In first Corinthians chapter 13 verses 4-7, Paul gives a definition of what exactly love is.

Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

One thing climate advocates love to point at is how the EU managed to reduce carbon emissions without taking a significant blow to their economy. The glaring problem (least as it seems to me) is that at the same time all those emissions were going down, America and Europe’s industrial production capacity was all being shifted to China and such places. Which essentially means it allows Europe to have a services economy, while simultaneously benefiting from the cheaper labor. The companies are happy because now they don’t have to pay workers as much. Governments are happy because they can point at how much they reduced emissions. Everybody knows that you can look at almost anything you see around you and find a ‘Made in China’ somewhere on it. Then the carbon output of countries of China and India continue to rise. Yet, India and China still have nowhere near the carbon output of countries that had more quickly industrialized. Why? It’s not for any ethical reason, it’s simply because China is poorer than Europe is. The average European lifestyle requires more resources than the average Chinese one does. China, oh course, benefits from all this and their country is growing more wealthy and its citizens have a greater capacity for consumption. That’s the point where emissions will likely shoot way up.

So, the other day, Dawkins decided to state something interesting. The description box reads,

A self-proclaimed ‘Cultural Christian,’ Professor Dawkins tells LBC that he is ‘slightly horrified’ to see lights celebrating Ramadan in central London during Easter and worries about a ‘replacement’ in this regard. He says the construction of mosques across Europe concerns him, and that if offered the choice between Christianity and Islam, he’d choose Christianity “every day.”

I feel like often Christians will, in the context of slavery, or those trying to use the religion opportunistically, tell you the narrative about how God set the Jews free from their captors, the Egyptians. It’s a captivating, uplifting story that can inspire downtrodden people everywhere. Except what they tend to leave out is how the Jews struggled. They leave out how most of them ended up dead, and Moses himself never even made it to the good land. Israel had slaves.

This was a fun game. Proud of myself for this one.

https://lishogi.org/uOtToLiQ

Ended up just winning on an illegal move though. But getting his gold stuck and forking the rook was nice.

Reminds me of a comment I saw a while back.

Do the Russians make movies depicting their Tsars as Africans? Are their national sports teams reflected in a similar way? Does their media praise BLM and pit minorities in Russia against the rest while constantly harping on about the evils of their empire? Do their cities burn as a result of this? Do they embrace open borders and globalism and have role models like Cardi B and Caitlyn Jenner? Are their children taught that gender does not exist? Yes or no? I support Russia. They value and wish to preserve their own people, history, culture and traditions far more than western nations.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/04/02/zelensky-signs-law-lowering-draft-age-bid-boost-military-ranks/

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), while on a visit to Kyiv last month, also called on Ukrainian lawmakers to pass measures that would widen the field for mobilization.

He was quoted as:

“I would hope that those eligible to serve in the Ukrainian military would join. I can’t believe it’s at 27,” he told reporters. “You’re in a fight for your life, so you should be serving — not at 25 or 27.”

This is quite a good movie. It’s a movie about suffering. People are dealt with harshly in a cruel world. I think I had two gripes about this movie though. The first one was kind of the hero worship of the doctor. He’s the one pure one who could do no wrong in a corrupt world. I think I could’ve let it go if it wasn’t for the part where he single-handedly takes out about a dozen men. That was just a little absurd. Also, I think this movie didn’t quite know what to do with itself. This is a longer movie, at a little over three hours. The first hour and a half are very good, dealing with the humbling of a good but conceited new doctor. The second half seemed to be a bit disjointed from the first. The saving of that 12 year-old is interesting and all, but it didn’t feel like it was from the same movie.

I had the opportunity to go to Japan recently. Compiled a list of pros and cons I thought of on the spot concerning the country.

Pros:

• Public transportation is amazing
• Cheaper than America
• Japanese people have higher cultural expectations for themselves in general
• Less cultural enrichment than America has
• Streets are cleaner
• Much, much safer
• Less of a shame culture
• People don’t possess opinions about every dumb thing under the sun
• People are less degenerate than Americans (though, trending worse)
• Government isn’t as stupid as the American government (again, trending worse)
• Convenience stores are very nice
• Having shogi being widely known and played is nice
• Japanese people are generally better educated

Cons:

Background 1: The Jurchens were an ethnic minority within China. They lived in northeastern China, which is today known as Manchuria. There were different Jurchen groups which existed and lived as hunters-gatherers, semi-nomads, or sedentary agriculturists. They had little central authority, along with little communication between the different groups, throughout much of history they tended to fall under the influence of neighboring dynasties. Paying tribute and chiefs holding posts as effectively border guards. This group has quite a remarkable history, through twists of fate they established two Chinese dynasties, the Jin and the Qing. The latter isn’t considered to be a mainline dynasty, but the Qing lasted 275 years and was the last great Chinese dynasty. The Ming dynasty came from the collapse of the Yuan dynasty (Mongol established one). Lasting from 1368-1644. A rather prosperour dynasty, it collapsed because of changes in Spanish/Japanese policy of cutting off the supply of silver, floods, epidemics, and slowdown in agriculture caused by the Little Ice Age. After various political upheavals the Eight Banner armies led by the Jurchens gained political supremacy and began to solidify their power. The Later Jin dynasty was founded by the Jianzhou Jurchens, who went on to unify all the tribes of the Jurchens to form a new “Manchu” ethinic identity. Later Jin was established in Manchuria in 1636, and then by 1644 they seized control of Beijing. The Qing then went on to expand itself over China proper, Taiwan, and into Inner Asia.