:
2 Samuel 18:33 (NIV) The king was shaken. He went up to the room over the gateway and wept. As he went, he said: “O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you—O Absalom, my son, my son!”
I can  remember thinking as a young man that King David must have been INSANE to still care about a son that had taken his kingdom and was doing his very best to kill him!

I've only begun to understood Psalm 128:6 "May you live to see your children's children" for the past 14 months, but I'm sure I'll understand it much deeper as time unravels.

"Honor your father and your mother" is the 4th commandment, after "no other Gods", "Don't take the Lord's name in vain" and "honor the sabbath". First you honor God in heaven alone (the BEGINNING of wiadom), then you honor him with your "word", then you honor his Church, and then you honor the humans that were his chosen means to give you life.

The only way a young man can understand the reaction of King David is by FAITH, and I clearly was not that young man.  I could also not understand the reality of Psalm 128:6 without experience -- my faith hasn't grown with age as much as I would like. Every parent of a grown child understands King David -- no doubt Kind David bounced Absalom on his knee and expected him to be a God loving righteous man. But he loved him still even when he wanted to kill him.

So maybe an earthly parent can BEGIN to understand the love of God for humans that hate him with all their hearts and all their souls. Atheism is a strange faith -- you hate that which you claim does not exist. Perhaps Muslims killing Christians to gain their spot in paradise approach the hatred that seethes from the atheist -- but I'm not so certain. I've read both "God Delusion" and "Letter To A Christian Nation", and while the ability of man to love without God may still be in question, it is very clear that godlessness helps mightily with hatred! The atheist credo is a barely concealed "give hate a chance".

So what is an earthly or heavenly father to do? Science certainly can't help you -- it's claim to fame is that it's truths are still true without humans existing at all. God's truths are always true as well -- even if he decides that science doesn't exist. He defines existence. He has however created us and made us eternal -- so we will go on existing, and for that same eternity, science will have nothing to say about "the good", love, truth (other than mechanical truth) or beauty.

What I now have relative to Absalom and my children's children is the BEGINNING of wisdom. Bur someday I shall know.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We stole the chance to decide our fate when we stole a bite from the tree ... we can know pure love, or we can know pure malevolence and hatred -- we have to work to get the malevolence and hatred with a lifetime of rejection like Absolom. If we are willing to experience love, we can let Grace take us home.