Tag: donald trump

Doomsday Clock Eighty-Five Seconds to Midnight: An Invitation to Attention

The news that the Doomsday Clock now stands at eighty-five seconds to midnight is not, in itself, the most important thing about this moment. The number is arresting, and the coverage tends to amplify its urgency. But the deeper question raised by this year’s announcement is not how close we are to catastrophe. It is how we are learning, or failing, to attend to the conditions that make catastrophe thinkable in the first place.

What the Clock reflects is not a single looming disaster but a convergence of unresolved tensions from nuclear instability, ecological breakdown, accelerating technologies, and political fragmentation (not to mention our spiritual crisis and the very real scenes we’re seeing with our own eyes in each of our communities with federal authorities and directed violence here in the United States).

These are not isolated threats. They form a dense field of entanglement, reinforcing one another across systems we have built but no longer fully understand or govern. The Clock does not merely measure danger. It reveals a world stretched thin by its own speed.

One risk of symbolic warnings like this is that they can tempt us into abstraction. “Eighty-five seconds to midnight” can feel cinematic, even mythic, while the realities beneath it, such as warming soils, poisoned waters, eroded trust, and automated corporatist decision-making, remain oddly distant. When risk becomes spectacle, attention falters. And when attention falters, responsibility diffuses (part of the aim of keeping us distracted with screens and political theater).

This is where I think the Clock’s real work begins. It presses on a crisis not only of policy or technology, but of perception. We have grown adept at responding to emergencies that suddenly emerge, and far less capable of staying with harms that unfold slowly, relationally, and across generations. Climate disruption, ecological loss, and technological overreach do not arrive as single events. They address us quietly, repeatedly, asking whether we are willing to notice what is already being asked of us.

In earlier posts, I’ve suggested that empathy is not first an ethical achievement but a mode of perception, or a way “the world” comes to matter. Attention works in a similar register. It is not merely focus or vigilance. It is a practiced openness to being addressed by what exceeds us. The Doomsday Clock, at its best, functions as a crude but persistent call to such attention. It interrupts complacency not by predicting the future, but by unsettling how we inhabit the present.

And here is where something genuinely hopeful emerges.

The Clock is not fate. It has moved away from midnight before, not through technological miracles alone, but through shifts in collective orientation, such as restraint, cooperation, treaty-making, and shared commitments to limits. Those movements were not perfect or permanent, but they remind us that attention can be cultivated and that perception can change. Worlds do not only end. They also reorient.

Hope, in this sense, is not confidence that things will turn out fine. It is the thing with feathers and the willingness to stay present to what is fragile without turning away or grasping for false reassurance. It is the discipline of attending to land, to neighbors, to systems we participate in but rarely see or acknowledge. It is the slow work of empathy extended beyond the human, allowing rivers, forests, and even future generations to count as more than abstractions.

Eighty-five seconds to midnight is not a verdict. It is an invitation to recover forms of attention capable of holding complexity without paralysis. An invitation to let empathy deepen into responsibility. An invitation to notice that the most meaningful movements away from catastrophe begin not with panic, but with learning how to listen again to the world as it is, and to the world as it might yet become.

The question, then, is not whether the clock will strike midnight. The question is whether we will accept the invitation it places before us to attend, to respond, and to live as if what we are already being asked to notice truly matters.

Cold Wave, Hot Planet, and the Old Trick of “Whatever Happened to Global Warming?”

This morning, we woke up to a solid coating of ice and snow here in Spartanburg, SC. The kids are ecstatic, and we have a rare Sunday morning without attending worship at our church. “Snow Days” here in the Southeast USA are one of those rare treats that not only drive people to the grocery store for bread and milk but also remind us of the simple joys of meteorology, family, and bundling up to go make snowpeople and snowsquirrels.

President Trump recently posted a familiar taunt about this “record cold wave” hitting roughly 40 states, then demanded to know: “Whatever happened to global warming?” The line is designed to feel like common sense. It also relies on a category mistake so basic that it functions less as an argument and more as a test of whether we can still distinguish weather from climate.

Let me start with the obvious and non-negotiable point. A cold wave is weather. Global warming is climate. Weather is what your body meets when you step outside today. Climate is the long story of patterns, averages, extremes, and probabilities over decades. Confusing the two is like arguing that because one person had a bad afternoon, the whole biography is a lie.

And this matters right now because the cold is not theoretical. This weekend’s storm system has been described as sprawling and dangerous, with snow, ice, outages, and widespread travel disruption across large portions of the country. People and more-than-humans die in cold snaps. Communities can be immobilized. Grids and water systems can fail. None of that is diminished by insisting, clearly and calmly, that a warming planet does not mean the end of winter.

Why a warming world can still deliver severe cold

Here’s the part that seems to surprise people every year… global warming loads the dice, but it doesn’t remove variability. We are adding heat to the Earth system overall, especially into the oceans, and that shift changes the background conditions in which weather plays out. NASA puts it plainly in materials aimed at non-specialists… a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, which can contribute to heavier snowfall when temperatures are still cold enough for snow.

Then there’s the polar vortex, which is not a new invention but a real atmospheric feature that can, under certain configurations, stretch or wobble in ways that allow Arctic air to plunge south. NOAA’s explainer is useful here because it describes the mechanism without turning it into political theater.

The more contested question is whether, and how, Arctic warming may be influencing the likelihood of certain jet stream patterns or polar vortex “stretching” events. NOAA has highlighted research suggesting Arctic change can be associated with events that deliver extreme cold into the U.S., while also acknowledging this is an active research area with complexity and ongoing refinement. If you want a careful summary of the “some evidence, not settled, still being worked” reality, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has a sober discussion of how scientific findings have differed across studies and models.

So yes… a frigid outbreak can happen in a warming world. In some cases, warming can even intensify the water cycle and shape storm dynamics in ways that worsen impacts, including snow and ice hazards, depending on the temperature profile of the air mass involved.

What the best synthesis says about cold extremes

If we zoom out to the scale climate science is actually talking about, the headline is straightforward: as the planet warms, cold extremes generally become less frequent and less severe, even though they do not disappear. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report explicitly treats this, including regionally, noting projected decreases in cold spells over North America under continued warming.

This is the mature way to hold the reality. Not “winter is canceled,” and not “it’s cold today so a warming planet is fake,” but rather: the distribution is shifting. The tails move. The overlaps remain, and the costs of getting this wrong are paid by real bodies in real places… especially the elderly, the poor, the unhoused, and anyone living in fragile infrastructure conditions.

The deeper problem with the President’s rhetoric

The rhetorical move in Trump’s post is not curiosity. It is contempt for scale. It treats the climate crisis as a punchline and the public as if we cannot learn the difference between an experience and an explanation.

And that contempt has consequences. When leaders encourage people to dismiss climate reality as ideology, they create the conditions for underinvestment in preparedness and resilience in weatherization, grid hardening, public health capacity, and the kind of local mutual aid that becomes lifesaving when the lights go out and roads glaze over.

This is where I want to bring in a conviction that has been forming in my own work, what I’ve called ecological intentionality. The question is not whether we can win a snarky argument on social media. The question is whether we can train our attention on what is actually happening in the atmosphere, the oceans, our towns, and the lives most exposed to harm.

A cold wave is not evidence against climate change. It is evidence that our moral and infrastructural responsibilities do not pause for talking points. The atmosphere does not care about our slogans. The grid does not care about our sarcasm. The vulnerable neighbor down the street certainly does not.

So if we want a real question to ask in the wake of this storm, it might be something like:

If extremes are becoming more disruptive and more expensive, why are we still treating climate risk, energy resilience, and public safety as partisan props instead of basic obligations of governance and community?

Back to the tree line

In my backyard, the black walnut does not “debate” the cold. It receives it. It holds it. It keeps faith with time. That is not passivity but discipline and a kind of creaturely realism. It reminds me that perception comes first. Not as an excuse to avoid ethics, but as the condition for any ethics that might actually be honest.

We can do the same. We can tell the truth about the weather and climate at once. We can care for people in the cold without surrendering our minds to the cheap thrill of false equivalence. And we can choose, even now, to become the kind of communities that prepare, adapt, and protect because reality is not an opponent to be dunked on. It is a world to be inhabited responsibly.

Thinking Religion 175: Lamentations

Here’s Thinking Religion 175 with Matthew Klippenstein on the book of Lamentations and modern contexts to consider here in the United States. Challenging but fun episode!

Thinking Religion
Thinking Religion
Thinking Religion 175: Lamentations and American Trauma
Loading
/

Summary

Sam Harrelson, host of the Thinking Religion podcast, and Matthew Klippenstein, an engineer, discussed the Book of Lamentations and its connection to current US events, such as the killing of Renee Good in Minnesota, noting the resulting anger mirrors the trauma of conquest or occupation addressed in Lamentations. They explored the historical context of Lamentations as something liminal before post-catastrophe “reconstruction theology” following the Babylonian conquest around 587 BCE, and discussed scholarly challenges to biblical authorship, including the traditional attribution of Lamentations to Jeremiah. The discussion emphasized that lamentation, as described by theologian Walter Brueggemann, is a necessary “mode of speech that keeps faith alive by refusing to lie about the world” and serves as “trauma literature” for a community facing collective shock and institutional devaluation.

Details

  • Connection to Lamentations Matthew Klippenstein proposed discussing the Book of Lamentations, drawing a connection between the ancient text and recent events in the US, specifically the anger and sadness following the death of a woman killed in her car in Minnesota by an ICE officer. Matthew Klippenstein observed that the emotional reactions mirrored a desire for how things were recently, suggesting a similarity to the trauma of being conquered or occupied addressed in Lamentations (00:02:37).
  • Attribution and Authorship in Biblical Texts Matthew Klippenstein noted that Lamentations is historically attributed to Jeremiah, but modern scholarship suggests otherwise, which led to a broader discussion on common quotes being falsely attributed to famous figures, citing the Japanese admiral Yamamoto’s widely-believed but unsaid quote about “awakening a sleeping giant” (00:03:47). Sam Harrelson concurred that similar issues exist with biblical authorship, noting that figures like Daniel, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John are not believed to have written the books attributed to them, and referring to the concept of “deutero-Isaiah” and “trito Isaiah” in scholarly circles (00:05:49).
  • Host and Guest Introductions Following the initial discussion, Sam Harrelson formally welcomed Matthew Klippenstein to the Thinking Religion podcast, providing a brief introduction to their guest (00:06:49). Matthew Klippenstein introduced themself as an engineer in Vancouver who grew up in a non-religious family but later developed a love for religious texts, positioning themself as someone who approaches religious thought from an atheist standpoint (00:08:06).
  • Connecting Lamentations to the Current US Context Sam Harrelson connected the book of Lamentations to the current political and spiritual situation in the United States, based on Matthew Klippenstein’s earlier suggestion (00:09:09). Matthew Klippenstein elaborated on the trigger for their connection: articles stating it would take a generation to recover from cuts made under a previous administration, juxtaposed with the killing of Renee Good in Minnesota, creating a sense of loss and anger over a constitutional order people feel they no longer have (00:10:19).
  • Historical Context of Lamentations Sam Harrelson corrected the historical detail, clarifying that the conquest relevant to Lamentations was by the Babylonians around 587 BCE, not the Assyrians who had conquered the Northern Kingdom of Israel earlier (00:11:44). Sam Harrelson explained that Lamentations is thought to have come out of the tradition surrounding Jeremiah, noting the term “Jeremiah” is no longer common in popular talk. The text is situated around 500 BCE, after Cyrus the Great allowed the elites to return from Babylon to a ruined Jerusalem, leading to socioeconomic tensions with the people of the land who remained (00:12:54).
  • Lamentations as Post-Catastrophe Reflection Sam Harrelson emphasized that Lamentations is particularly interesting because it is not about the fall of Jerusalem in the heat of battle but is a post-event “reconstruction theology” addressing the trauma after the temple was destroyed and political sovereignty was lost (00:15:11). Matthew Klippenstein compared Lamentations to a “lessons learned analysis” in industry, reflecting on the causes of a generational disaster after the recovery period (00:17:20).
  • Personification and Meaning of Lament in the Text Sam Harrelson highlighted the personification of Jerusalem in Lamentations, citing a verse that describes the city as a lonely widow and a princess who has become a vassal (00:18:09). Matthew Klippenstein noted that using interpersonal relationship terms makes the trauma more emotionally affecting than dry historical terms (00:19:20). Sam Harrelson cited theologian Walter Brueggemann’s view of lament as a “mode of speech that keeps faith alive by refusing to lie about the world,” distinguishing it from optimism or silence (00:20:37).
  • Structural Details and Symbolism in Lamentations Matthew Klippenstein pointed out the structural detail of the five chapters in Lamentations having verses corresponding to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet (22, 66, 22), suggesting a poetic and symbolic intention (00:21:40). Sam Harrelson linked this to the US’s reliance on symbols, such as the flag and the eagle, and the often-misunderstood origins of national symbols like the Pledge of Allegiance (00:22:46).
  • Hope and Simplicity in Lamentations Sam Harrelson discussed how popular culture often extracts verses like “the steadfast love of the Lord never ceases” from Lamentations 3 to create slogans, but argued that the text pushes back against simple optimism, offering a view of hope as “survivability” amidst ongoing devastation (00:26:07). Matthew Klippenstein related this to Hindu and Buddhist texts on accepting the current uncomfortable situation while maintaining faith, and mentioned Viktor Frankl’s observation that survivors in concentration camps maintained hope by focusing on future purpose (00:28:27).
  • Lament as Trauma Literature and Community Shock Sam Harrelson introduced Kathleen O’Connor’s reading of Lamentations as “trauma literature,” where a community learns to speak after collective shock (00:33:31). Sam Harrelson connected this to contemporary shock felt by events like the shooting of Renee Good and the constant stream of distressing news, noting that Lamentations does not explain suffering but rather accompanies it (00:34:45).
  • Erosion of Rights and Othering in the US Sam Harrelson reflected on the shock of increased demands for identification by officials like ICE, contrasting it with memories of previous norms against such practices (00:36:20). Matthew Klippenstein noted that indigenous Canadians had historically required permission from white bureaucrats to leave their reservations, underscoring systemic injustices (00:37:48). Sam Harrelson and Matthew Klippenstein agreed that the text’s focus on sin allows for different political interpretations of how the US reached its current state (00:39:06).
  • Historical Disparities in Rights Sam Harrelson and Matthew Klippenstein discussed historical inequalities, noting that women in the US and Canada required a male co-signer for basic financial services like checking accounts well into their lifetimes (00:40:12). Sam Harrelson connected this history of prioritizing one group (historically white males) and “othering” others to current issues like ICE detention camps and the reaction to the murder of Renee Good, where attempts are made to dismiss her as “not mainstream” (00:41:22).
  • America as the New Jerusalem and Institutional Devaluation Sam Harrelson addressed the historical ideal of “America as the new Jerusalem” or “city on a hill” promulgated by figures like Jonathan Edwards (00:44:57). Matthew Klippenstein suggested that the American fundamentals creed fits this backdrop as a “new Nicene creed” (00:46:08). Sam Harrelson concluded that Lamentations teaches communities how to speak after realizing that their institutions—such as the president or federal agencies—cannot save them, which is relevant to the current “devaluation of those institutions” (00:48:20).
  • The Dangerous Memory of Lamentations Sam Harrelson cited Lamentations 4:1-2, which speaks of gold growing dim and holy stones scattered, as a “devastating image of devaluation” where what once mattered is now treated as disposable (00:50:40). Sam Harrelson referred to the concept of “dangerous memory” from German theologian Johann Baptist Metz, which posits Lamentations as a necessary prophecy for a civilization to recover from collapse and reckon with its history (00:52:50).
  • Atomization and Susceptibility to Influence Matthew Klippenstein reflected on the Lamentations verse about people becoming cruel, like ostriches, while jackals still nurse their young, suggesting that the atomization facilitated by mass media and the internet makes it easier to “other people” (00:54:12). Sam Harrelson agreed that everyone is susceptible to the influence of algorithms and unbalanced media consumption, even those who consider themselves smart and capable (00:55:35). Matthew Klippenstein concluded that humility about one’s expertise is necessary, echoing Socrates’ view that wisdom is knowing what one does not know (00:57:28).
  • The Role of Lamentation and Withstanding Suffering Sam Harrelson discussed how people often defend their political side, whether it’s related to Trump, AOC, or others, but they argued that the work of Lamentation offers no such defense of God or political figures, instead keeping company with suffering (00:58:51). They suggested that engaging in the hard work of lament must happen at an individual level before reaching the community level, particularly in a world full of distractions. Matthew Klippenstein affirmed that the text is cathartic and helpful for processing and surfacing what needs to be surfaced, even without offering a specific prescription (01:00:07).
  • Lament as a Discipline of Presence Sam Harrelson emphasized that lamentation offers no resolution, rebuilt temple, or answered prayers; rather, it is what faithful communities practice when they refuse denial and despair, occupying a middle ground. They defined lament as a discipline of staying present to what is broken without pretending to know how it will be fixed or healed. Sam Harrelson reflected on the current shocking circumstances for their five children, contrasting their 18-year-old’s challenges today with the world Harrelson experienced at the same age in 1997, highlighting the shift in ease of travel and feeling American abroad (01:01:11).
  • Call to Presentness and Reflection Sam Harrelson urged people to stay in the present moment of shock rather than immediately reacting, advocating for the hard work of lament to prevent repeating past mistakes. They reiterated that the discipline of staying present to what is broken is a personal reminder to themself in the face of shocking events like a TV shooting or a story of deportation (01:02:17). Matthew Klippenstein and Sam Harrelson concluded the discussion, with Harrelson expressing appreciation for Klippenstein’s input in helping them sort through things and mentioning that Klippenstein has exciting developments coming up.

Before We Decide What Matters: Minneapolis, ICE, and the Work of Attention

If you’re like me, you are tired of being told what matters. Every day arrives already crowded with urgency from cable news to social media to our email inboxes. There is always something demanding a response, a position, a statement, a judgment. The crises are real and here at home, as we’re seeing in Minneapolis, but also here in Spartanburg. Ecological collapse, technological acceleration, political fracture, spiritual exhaustion. And yet the constant pressure to decide, to weigh in with friends or on social media, to declare allegiance or outrage over Trump’s latest missive, even which news outlets to consume… often leaves us less capable of genuine care rather than more. Moral life begins to feel like triage, and eventually like performance.

I have been wondering whether this exhaustion has less to do with a lack of ethics and more to do with how quickly we rush toward them.

Before we decide what matters, something quieter has already taken place. The world has appeared to us in a certain way. Something has shown up as worthy of concern, or not. Something has addressed us, or passed unnoticed. That prior moment, the way the world first comes into view, is rarely examined. Social media algorithms are designed to outrage us before we have even a moment to process an event. And yet this initial moment of appearance may be the most decisive moral act we ever perform.

Attention is not neutral. It is formative.

We often speak about ethics as if it begins with principles, values, or rules. But those only function once something has already been perceived as meaningful. I cannot care about what I do not notice. I cannot respond to what never appears. Long before moral reasoning begins, there is a posture of perception, a way of being present to what is other than myself.

This is where empathy has become important to me again, not as a sentiment or virtue, but as a mode of knowing. Empathy, understood phenomenologically, is not agreement or emotional fusion. It is not a projection of myself into another, nor a collapse of difference. For Edith Stein, empathy names the experience in which another’s interiority becomes present to me as other, irreducible, and real. It is a way of perceiving foreign consciousness without possessing it.

Crucially, empathy in this sense is not something that follows understanding. It is what makes understanding possible in the first place.

Seen this way, empathy is not primarily ethical. It is ontological. It concerns how beings appear to one another, how the world is allowed to disclose itself, how alterity is either received or flattened. Stein is careful here. Empathy does not erase distance. It preserves it. The other is never absorbed into my own experience, but neither is the other sealed off from me. Relation becomes possible without domination.

For example, this matters deeply for how we think about ecology. Much contemporary environmental discourse quickly shifts toward solutions, metrics, and outcomes, from AI data center debates at city council meetings to creation care initiatives once a group decides to engage locally. These are necessary, but they often skip the slower work of learning how to see. Ecology becomes a problem to manage rather than a field of relationships in which we already participate. The natural world is framed as a resource, a threat, or a victim, rarely as a presence capable of addressing us.

Stein herself did not write ecological theory, but her account of empathy offers a discipline of attention that easily extends beyond the human. If empathy is the experience of encountering another as a center of meaning, not of my own making, then it trains us to resist reducing the world to what it can be used for or controlled. It teaches restraint before response. Attention changes this.

To attend to a tree across seasons, to notice how it sheds, scars, and persists, is not to solve anything. It is to be apprenticed into a different tempo of significance. Ecological time resists panic not by denying urgency, but by deepening responsibility. It trains us to remain with what unfolds slowly, unevenly, and often without spectacle.

This kind of attention does not produce immediate answers. It produces orientation.

I have come to think that much of our moral confusion stems from a failure of perception rather than a failure of values. We argue about what ought to be done while remaining inattentive to what is actually present. We leap toward ethical frameworks while bypassing the more difficult task Stein insists upon by allowing the other to show itself as it is, before we decide what it means or what is owed.

Attention is costly (and incredibly valuable, as social media algorithms have taught us over the last decade, as I noted in my 2015 post). It requires patience, vulnerability, and restraint. It asks us to linger rather than react, to receive rather than master. In a culture shaped by speed and extraction with news cycles lasting just a couple of days, this can feel almost irresponsible. And yet without it, our ethics float free of the world they claim to serve.

To attend is already to take responsibility.

Not because attention guarantees correct action, but because it establishes the conditions under which action can be something other than projection or control. When we learn to notice, to listen, to allow meaning to emerge rather than be imposed, we begin to recover a moral life that is responsive rather than reactive.

Perhaps the most urgent task before us is not deciding what matters next, but recovering the capacity to perceive what has been asking something of us all along.

Footnote: Edith Stein describes empathy not as inference, emotional contagion, or imaginative projection, but as a direct experiential act in which another’s consciousness is given as other while remaining irreducibly distinct from one’s own. Empathy, for Stein, is thus neither ethical evaluation nor moral sentiment, but a foundational mode of perception through which meaning first becomes accessible. See Edith Stein, On the Problem of Empathy, trans. Waltraut Stein (Washington, DC: ICS Publications, 1989), 10–12, 19–21.

The Great Work Ahead of Us

Worth the time to read and process… The Great Work (to invoke Thomas Berry here) ahead of us is daunting. Still, we have the opportunity to create something where human and the more-than-human are encouraged not only to survive but to thrive (together), ultimately, if we only speak up… 

Is This Rock Bottom?:

So yes, the fights over SNAP, ACA subsidies, and shutdowns matter — but they’re symptoms, not causes. You don’t get 40 million people needing food aid and 100 million drowning in medical debt because of one bad president or one unlucky decade. You get there because the institutions that were supposed to protect the public spent decades serving somebody else.

Magnolias Over Ballrooms

I’d rather have a magnolia or most any vegetal kin over a ballroom to honor my memory, but that’s just me…

Trump Rips Out Presidents’ Historic Trees for New Ballroom:

Satellite imagery shows that six trees, including southern magnolias commemorating presidents Warren G. Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt, were axed or removed from the White House grounds this week as Trump abruptly demolished the East Wing.

Tech companies freezing political spending and why tech still matters

This is the death knell of PACs for tech companies with activist employees,” one source told Axios. “This is the final straw.”

— via Axios

This is a really fascinating development. First Microsoft and now Facebook are suspending PAC (Political Action Committee) spending in Washington. They’re joining financiers Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup, along with Marriott, Blue Cross Blue Shield (caveat — our insurance co), Boston Scientific, and Commerce Bank. Bank of America (caveat — one of the banks we do business with), Ford, and AT&T, CVS, Exxon Mobil, and Wells Fargo are considering pulling their political monies.

This hits politicians where it really hurts.

For years, many of us in the “tech world” have decried these PACs and looked at them as a unnecessary evil that needed to be banned or done away with for a number of reasons.

Here are my personal convictions:

  1. The PAC system reinforces the existing system of graft and corruption that so many Americans claim to abhor.
  2. PACs favor the privileged both socio-economically and relationally. It’s a blight on a Democratic Republic and shouldn’t be seen as a “necessary evil” to doing business in the United States. Whatever your sector.
  3. Tech boomed in the late 90’s and then again in the early ’00s because it was seen as a disruptor. From Google to Tesla to Uber (well, maybe they aren’t a great example but they did usher in a transportation paradigm shift) to even Twitter, the tech sector excited us with the promise of something different and more democratic to challenge the status quo. However, as the going got weird, the weird turned pro and put on suits. I want a return to the weird disruption tech that spurred creativity and a hope for a better representation to the powers that be. We’re not so far gone that it can’t happen in light of #metoo, BLM, LBGTQ+, trans rights, accessibility emphasis, and recognition of differently abled persons. Real revolutionary tech that can change the world… I still believe. PACS stand in the way of that.

So as we continue to process and deal with the terrorist insurrection on our Capitol last week, let’s take a second to recognize what these companies are doing by restricting or redirecting their PAC monies and how we can all do our part to not just “unify and move forward” but to cause real change.

“Surely some revelation is at hand”

As the world responded to the epidemic of 1918-1920 and recovered from World War I, Yeats penned this… seems fitting for us to consider a century later.

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

Source: The Second Coming by William Butler Yeats | Poetry Foundation

Don Jr’s Site is on Shopify

Donald Trump Jr is tweeting about how “big tech” is cracking down on “free speech” after his father was booted from Twitter, FB, IG, YouTube etc over the last few days as a result of the Jan 6 terrorist attack on our nation’s Capitol.

Not good marketing

What’s interesting here is that Trump Jr is using Shopify to sell books and bulk up his newsletter subscriptions after Shopify moved to also ban Trump-related sites this week:

Shopify does not tolerate actions that incite violence. Based on recent events, we have determined that the actions by President Donald J. Trump violate our Acceptable Use Policy, which prohibits promotion or support of organizations, platforms or people that threaten or condone violence to further a cause,” a Shopify spokesperson wrote in a statement to TechCrunch. “As a result, we have terminated stores affiliated with President Trump.

Shopify statement

Regardless of your politics of late, I urge you to build on your own property. Own your own domain, own your own intellectual property, own your own content, and don’t rely on third party providers to host your digital presence, one of your most important assets.

Thinking Religion 115 and Hermeneutics

Thomas is in Philadelphia this week but we still managed to sneak in a podcast episode. We start by going over the very important but often-overlooked general idea of hermeneutics and why we should take them seriously in the Age Of Trump (AOT from here on out). Then we hop into the Bible Bracket Challenge. Sorry, Ruth.

Dr. Thomas Whitley and the Rev. Sam Harrelson discuss the concept of hermeneutics and continue their ongoing quest to decide the best book in the Bible from the Thinking Religion Bible Bracket Challenge.

via Thinking Religion Episode 115: Your Hair Is Like a Flock of Goats