Thank you, Mr. President. Our thank you will come in January - with subpoenas.

Añadir romero al freír disminuye significativamente la oxidación de los aceites, y podría reducir hasta un 74% la formación de compuestos dañinos.

Anyone need $4.20 in x money

Reuters snags photo of Trump speaking during a rally in North Carolina as lights are reflected off a bulletproof screen in front of him:

How to prepare for your great escape from the 3D reincarnation soul-trap, and return to your higher-dimensional home. In other words... HOW TO BEAT THE GAME. h/t @homi3kh

Turns out the future does have flying cars

Can someone explain why supply-demand hasn’t lowered home prices?

The boys are BIG mad at this one so let me break it down… The original post called out two things: height and income. There are OF COURSE other factors that go into choosing a partner. Personality, values, emotional intelligence, ambition, compatibility, the list goes on. But since we’re focusing on those two factors, let’s flip the roles. If I were a successful man making six figures, would anyone bat an eye if I wanted a woman who was attractive, successful in her own right, or brought something to the table that complemented the life I’ve built? Probably not. So why is it controversial when a woman wants a partner who matches the level she’s worked to achieve? I’m 5’10” and make six figures. I’m not asking for something I don’t bring to the table in my own way. Does that mean a man has to make more than me? No. Does that mean someone under 6 feet is automatically disqualified? Also no. But having preferences and refusing to settle are not the same thing as thinking you’re better than someone else. A man isn’t less valuable because he doesn’t meet my preferences, and I’m not less deserving of mine because they hurt someone’s feelings. The funniest part is that nowhere did I say I wanted a doormat. Y’all added that part yourselves.

Bloodlust will be our downfall.

My main takeaway from my research into the historical Jesus: Your worldview will shape your conclusion regarding the resurrection. Here’s why: At least Peter and Paul, and probably James and Mary Magdalene, experienced something they sincerely believed was the Risen Jesus. We have no way of knowing what they saw or experienced. If you are a believer, you will likely conclude it was the Risen Jesus. If you are a skeptic, you will probably lean toward a vision or hallucination. I have looked closely at the evidence for 11 months and privately reached out to scholars. You won't find anything that proves or disproves the resurrection. That does not mean it happened or did not happen. It means each person’s worldview will shape their conclusion. That said, I do think there are things we can understand with 95% confidence that conflict with what some of the West believes: Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher. He did not identify himself as God (whether he was is a different topic). He thought the world would end imminently. He believed he and the Twelve would have a central role in the Kingdom. There are major historical issues with the Gospels, from oral tradition to contradictions, from agendas to anonymous writers decades later. I also think we must separate the sources and not lump them together. Paul is writing firsthand. The problem is he doesn't provide much detail. He also (on purpose) gives us nothing about Jesus' life, other than the crucifixion and Last Supper. Mark warrants priority but isn't writing a biography. He's using editorial judgment, as evidenced by the women fleeing the tomb at the end. He chooses to leave out what he understands happened afterward to uphold his theme of the Messianic Secret. He is also, presumably, basing his info on oral tradition 40-50 years later. Matthew and Luke provide value because of the "Q" source, which contains quotes from Jesus that pass the criterion of embarrassment and dissimilarity. I think many of these quotes go back to Jesus. However, I don't think Matthew and Luke's independent sources provide us much historical value. The "M" source is suspect to me because it conveniently backfills Jesus' life to fulfil Hebrew prophecies that no other source reports. I don't really know what the "L" source is doing, other than seemingly appealing to Gentiles. John is late, independently attested, and overly theological. I'm not sure we can do much with it historically other than use it to understand what a certain Christian community is saying about Jesus late in the first century. That said, none of that precludes what ultimately determines Christianity: whether God raised him from the dead. Likewise, I am not saying M, L, and John are wrong. I just don't think we can establish it historically. Which is why I don't get the hostility toward the topic of history. It shouldn't alter belief, either way.