Spelling Out Our Rights, Clearly

YES, WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE really do need a new constitution. (January 22: TTR: "Writing A New Constitution") Think about it. A brief document written over two hundred years ago, in eighteenth century prose, still in use. Really? Thomas Jefferson would disagree with the constitution's continuing jurisdiction. He wrote that the nation would require a new constitution every generation, to keep up with changing times and circumstances. In our new version, for instance, we might want to declare every person's inherent right to adequate food, clothing, housing, and health care. We will probably want to assert everyone's right to privacy, and to spell out precisely, specifically, what "privacy" means. Since we all believe we have that right, and since it is not in our traditional constitution, let's put it in. The second amendment, the way it is written, strongly suggests that one must be a member of an organized officially sanctioned military organization to have a gun, or as Madison said, to "bear arms". Ask any linguist. Let's rewrite the second amendment, and clarify the terminology. Let's clearly state who can own a weapon, under what circumstances, and what it can be used for. The right needn't be limited, merely clarified. Wouldn't it be nice if cases before the Supreme Court did not, for once, get bogged down in endless interpretation of vague, archaic phrases, or if cases rarely came before the court because the transparent lucidity of the constitution permitted early resolution of all litigation to the agreement of all concerned? We need a constitution which doesn't define an African-american as three fifths of a person. We need a constitution which proclaims the equality of everyone, all ages, genders, and sexual orientations, however many there happen to be at any given time. Prohibition, repeal of prohibition. That could come out, saving us further embarassment.Tradition provides civilization's foundation. But innovation imporoves and maintains its edifice. Tradition and innovation can work together harmoniously, if we are willing to permit them to do so. The devil is in the details.

Introducing the New and Culturally Diverse Barbie

BARBIE, HERETOFORE, was something of a bore. Long legged, sure, but utterly generic. Then too, the generic Ken. Composites of American middle class white culture. Lily white Barbie, of questionable veracity, anatomically. Plain vanilla. Now, there's a new gal in town. Henceforth, Barbie shall manifest in three types; the tall, the petite, and last but definitely not least, the busty voluptuous. Skin pigmentation takes on a whole new tone as well, as Barbie is reinvented in seven shades of beige, from the light, to the less so, to the darkly pigmented. Will consumers purchase the model which best matches their hopes and dreams for their own daughters? How will one ever decide? The best prediction is that African-Americans will start getting in on the fun, but will purchase only the darkest shade of Barbie. At slumber parties, at least it will be a bit easier to keep track of whose doll is whose, assuming cultural diversity among the flesh and blood living in the sleepover set. Cultural diversity finally comes to the doll industry. Now that America is a majority minority culture, we must make allowances for the market. In the seven years of "Leave It To Beaver", the only African-American presence was that of a maid, at the house of a wealthy caucasian. The scene lasted about a mintue or less, and the reaction wasn't very positive. No other television show of the late fifties or early sixties featured much in the way of color. But the nineteen fifties have finally come to an end; as long as the appropriately politically correct varieties of Barbie line the shelf at Toys R us. Soon enough, the girls'll be able to mix and match an assortment of Kens and Barbies without fear of the censure which has traditionally, and until quite recently, been the wages of inter-racial dating.

Sending A Message To The Bank Of America

EVERY TIME I RECEIVE a snail mail offer from the Bank of America, "my bank", I rejoice, and seize the opportunity to respond, using the self addressed postage paid envelope they provide. My responses are never what they want or expect, I assume. I assume they want to open my response and find that I have accepted their kind offer for life insurance, home refinancing, luggage, or what the hell ever. Any scam will do. "Thanks but no thanks", I usually begin, "but for the time being I prefer to refrain from being scammed by convicted felons." For a flicker of a moment I wonder who will open and read it; somebody will, and I wonder about their reaction. Our American corporate masters are indeed audacious - they seek incessantly to exploit in the most nefarious, indirect ways, erstwhile piously claiming to be acting only in the best interests of you, the valued customer. My beloved Bank of America. Every few months the federal government walks in, and announces: "we have you on fraud, again." As usual, the B.O.A. responds with something like: "We understand that. However, our competent team of highly paid corporate attorneys, most of whom have law degrees from Harvard, can extend the litigation indefinitely through legal maneuvering. This can go on interminably, beyond the life of most of the currently living, certainly beyond the patience of the Securites and Exchange Commission, and we can thus sap the very strength out of the government litigation. Would you like to talk?" "Sure, we'll talk", invariably say the feds, and so they talk. The most recent plea deal, involving a complaint involving derivatives, weapons fo financial mass destruction as Warren Buffett calls these sleazy, convulated instruments ,resulted in a plea deal of seventeen billion dollars, up from the usual billion or so. But this was several months ago now, and no SEC filings are in the offing, so, my message must be getting through.

Living In Glass Houses

WHAT'S THAT SAYING about glass houses? Or the one about stirring up hornet's nests? Being careful what you wish for? America's right wing extremist terrorists are even now finding out the answers to these questions for real, assuming their ability to grasp the lesson. You'll recall that last year they launched an invasion of Planned parenthood, using fake I.D.'s to gain entrance, conduct interviews, and take pictures. They misrepresented their intent, which was to destroy the organization by gathering incriminating evidence. Then they carefully edited their footage and falsified the material they gained. Willing to believe any lie necessary to fortify their cause, American conservadom erupted in a frenzy of self righteous fury, declaring that Planned Parenthood must be destroyed at all costs. Conservative talk radio referenced Joseph Mengele. State after state started the process of defunding the organization. Bills were indtoruduced in both houses of Congress to do the same; the nation was in an uproar. Action was demanded. Notwithstanding the obvious fraud perpetrated by the pro life fanatics, ignored by the holy kingdom, the uproar swelled. Finally, cooler heads emerged, and a grand jury was convened to investigate, for the purpose of possibly indicting Planned parenthood for illegal activity. After an exhaustive review of the facts, the grand jury absolved Planned Parenthood of all wrongdoing, and instead issued an indictment against the holier than thou folks who perpetrated the perfidy. Suddenly, the shoe is on the other foot. Now, Planned Parenthood can return, fully vindicated, to serving the women of America, and the right wing nut cases can go back to their hiding places, to resume plotting. You never know what they'll try next. One thing is certain; whatever they do, it will be thoroughly disgusting.

Getting Government Back In Our Religious Lives

ONE OF AMERICA'S CHRISTIAN LEADERS, Warren Jeffs, leads his congregation of thousands from the inside of his jail cell, wherefrom he rules, as ever, with an iron hand. Perhaps his keepers consider it amusing, and allow it, or perhaps Jeffs has a battery of hot shot Christian attorneys ensuring his God given constitutional rights. Several years ago, you'll recall, the feds busted the reverend Jeffs for, shall we say, "dallying" with teenaged American females, and the reverend will thus be, let us say, "away" for a spell. This unfortunate state of affairs appears not to faze his faithful flock, demonstrating, for the millionth time, the mortal origins and subjectivity of all human religiosity. If you happen to move to Colorado City, Arizona, and choose not to join Warren Jeff's church of Latter Day Saints, a Mormon knock off, forget about making friends, being accepted, finding a job, or given a chance. (might be best not to move there at all). A totally church run town, inside and out, like a little fiefdom, or separate kingdom, on American soil. There's where the feds come in, again. Uncle Sam has the church in federal court for civil rights violations, and they mean business, as usual. If it is legal in America for a church to own, control, and govern a whole town on American soil, then by definition Congress has allowed a religion to be established within government, which violates the first amendment. Case closed, one would think. I don't know about you, but I am tremendously comforted by Washington sticking its nose into this quagmirac private religious matter, in defense of freedom and the U.S. Constitution. To hell with getting government out of our lives. Better government than a nest of religious fanatical nuts. Warren jeffs might end up getting another life term, which probably wouldn't matter one whit to him; he's in charge, and in the hooskal, either way, with nothing but time, legal resources, and a church to run. As for the rest of us, particularly including his church members; we all might want to consider deep sixing the twisted, ritualistic nonsense, relegate all the dug up gold tablets, scientology, and reliquaries to history's proverbial dust bin, and embark on careers of spiritual individualism.

Having One Small War At A Time, Or Just Leaving The Room

WE ARE UNITED by sentiment, sundered by opinion, said Goethe, but beyond that, we are sundered by race and religion, above nearly all else. One possiblility for corrective action might be to simply stay away from people you can't get along with. A separation of humans, based on such considerations as religion, race, gender, etc. For example, we could, each time we enter a room in which there is another person, compare skin pigmentation. Hold forearm right next to another's. If they aren't the same color, leave the room. You'll notice, predictably, that most of the time its a pretty close match, but that the two forearms are never exactly the same color. Never. Always a different skin pigment, at least slightly, everyone. You'll be leaving a lot of rooms, spendng a lot of time alone. We all will. Our lives will be far lonelier, but far less contentious. Aristole started this whole mess, when he asserted that a systematic organization of knowledge, categorization, was the foundation to enhanced knowledge of the world, and wisdom. Placing knowledgde in categories enables us to better grasp the monstrous complexity of the universe a bit better, but it also deceives us into accepting a far simpler verson of reality than is warrenated by the fact that existence adheres not in categories, but in a seemingly infinite number of unique facts. That's all well and good, until it causes people to create a handful of "races", based on a human characteristic which is just as indivudually unique as, say, personality. Hell, even cats all have different personalities. So do humans. Humans have a different everything, different from each other, including skin color and religion. If we're going to have race wars, or religious wars, at least we could be honest enough to have them on an individual basis, one small war at a time. En garde!

Digging Deep

Last April I turned sixtyl and decided to start having a really good time. So I retired from teaching, yea, went to college, for free, and joined the local senior center. I now spend half my day being way too old, and the other half too young. Mr. In Between, it seems. I like both places, for different reasons. The University is quite simply a beehive of life and intellect, full of bright, beautiful young ladies, which is certainly an asset. The Senior center, I finally figured out, I like because all the communication is face-to-face, person to person, same room, at a table, in a comfy chair. There is a big screen TV in the corner, but nobody ever turns it on. I like the wisdom of these eighty-five year olds, but age no longer matters to me. Nobody ever pulls out a smart phone and stares at it, although most of the seniors seem to have them. Nothing electronic, which for me is a nice respite. Up on campus, every single person walks at about a thirty mile an hour pace, like a freight train, and everyone, most of whom are about twenty years old, stares at a smart phone, constantly, while walking. How they manage not to walk into telephone poles and cars I have, honestly, no idea. Its as if they have a secret, non visual, radar system somewhere. I race up five flights of steps, passing people, get to the top, point at myself, and say to the nearest twenty year old: "sixty. uh huh, that's right". They get a kick out of the old man's antics, though weird they must surely think I am. Saturday, at the worst possible time, one of my cats gets sick, so I rush to the emergency vet, all flustered. I feel the first sense of relief just getting there. A man walks in and asks to have his dog put to sleep; too many miles, too many parts breaking down. The dog was sweet, friendly. Before I could even try to do anything to stop it, this horrible surge of sadness welled up in me, and I started to cry. Had to get up and leave the room, go outside. Oh heavens, where did that come from? Can you imagine what all else is down there, in each and every of us...?

On Political Correctness

WE USE THE TERM "African-american" instead of the "N" word, because of what we call "political correctness". This is a good thing, because the "N" word had become so corrosive, so colored and associated with hatred, that it became impossible to utter, or put in print. Now, only young African-African men use the "N" word, at sports watch parties, as mild barbs against each other. The term "political correctness" actually has deeper and for more ominous roots than in modern American etiquette; it is the necessary means of staying alive and out of a concentration camp in places like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.That's political correctness, for real. What we have in America is a watered down, quasi serious version. In America, "political correctness" is nothing other than the very careful use of words to avoid any, even the slightest offense to anyone. In other words, political correctness in America is nothing but common courtesy being made fun of by being given an overstated label. So its no longer even remotely acceptable to call African-Africans the "N" word, you can't call gay people "queers", and ladies shouldn't be be called "broads", or "split tail". Only in America would we make fun of common courtesy for being too soft hearted, and only conservative American nitwits, angry and hateful to the core, resent having their hatred truncated, and accuse those who practice our mild form of political correctness of tyranny and censorship. So now you can't use the "N" word, or some other offensive words anymore, without being widely regarded as a jerk. That's tyranny? That's censorship? Gimme a break. Methinks those who disdain political correctness doth complain too much, and are, ironically, far too offended at this imaginary loss of rights. For a real does of real tyranny, censorship, and political correctness, see NAZI Germany, Stalinist Russia, or our friend and ally, Saudi Arabia, just for a few examples. In America, we're safe, as long as we use the term "African-american". Is that really too much to ask?

Writing A New Constitution

WHAT WE REALLY NEED in America is a brand new, shiny constitution. The old one is written in vague, eighteenth century legalize, and is out of date. To save time and effort, we could model the new one after the current one. We could start by rewriting the second amendment, which technically limts gun ownership to memebers of organized military forces. Moving right along, we could add the right of privacy, clearly spelled out. Everybody wants that right, some think we already have it, others point to the complete lack of mention of it in the constitution. A section granting explicit gender and sexual orientation equality is appropriate now, if not two hundred years ago. While we're at it, we could get rid of the prohibition and repeal of prohibition amendments, over a cold beer. Who needs 'em? Another great idea would be to strike the part where it says that black people are only three fifths of a human being, no more, no less. Don't ya think maybe its time to get everyone up to full person status? Just think of the progress we could make, with a brgiht, shiny, new and improved, clear as a bell constitution! It seems like half the cases which reach the U.S. Supreme court are concerned with various interpretations of some vague phrase in the constitution, and descend into utter confusion. It also allows justices to make rulings based on their personal political beliefs. Let's eliminate that with verbal precision and absolute clarity. Tradition is wonderful; it gives us continuity and comfort, and perspective. But when tradition stands in the way of improvement, it has worn out its selcome. Pity the poor, conservative little pseudo intellectuals who study the constitution endlessly, as if it were some sacred domcument, instead of a temporary expedient. Long live a new American constitution!

Hoping For Sanders Versus Trump

HILLARY CLINTON GETS PAID trillions of dollars annually by America's financial services industry, people like Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street financial firms, for who knows what, but probably not to reform the financial services industry. More likely, she gets paid to not reform it, and to urge others not to. Bernie Sanders has suggested that this arrangement tends to decrease Hillary's potential value as a progressive economic reformer, and Hillary supporters take great offense to this obvious truth. Sanders is not allowed, as a Senator, to take such money for making appearances and representing the interests of billionaires, so Hillary supporters think his accusation is unfair, which is nonsense. Of all the good people seeking the American presidency, only Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are not owned and controlled, lock, stock, and barrel, by corporate America and its billionaires owners. It is amazing that a man like Sanders ever got elected to the U.S. Senate, becuase he is the only politician in America who tells the truth, and talks about important issues. (Trump talks about nothing, and lies like a dog). If Hillary happens to end up in the "clinker", where Donald Trump thinks she belongs, an election featuring Sanders and Trump would be a match of the socialist redistributor of wealth versus the billionaire. We have, in America, far more people who would benefit from a socialistic redistribution of wealth than we have avaracious, keep what you earn billionaires, (billionaires be warned). Trump, fully aware of this, also doubtless realizes that he can propose all sortsa socialistic redistributionist policiies, and get some poor working folks on his side, without doing his own wealth any substantial damage. Trump is accustomed to making money, then losing it, then making it back again. He feels no desperate urge to protect what he has. Trump vs. Sanders. The very matchup would constitute a political revolution in America, a revolt against the hierarchy of the two party system. Viva le revolution!

Hating On Obama, From the Very Start

THE WEEKEND BEFORE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA was sworn in as America's president, a group of extremely wealthy conservative business people rented a room at a Motel 6 somewhere in California, to make plans. The group was led by the infamous Koch Brothers, and consisted of people who considered Obama's very election a complete catastrophe. At the same time, in Washington, conservative members of congress held a similar meeting, and both groups decided, in a nutshell, to make life hell for Obama any way they could, for as long as it takes, no matter what.Automatic opposition, to all things Obama, from the very moment he is sworn in. No honeymoom period, nothing. Gee, whatever happened to the old tradition of giving somebody a fair chance? Isn't that a good, solid, conservative value? evidently, Our modern billionaire conservative class, and their puppets, Congressional members of the Republican pary, no longer value fair play, if ever they did, which is doubtful. The "get Obama" plan has clearly been implemented, long since, we've had seven solid years of this treasonous, obstructionist nonsense, but perhaps it hasn't worked all that well. It appears that a nuclear free Iran and friendship with Cuba, for example, are more popular among Americans in general than among extreme right wingers Similarly, most Americans want reasonable gun control, and women's reproductive rights, liberal positions.. Indeed, Obamacare, another example, has been a trainwreck, especially at first, but so were social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, at first. Now it eppears to be straightening out. Our conservative coalition condemned Obamacare before it even existed. No matter what Obama does, it must be liberal, therefore it must be evil, so it must be opposed with all vigor. How open minded is that! Meanwhile, Obamacare digs in deeper in the American fabric each day, as more people sign on, and not all of them are unhappy with it. Thus with bated breath we the American people await the revealing of the conservative alternative to Obamacare - they insist they have one - and if this alternative is nothing other than a return to the system as it was before Obama, good luck with that, it might not be so popular.

Trump, Following Jesus

IN ORDER TO BE ANNOINTED presidential candidate of America's conservative Christian coalition, one must make the holy voyage to Virginia's Liberty University, a great bastion of the politically economically socially conservative Christian community, and present thyself for scrutiny, and ultimate acceptance, or rejection. Most recently it was Donald Trump's turn, and Jerry Falwell Junior introduced the Donald as a man who lives his life in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. Whether this means the nine billion dollar corporate capitalist Christ, or the build a wall to keep people out Christ, remains a bit vague, but on the whole it aint a bad way for a politician to kick off a campaign speech event, to be called, in effect, Christ-like by the host. Presumably, the Falwells, junior and senior, would argue that Trump's huge fortune is a divine reward for walking in the proper footsteps, that he creates jobs, enriches others, and so forth and so on. By being strict on Mexican illegal immigrants, Trump would be, most likely, using United States power as an arm of the Lord, according to the Falwells and America's christian conservatives, enabling people to remain in poverty, and thus became adequately motivated to find work, get on their feet, and succeed, without government ahdnouts across the border in good, clean, conservative republican America. You just never know how these conservative Christians think. They like guns, and American military might, and capitalism, even though the man from Galilee seemed to expouse voluntary poverty and dispensing with weapons, generally. Perhpas we'll have a race to the Christian finish, with Donald Trump and Ted Cruz trying to outdo the other in being deeply religious, pro gun rights, and capitalistic.

Hating MLK, For A Reason

THERE ARE STILL MANY PEOPLE ALIVE who didn't like Martin Luther King when he was alive, people who thought, and still think, MLK was nothing other than a troublemaker. Conservative white folks, for the most part. Why is that uppity black man making trouble? Let society make its own choices, naturally. You've heard it all before...These same people still do not like MLK, although they are a bit more quiet about it these days. The same people who today do not like the Black Lives Matter Movement would never have liked Martin Luther King, because MLK spoke out, loud and clear, about injustice, just as Black Lives Matter is doing today. MLK might be a bit disappointed, were he alive and eighty seven years old today, at our lack of progress in creating a truly egalitarian, just society. But not entirely disappointed. He would surely recongize the improvement we've made, even though it isn't quite enough, or so it seems. The dirty little secret, of course, is that Martin Luther King was a socialist, card carrying. As he lived and learned, King realized that it would be usless to talk about and advocate for racial justice, without doing the same for economic justice. As long as society was divided into impoverished and wealthy classes, so too would it be divided along racial lines, and in other ways as well. So, MLK preached socialism, based on greater economic equality. Any of you consevatives who didn't realize that before now, just consider: now you have, at long last, a perfectly good reason to hate Martin Luther King, and no longer have to hate him secretly!

Why do I Like Donald Trump?

WHAT SCARES ME MOST about Donald Trump is the fact that, for whatever reason, I like him. What, for heaven's sake, does that say about my judgment? I'm a left wing socialistic liberal who worships at the first church of Bernie Sanders, yet, I like Donald Trump, and I find that puzzling and frightening. If I can like Donald Trump, anybody can like Donald Trump, and he has a chance to win, and maybe that's the frightening part. For one thing, he doesn't prepare his remarks in advance, obviously. Everything he says is obviously something that just happened to come to his mind, often from God only knows wherein. And maybe that's what I and a lot of other American voters like about him; he seems spontaneous, natural, unprepared, genuine. All other politicians seem to be reading a memorized statement, off cue cards, using sound bytes, just about all the time. Not Trump. He never seems to be doing this, and you never have the slightest idea what he'll say next, which makes him highly entertaining, and, as we all know, being highly entertaining is the most effective way in America to enhance one's popularity. Plus, Trump doesn't seem to give a damn about liberal or conservative. On any given issue, he could go either way, and presents a tantalizing, unique mix of ideas and opinions. If the Donald can trade national health care for personal popularity, he will, in a New York heartbeat, like a good socialist dimocrat. And the Donald would be perfectly happy to tax the wealthy, himself included, if enough potential trump supporters insist on it. For donald Trump, taxes are but a temporary setback, and, like everything else in life, a challenge to be overwhelmed. You just have to love that kind of optimism. Trump's fear mongering, confident boasting, and optimistic confidence in himself are remindful of Hitler in 1933. Let us pray that is the only way in which Donald Trump is ever remindful of Hitler.

Texting

TEXT MESSAGING IS IN, and the popularity of direct voice to voice telephonic chat has waned, it appears. Oh, Americans still get together face-to-face in person, and they still speak on the telephone, but not as much. Why do we like text messaging so very much? It really doesn't seem like such a great thing that it would sweep across civilization in ascending popularity, but it evidently is, because it has. Is it easier, more convenient? More fulfilling? Good thumb exercise? Well... ultimately, all means of communication are good means of communication. Face to face same room conversation is free, still, and more fulfilling, but people are willing to pay a monthly price for communicating conveniently, and easily. Long live all electronic gadgets! But lest we lose track of our heritage, let us forever remember the glass of lemonade on the front porch with neighbors, the family picnic, the beer in the local bar with friends, warm smiles and kind words. I have no smart phone, no television, no computer. An experminent with keeping it simple, and so far it seems to be working. I get much more reading and writing done, with fewer distractions. It is amazing how many people tell me they tried to text me, as if anybody who is anybody participates in texting, and to not participate in it is iconceivable for a modern citizen, unthinkable. And yet, you almost get the impression that all our mdoern marvelous manas of communication have diminished our communication instead of enhancing it, but perhaps that's jsut an illusion. People don't seem to answer their cell phones very often, and they don't seem to make nearly as many phone calls. Is everyone texting? Am I missing out on something? Hello?...

Calling For Ted Cruz's Arrest

REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE Ted Cruz has a problem, but not the one you're thinking. His problem is definitely not merely his having been born in Canada, which is not illegal. His problem is failing to report a loan from his wife's boss, which is very definitely illegal. Ironically, Cruz has long condemned corruption within the financial services industry, yet this very low interest loan, for his campaign, came from Goldman Sachs, which just the other day agreed to fork over five billion to the feds for, you guessed it, corruption. If you're going to conceal a loan, this one would be a pretty good choice, since its very existence makes Cruz look sleazy. Senator Cruz, of course, claims it was a mere oversight, an accident, a simple failure to sign a piece of paper. That, however, is no excuse; ignorance of the law is no excuse, and neither is the accidental violation of it. The campaign finance disclosure law was clearly broken by Sanator Cruz, whether on purpose or by accident. So now Senator Cruz, a noted fundamentalist evangelical highly moralistic Christian, will possibly be mired in the same sort of moral muck in which Hillary Clinton sometimes finds herself, because of her emailing arangements and other events in the Obama administration, and becasue of the desire by America's head hunting conservative republicans to destroy Hillary clinton, no matter how. Senator Cruz has long been among the Hillary Clinton muckrakers and would be destroyers; at the very front of the republican assault. Hasn't Senator Cruz called repeatedly for a federal indictment against Mrs. Clinton? You can rest asssured that if Hillary Clinton had failed to report a campaign loan on a federal disclosure document, the good and morally upright Senator Cruz would even now be calling for her head, or at least her indictment, conviction, and long term incarceration in a federal penal facility. Perhaps he should now call for all that against himself, before somebody else does. Senator Ted Cruz is a constitutional scholar, right? Degree from Harvard, and all that? If memory serves, Senator Cruz fell madly in love with the U.S. Constitution about when most boys start seriously noticing girls, and he has never let up. He worships the constitution like some sort of bible, a strange conservative tendency. A true legal scholar, that Cruz, and he's the first to tell you. Guys like that know, love, and respect the law, correct? People like that don't take kindly to lawbreakers, and don't acccept excuses. So let's jsut wait and see how the good Senator Cruz treats his own violations of the law, whether he deals with himself as harshly as he does others, like Hillary Clinton.

Hoping For Bernie and Trump at the Top

YOU HAVE TO HOPE FOR A Bernie Sanders Donald Trump match up in November. America would love it, and the world would eat it up. American entertainment at its gaudy, distorted best. Bernie has, in the past few days, surged even or ahead of Hillary in both Iowa and New Hampshire, which might not mean much, or, might. Trump is doing nothing but maintain his thus far commanding lead in republican opinion polls, and every day he continues to maintain a large lead, the harder it will be for the party to get rid of him. Both these candidates are obvious indicators of the anger of the American people, and the nation's polarization. Extreme left versus extreme right. Wild old socialist versus billionaire nut case. Extreme, at least, by American standards. In the general election, Trump would have trouble with those voters who insist on reason and a modicum of sanity from their candidates, and Bernie, of course, would be victimized by the American tendency to wrongly equate socialism with tyranny, evil, and godlessness. It would be a match up of two seemingly vulnerable candidates, but candidates who offer something new, and are most definitely not mainstream, or boringly normal. America appears ready to revolt from the mainstream and boringly normal. Hillary Clinton somehow seems too old school, not liberal enough for far left wingers, yesterday's news, even though she may win by default. Who else is there? All the republican contenders are either crazy, too establishment, too low in the polls, or too conservative to attract anybody in the middle of the political spectrum. If the republicans end up stuck with Trump, they're in trouble, against either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, both of whom come across as far more reasonable and intelligent. Can you imagine Donald Trump making it entirely through a complete presidential campaign without making everyone either angry, terrified, or both? Grab your pop corn and settle in, the fun's just beginning.

Freeing Ourselves From Coal Corporate Control, with Solar Assistance

THESE ARE DARK DAYS for the coal mining industry, and getting darker. Wind energy and solar energy are sweeping across America and the world, replacing fossil fuels, as we work to clean ourselves up and halt man made climate change. Natural gas is a short term transition stage. billionaire mine owners and log cabin coal miners are both expressing regret at the decline of coal, understandably, but both groups will be fine, eventually, as they adjust and integrate into the new economy. Humans are very adaptable, which has been and shall long remain a key to their survival on Earth. You have to assume that the billionaire and millionaire fossil fuel corporate owners and managers are, even as we speak, divesting and reinvesting, at least a little bit, in wind and solar, correct? No reason why billionaires can't remain billionaires; you just have to know how to adjust, and make good decisions. Worker retraining and adult education is also sweeping across the fruited plain; in our day and age, most folks pursue more than a single career during their fork lifetime, and many of us continue lifelong learning. If we the American people want the wind and solar energy industries in the hands of a few huge corporations, a monopoly industry, well, rest assured we can have it that way. but if we want to develop these industries with a more cooperative, egalitarian citizen empowering approach, why, surely that can be arranged as well. its all about what the people want, and demand. Maybe we can find a way to put the tops back on all those denuded, truncated mountains as we close the mines down, and make them look green and pretty again. Getting the smog out of the air in places like Appalachia and Los Angeles might be nice too. Nice enough, perhaps, to make it a worthwhile goal. Each day more and more Americans install solar panels atop their homes, and our electric utility companies are getting nervous, very nervous, seeing a great potential, probably loss of profit. Well, so be it. Our poor little ole billionaire utility company owners will just have to adjust, like the rest of us. A nation of energy independent American families, solar panels up top, living free from corporate control. How sweet it is!!

Hard Hitting American Football

IN AMERICAN FOOTBALL, current concussion concerns collide head on with the American people's deep devotion to violence, which sells better than anything here in the American fun house, except sex. How we relish our hard hits. For those under fifty, I can assure you that football is equally exciting with regular old blocking and tacking. But the harder the hits, the greater the profit margin, which is everything. No matter how many concussions, we aren't going to give up hard hitting with hard helmets, unless we the people rise up and insist on it, which hardly seems likely; its too entertaining, too profitable. I vaguely remember the cover of Sports Illustrated, in I think late December 1964, with much of the Cleveland defense wrapped around Packer running back Jim Taylor, everyone covered with mud, all heads up. Nobody trying to use his head to tackle, everyone arm tackling. Taylor surging ahead for another few inches, after a good gain, about to be brought down - you could tell all this by looking at the picture. Its hard to imagine this kind of picture at all now; the heads would be down, the tacklers driving through the ball carrier, violently. The style of football being played is undoubtedly a definite indication of broader cultural values, and an indicator of widespread anger and violent tendencies throughout american society, and tapping into them for profit. Surely there are numerous psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists, even now, checking into it. Let's hope they come up with some answers before half the NFL and college players are out with injuries. Profit's what pro football's all about.The billionaire owners care little about player injuries or the fans, except insofar as they can profit from them.for decades the perpetual epidemic of football concussions was ignored, or covered up. American pro football teams move from city to city like traveling circuses, seeking the most financial gain, leaving bitter, disappointed fans behind. We football fans of America could unite, and demand that the number of NFL franchises be doubled, and that ticket prices, player salaries, and violent injuries be cut in half, or more. Remember, its just a game. or at least, it used to be.

Being An Automatic Expert In America - On Everything

RUSH LIMBAUGH spent two semesters in college, failed everything, and never ended up with even a single college credit. Nothing in chemistry, physics, or biology, let alone basket weaving, which you'd think even he could pass. And yet, Rush Limbaugh knows, he just knows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that climate change is a hoax, a fraud, a conspiracy perpetrated by the liberal community for the purpose of encouraging big government, and bringing socialism, in all its evil, to America. The fact that America is and has long since been utterly inundated with socialism, public roads, police and fire protection, to name just an example or two, and that all of it works like a charm, escapes Rush, like most else. The fact that he hasn't the faintest idea whether climate change is real, and therefore needs to learn it from other people, seems lost on him as well.He just decided, all on his own, and that's that, which is remarkable, considering his lack of education in science. In this, Rush is a perfect symptom of American arrogance; no matter what he happens to be arguing about, no matter what he believes or does not believe, he is an expert on it. We all, at least in this country, tend to become experts right quick like when we get into a little disagreement. We Americans don't seem to know when to say "I don't know", we don't seem to even know how to say it. and ever so often, 'its the right thing to say. Everyone in America can morph into a historian, a doctor, or a lawyer at the drop of a hat, which gives us Americans a remarkable intellectual flexibility, as well as a tendency to extend all quarrels to their most extreme possible limits, and fuel divisiveness. It may not be possible to know for certain whether there exists man made climate change, but surely we can all understand that it is utterly impossible to know that it does not exist, because you can never prove a negative, and well, you never know, it just may. Rush Limbaugh is a cause and a symptom, all rolled into one. He treats his radio audience like he is some sort of leader, or scholarly teacher, which is a joke. Rush the famous entertainer, famous for being famous. How many of those do we have in America? Several million? You conservatives simply must stop treating Rush as your personal guru, leader, lord, and savior. The adulation warps his mind. You can do better. And remember, even experts make mistakes, and need to ask questions.

Leaving Religion Out Of Government, Like America's Founders

THE GREAT AMERICAN culture war rages on, centered around and symbolized by a simple question, ostensibly answerable: "Is America a Christian nation"? In 1797 the United States Senate voted unanimously that the government of the U.S.A. is not Christian, nor any other religion. President John Adams signed it into law, where it remains today. As Casey Stengel used to say: "you could look it up." So that settles that. Similarly, few if any of our so called "founding fathers" were Christians; they were, for the most part, deists. They were people who, for the most part, were highly fearful of combining religion and politics, very scientific, and very disdainful of superstition and religion, which they tended to regard as superstition. Thus, the United States was not founded on Judeo- Christian principles, nor is it, officially or legally, a Christian nation. It simply happens to be a nation in which a large percentage of the population, currently about seventy three percent and dropping rapidly, self identifies as "Christian". You conservative right wing Christian republicans out there, and you know who you are, are both glad and fortunate that you are wrong every time you claim America is a Christian country, even though you may not know how fortunate you are. Consider; what is officially christian today can be officially something else, who knows what else, tomorrow, officially. Best that it be officially nothing, officially secular, and leave it at that, right? Not that there's anything wrong with the Christian faith, or any other. But governing a nation effectively is not a religious activity, it is a political, economic, and scientific one. When the Christian faith dwindles to a few million american members, as it will inevitably, you'll learn what it feels like to be a true minority, and at that point, you'll be yelling for "minority rights", just as the atheists and gay people do now. Why not simply call it even, my fellow Christian evangelist types, accept the verdict of our founder - fathers, and leave religion out of the American system of government, public schools and all? That way, when the atheists and deists take over, you'll have a sound legal argument to fall back on.

Preaching The Economic Gospel, In the Streets, In Large Numbers

WHAT WE REALLY NEED in America, and for that matter around the world, is a revolution. A revolution espousing the values of Jesus. Why not spread a little Christian value up and down America's streets, in the form of a protest against the status quo, a status quo which is decidedly non Christ-like? Lest we forget, Jesus was himself quite the revolutionary, quite the social and economic reformer. No, he didn't come to overthrow the Hebrew word, but he did, sure as manna lines our greedy pockets, come to augment it a mite. He came, in part, to bring a new economic gospel, one of sharing. So let's do this: let's get out into the streets, and stay there, like the anti-war protesters of old, like the occupiers of Wall Street of later vintage. All protests are good protests. There should be millions of us, in every major city in the world, just for emphasis. We'll all be carrying signs, of sturdy cardboard and plastic, to allow the weakest among us to sign up. And on each sign, at the top, it will say: Render Unto Caesar. Then, just below, will appear the message: Give Unto The Poor. On down, towards the bottom, will appear the words: To Go To Heaven, Be Poor. And there you will have it. The essential message of Jesus Christ, and the perfect prescription for world prosperity and peace. Fascinating, how seldom this obvious economic philosophy is espoused and preached by Christians at the pulpit, or anywhere else, even though the man himself clearly articulated and promulgated it. Here in America, we love our capitalism, and hence, we tend, since most of us tend towards both Christianity AND capitalism, - strange bedfellows at the very least - to ignore, by sweeping under the pew, the obviously socialistic, redistributionist word of Christ. When it comes to redistributing wealth from rich unto poor, this Jesus guy was, as they say, hard core. So let's get out and publicize the truth of Christ a bit. And since these particular words of Christ are so seldom heard, and yet so true and so seminal to what the Prince of Peace actually taught, truly revolutionary they shalt be.

The Great Inter Primate Propietary Selfie War

A PROFESSIONAL HUMAN photographer laid his camera down, got distracted, and a nearby monkey, notm issing a beat, picked it up, and snapped a few selfies. I mean, why not? Who doesn't? This really happened, for real. Fascinatingly, the said simian photos were of the highest quality, irresistibly cute, and of course therefore went viral. What doesn't? This has created an enormous real and potential revenue stream - but for whom? Which, of the two aforementioned primates, should and will have propriety, that oh so sacred concept of intellectual property ownership here in the United States of Avarice? We Americans are among the world's most property fanatic people. We fight over ownership of everything. Beethoven borrowed from Mozart without asking, indeed, in more civilized and less avaricious necks of the woods artists of all sorts borrow from other artists with relative impunity and much less open warfare, but, as they say, only in America. Into the courtroom the selfie intrigue went, P.E.T.A. representing the photogenic monkey, a battery of Harvard educated attorneys at law, et al, representing the interests of the human, who in reality is just another animal, a third chimpanzee. (see Jared Diamond). And although scientific research clearly indicates that the human has no inherent capabilities not inherent to all other species of primates, the human, as you might have guessed, won the law suit, probably because the judge was a human. How fair is that?! But, as Yogi used to say, it aint ovah 'til its ovah, and the Supreme court, currently inhabited by nine human primates, might eventually get a whack at it. We can only hope. The arc of justice is long, said MLK, but at great length it bends towards justice.

Blaming It On the Media

THERE IS A NEW GAME IN TOWN, or rather, a new version of an old one. What was once called "shoot the messenger", is now called "blame it on the media". When we were young, we comforted ourselves with the wizened visages of distinguished intellectuals like Walter Cronkite. As we aged, we traded in Cronkite for thirty year old blonde babes with Ivy League credentials and cleavage. Either we did this because we were losing our minds, and becoming increasingly libidinous, and wanted to, or because our corporate masters told us that we wanted to. Our grainy pixel-laden black and whites became high definition, complexion busting flat screened full color behemoths, three networks ballooned into hundreds, and we no longer left the comfort of our couches to change from the banal to the banal. And, in the post nineteen eighty world of economic decline, we became cynical and angry, and began looking for scapegoats outside ourselves. It is useless trying to explain that America's media are neither pro liberal nor pro conservative, but pro profit, pro seduction, pro sensation, pro advertising revenue and ratings. The problem simply must be, that damned liberal media, which somehow eeks out a profit behind the backs of conservative billionaire owners and a conservative society. Nothing in America is trusted less or blamed more than the media for all our maladies, including empirical science and reasoned discourse. As we spend more and more of our time in front of what was once and should still be called "the boob tube", our hatred of it and seduction by it increases, and, as we well know, we always blame whatever is closest at hand. We despise the heroine even as we inject ourselves with it, unable to escape it, and we condemn the dealer whom we summoned to bring it to us. We are lied to, misled, disrespected, and bored by the insufferable content of the media, but we keep coming back.

Contemplating A Meat Eating Deity

WHEN I WAS TEN YEARS OLD, in 1965, I dearly loved one of my grandmothers, and greatly feared the other. Both women were born in 1890, both were devout Christians as only Victorian women could be, and both would have gladly indoctrinated me, but for the shield erected around me by my parents. Hands off the boy; he'll find his own way, his own faith. For that protection I am grateful. My grandmothers were probably disappointed in their children, but they left their grandchild alone, thank God. And so I started thinking about it. I couldn't understand then, and still can't, why the creator of the universe would require a blood sacrifice to redeem mankind. To whom was this sacrifice made, and by whose choice? Who made the rules? What other choices were available to an omnipotent God? It seemed to me then, as now, that God could have chosen any of a variety of methods of balancing the ledger of his own creation, without a torturous death which, three days later, became moot. I learned that ancient peoples all feared their environment, attributed everything in it to powerful super human beings, and assuming these beings to be hungry for human meat, offered them precisely that in the hope of placating them and gaining their approval. The God of the Old Testament upholds a long tradition of meat eating deities. For me the Christian faith became, and remains, a cult of bloody sacrifice, like many other ancient religions. The christian Bible is a book of many voices and personalities, the inspiration of a diverse God. To me it seems somewhat of an overreaction to put a child to death for insubordination, or to kill fifty thousand people because someone takes a quick peek at a boat under construction. and there can be no worse way, it seems to me, to convey truth, than in a book, which, as Goethe said of all books, are designed at best to give names to our errors. If God is God, God is not good. If God is good, God is not God, it goes. (Was it e e cummings?) Do we really wish to absolve ourselves of responsibility for our bad behavior by embracing torture and death? Seemingly so, in Christiandom. Our descendants will likely marvel that ever such a doctrine was popular.

Failing To defend Yourself

THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY three hundred million guns in the United States, slightly less than one per person, enough to protect most of us, leaving only a few million folks vulnerable to mass murderers, people who are vulnerable by choice, crazy presumed liberals risking their lives by virtue of their unwillingness to defend themselves by packing heat. Thirty percent of American households contain a firearm within. In those households containing weapons, the suicide rate is two and a half times greater than in firearm free households. And yes, the additional suicides are indeed, almost without exception, completed with the in house weaponry. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, so say our conservative colleagues. Accordingly, nothing kills people, other than people. Nothing other than human beings ever does anything. Fishing poles don't catch fish, people catch fish, unassisted. Rifles don't shoot deer, people shoot deer. Cars are not responsible for car crashes, bathtubs have nothing to do with head injuries, and slick floors have never caused anyone to fall. Cars don't kill cats; cats kill cats. Cigarettes don't kill people, an effective advertising message could proclaim; people kill people. (if only J.R. Reynolds had thought of this). Cancer doesn't kill people, and neither do incoming drones. Cancerous cells and their proliferation is, it seems, a personal choice. We have chosen where to stand, in the way of the drone. Thus, we see that every human death is either a suicide, or a murder. This notion disregards the concept of environmental influences, and places full responsibility for our actions squarely upon ourselves. It seems that all we do, we do without assistance or external factors, such as material objects. there are no accomplices to human behavior. An appropriately American dogma, the apex of rugged individualism. Tornadoes don't kill people; guess who kills them? And yet, strangely, somehow, we allow ourselves to be influenced by our environment, and this results in our death; we push aside the broccoli, and go straight to the cake. We choose soda pop over pure sparkling bottled water, perhaps because its cheaper, perhaps because its laden with sugar. Diabetes doesn't kill people. We know who does. In his famous book, "The Myth of Sisyphus", Albert Camus opens with the assertion that the only real moral choice is whether to commit suicide. Camus failed to comprehend that, no, there is no real choice; we are all condemned to commit suicide, or to be murdered by a person using a gun or other weapon as a motif, because, no matter what the circumstances, we all choose to kill ourselves, unless we are murdered first, since only people kill people, people only kill themselves, and each other, because if someone points a gun at you and pulls the trigger, and the gun is loaded, you have either been murdered, or have failed to dodge the bullet, or to defend yourself.

Giving Credit to Christian Terrorists

UNLESS I'M DREAMING, the phrase is "Islamo-terrorism". To omit the word "Islamo", it would seem, is to exonerate the Islamic faith of culpability, which, according to the Americano-conservtive community, simply won't do.When we mention an act of terrorism perpetrated by someone professing to a Moslem, all billion and a half Moslems merit mention. Our conservative colleagues apply an entirely different standard to acts of terrorism perpetrated by people professing to be christians. The lynchings carried out by the KKK have, to my knowledge, never been ascribed to "Christiano-terrorism", and make no mistake; the KKK consists, and always has consisted, entirely of Christians, if only because they claim to be Christian. Terrorists who bomb abortion clinics and murder abortion providers? Christian terrorists, one and all. There was once, in the great Christian state of Arkansas, an organization called "The Covenant, the Sword, and The Arm of the Lord". All the members were devout Christians, so they said. Their purpose was to eliminate all African Americans, homosexuals, and non Christians in general from the face of the Earth, and to establish what they considered to be God's kingdom on Earth. After a few shoot outs and stand offs with federal agents, the group broke up, unless unbeknownst to me they have rallied anew. And last but assuredly not least, we must never forget the "Branch Davidians", under David Koresh, who read from the Bible each and every day; a group of devout christians who stockpiled weapons and all died in a self inflicted blaze of glory. Give credit where credit is due; Moslems and Christians both can be quite competent in committing acts of terrorism.