Distancing One's Self From Duke

DAVID DUKE hasn't been heard from for a while, on the national stage. You'll remember he's the KKK dude who was most vociferous in the nineteen eighties, then went quiet as the hounds of liberalism and political correctness descended upon him. Now he's baaack, endorsing Donald Trump for president. Dude was probably attracted to the Donald due to Trump's vision of a great wall of America along the Rio Grande, bought and paid for with Mexican pecos. Trump knows how to please, knows the secert to politics; no matter how crazy your platform planks, somebody's gonna be attracted to them. Now, republican presidential candidates Cruz and Rubio and the democrats, perhaps feeling a bit desperate, are attacking Trump all over the place, accusing him of failing to distance himself rapidly enough from Duke's endorsement. Trump explained that he is in fact perfectly willing, able, and ready to disavow anyone, at anytime, and is there any reason why we shouldn't believe him? Does anyone seriously believe that someone, anyone running for president, including Donald Trump, would subscribe to KKK views? Let's be reasonable. The people who don't want Trump to be president are desperate, willing to do or say anything to defeat him. He disavowed Duke, just not fast or loud enough, it seems. The lesson: when running away from a poisonous political endorsement, run fast. Ironic is the fact that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are both the type who, but a generation or two ago, might well have welcomed an endorsement from an unrepentant bigot such as David duke, but, in our modern politically correct, ostensibly non racist times, its a non starter. One must choose one's endorsements discreetly. Conservative politics have evolved toward deceny, at least marginally, and that perhaps is the greatest endorsement of all.

Putting Foot In Mouth

SOMEONE ASKED ME if I ever put my foot in my mouth. I was tempted to respond that no, I didn't, but I could, since I am quite flexible. Instead I said "about every ten minutes", trying to be self deprecatingly funny. What actually seems to happen most often is related, but different. I end up saying things I stand behind, and believe to be the truth, and other people are utterly appalled, and no doubt would say that I had stuck my foot in my mouth, or something equally horrible. Often this happens in context with some remark I make about the two great bugaboos, religion and politics. My sisxt grade teacher, fifty years ago, told us never to discuss religion and politics, and I can see why, but I didn't like the advice then, and I don't like it now, though I have learned when to follow it. Several months ago, when I turned sixty and joined the local senior center, people started inviting me to church, as if I had spent my entire life confused or agnostic, and could use a bit of education. My first, reflex reaction was to accept all offers, and promise to appear in the pews later. But it never happened. Upon further reflection, I realized I had no interest of sitting in church with a bunch of republicans, and listen to them talk about a man who said "render unto Caesar", and "give unto the poor". In my mind, Jesus and the TEA party just do not mix. So I never showed up to church. Eventually, a couple of inquiries came in, why hadn't I been seen on Sunday? It would have been easy to dismissively concoct and tender excuses, but, no, not me, I like to go for the truth, the whole truth, particulary is someone asks an intrusive question, and is likely to be offended by an honest answer. Telling people that I had thought about it, and come to the conclusion that I didn't want to attend church with a bunch of conservatives, and there you go; foot in mouth. Only, not in my mind. Theirs maybe, but not mine.

Surviving, and Thriving

I WANT THE HUMAN RACE to survive and prosper, long after I'm dead. In a way, you'd think anyone would. Not my sister. She doesn't care what happens after she's gone, logically enough. And that's fine, but...gee whiz. I love life, being alive, and it comforts me to believe that after I die many other people will have long, happy and productive lives, in small measure because I lived, long ago. I want to believe this, it comforts me somehow, so, even if I don't entirely believe it, I believe its possible. Maybe its my religion, belief in a happy human future. Imagine the year 2100, or 2200, or 2300. A nice, healthy blue and green Earth, with several billion humans and other lifeforms thriving, and colonies all over the solar system, and missions to the stars. Our modern advances in computers, agricultural yield, and medicine prove that this beautiful future is quite within the realm of real possibility. There is no inevitable doom, other than the end of time itself. There are many other hopeful signs as well. The human race is better educated, more prosperous, and healthier than ever. Enough of us are aware of the threat of man made climate change, over population, and over consumption that something is being done about it. The need for sustained, and sustainable, societal evolution is now widely accepted. Fear and superstition are slowly but steadily being replaced by reason and optimism. And fortunately, we have reached the necessary critical mass of people who understand, that in order for humanity to survive long term, it must boldly go where no man (or woman) has gone before, it must establish habitats for itself beyond this earth, in as many places as possible, out in the great frontier of outer space. Einstein was once asked to write a message to include in a time capsule. In it, he told our descendants that if they have not become more compassionate and kinder than we were, may the devil take them. Amen to that.

Telling Ted Cruz the Truth

I HAVE A REAL BAD EMOTIONAL PROBLEM, and I need help. So why not try the readers? Who knows? Its hard to admit the problem, but once you do, you're on your way. Anyone who reads this website might guess what the problem is. Anger. Hatred. Anger and hatred towards conservative Christians. I simply cannot abide extreme right wing conservatism and Christianity combined, in an individual, as a package. A right wing atheist, fine. Gimme Ayn Rand. No prob. Jesse jackson, and Christian socialism, fine and dandy, no problem. But conservative, competitive, capitalistic, cut throat, corporate economics is the exact opposite of what jesus teaches, what with his "render unto Caesar" and "give unto the poor". Jesus Christ is a hard core confiscator and redistributor of wealth, just like some left wing liberal democrat, no question. Amazing, the number of weird ways conservative Christians try to wiggle around it, try to wiggle around their blatantly contraditctory beliefs. The ppor dears simplly cannot bear to have their sacred "Jesus guns and money" coalition questioned, let alone dismanteld, as I just have here. Jesus did not say study hard, work hard, don't give up, move up, save money, get wealthier as you age, and you have a right to keep your money, because you earned it, and no government should have the right to take it away from you and give it to someone else. he said "render unto Caesar", and : "give unto the poor". The real Jesus, the socialist Jesus. The solution to anger and hatred is self expression, bolstered by, as they say, having the facts on your side. Conservatives are angry because the think government is destroying their religious liberty by making gay marriage legal, and making discrimination illegal, and taking people's money away from them. Poor Christian cake baker now has to fill order for gay marrriage cake with gay marriage messages on it, and they think this is violating their religious freedom to discriminate, and driving them out of business, and turning America into a nation hostile to the christian faith, which proves that these people are lunatics. America is indeed a non christian country, by law, but not a nation hostile to Christians, for heaven's sake. But try convincing the Jesus guns and money crowd of that simple truth.

Stating Simple Truths

WHEN ASKED TO STATE the most amazing truth revealed by science and mathematics, Einstein replied: "compound interest". Anyone who starts a savings account, and keeps track of it, can attest. Einstein responded to another question by saying that he, to his knowledge, had contributed no more than two original thoughts during his lifetime. He also said that "I have no special talent. I am merely extremely curious." Humble man, that Einstein. This agrees with Goethe, who said: "all the great thoughts have long since been thought. What remains is to think them anew." Richard Feynman expressed his belief that the most important finding of modern science is that the world is made up of atoms. Presumably, he meant no disrespect to Democritus, who made the same assertion a couple thousand years ago. Feynman further articulated that the universe is constructed symmetrically, a notion he believed constituted the second most important scientific truth. Buddhism begins with "mind foreruns all conditions", and Christianity begins with : "do unto others, that which you would have others do unto you." Thus we see a pattern emerging. The essence of truth is purity in simplicity. Black lives matter. All lives matter, reply the European-Americans. What we must not miss here is the simple truth that no African-American in his or her right mind would dispute that all lives matter, but they might, with all due respect, wish to point out that white lives have almost always mattered, but that black lives have not, until quite recently, and therefore it serves a higher purpose to bring special attention to the value of people "of color". Sometimes, even simple truths can get lost in the shuffle.

The Free Market, and the Conservative Christian Community

THE SMALL SOUTHERN TOWN where I for some reason live has long since been invaded and conquered by an army of right wing Christians. These are people who vote republican, the more right wing extreme the better, and claim allegiance to Joshua, son of Joseph, whom they have misnamed "Jesus Christ", a name he never could possibly have called himself, since it is from the Latin, not the Aramaic. Strange, this seemingly incompatible and unholy alliance between the money changers and the faithful flock. The person these folks actually embrace, unbeknownst even to themselves, is the one and only Adam Smith, of "The Wealth of Nations" fame. The invivisble hand of the free market distributes all wealth according to its proper location, according to hard work and proper, moral bahavior, said Smith in 1776. This process makes some people wealthy, and renders others poor, but always according to natural, and thus legitimate forces of the great Christian god of capitalism. Smith also said that govenment action on behalf of the working poor is always justified, but government action on behalf of business owners is never justified, but our conservative Christian colleagues seem somehow never to mention this. We do things backwards in modern America, or rather, the conservative Christian community does. The economics of the modern day republican conservative Christian stalwart is the very mirror opposite of the doctrine spoken by Jesus, and contained in the very Bibles they sanctimonioulsy carry on their persons, but never seem to find time to actually read. My seventy and eighty year old friends over at the senior center seem to think that Jesus was imself a card carrying free marketer, who was content to let the wealth accrue to the ambitious, and to allow the working poor to fend for themselves, and heaven help the man who even whispers the word "labor union." When they sit in their many and various churches and pass the collection plate, one wonders whether they distribute the money among the community's poor, or whether it might by chance enter into the kingdom of the bank accounts of the already enriched, or perhaps the most reverend minister of the Word of the Lord, who doubtless ordains that the the time share condo and Cadillac of the righteous shall be well lubricated, and replete with all manner of godly accessories. One wonders, but the answer is probably right in front of us all, if only we care to have eyes that see.

Giving Up Gitmo, One Way, Or Another

YO, NORDE AMERICANO; the Big O wants to shut down Gitmo, just the terrorist detainee part of it, and one way or another, he intends to do just that, presumably by executive order. He has wanted to do this since before he was sworn in in 2009; he would have preferred to do it with congressional cooperation, but as we know, securing congressional cooperation for anything these days is rather like pulling teeth. What else is there, other than executive orders, tool wise, in the presidential too kit, in these polarized political times? Now our right wing extremist brethren and sistern will really blew their tops. Just for the record, no president has ever broken the law until a high court says that he has. If the U.S. supreme Court eventually says that Obama's spate of executive orders is illegal, by a four to four vote, or whatever, then so be it, illegal they are. Legality in America is whatever the high courts says it is. The right wingers, however, in their unquenchable zeal to implicate a presumably innocent until proven guilty chief executive, have repeatedly accused the president of acting "lawlessly", illegally, without regard to the constitution, blah blah blah. What they omit is that, according to that very constitution, one is indeed innocent until proven and verified guilty. But why should we expect our conservative judges, jury, and executioner right wing militia types to give a fig about all that inconvenient detail? We seem to be forgetting that executive orders really don't matter much; they only have the force of law until the president who issues them leaves office, which, in Obama's case, will be regrettably soon. Also lost in the shuffle is the inconvenient truth that America's very ownership and control of the Guantanamo military base is, by any reasonable standard of jurisprudence, strictly illegal, the land upon which it sits having been in effect stolen by the good ole U.S. of A., in the aftermath of the Spanish-american War of 1898, itself of dubious legality. (remember the Maine, and its boiler plate explosion mistaken by Yankee war mongers for a foreign attack). During consequent 1898 peace "negotiations", another of our imperialist presidents, William McKinley, extracted the land grant at gunpoint, for a paltry fifteen million dollars or so. Lest we forget, any contract entered into under coercion is inherently illegal, sort of like all those native American thingies we so love to overlook. But far be it for us to ever expect our war mongering conservative colleagues to comprehend this.

Cleaning Up, Hopefully

FOR WHATEVER REASON, for a long time now, I have had an uneasy feeling about mainstream American culture. Not fringe American culture, if there is such a thing; mainstream American culture. Maybe its the latest mass murder, the one in Michigan, which has me spooked. I try not to write an article about each and every American mass murder; after all, one can only do and say so much; I usually check in about every fifth one, and this is the fifth since my last vent. I chuckle when I recall how often I used to say that if American culture were a horse, it would be shot out of mercy. I can't put my finger on it, but I still feel that way. Something just isn't right. Maybe its the fact that, out on the streets in public, most of the time strangers either ignore me, frown at me, or nod stiff lipped, which is what most men do. And I actually live in a very small southern town, the sort which is supposedly known for open, warm friendliness. That stereotype is nothing but a rumor, I fear, or perhaps a wish. If I smile, strangers often smile, and if I don't, they never do. As if they are saying: "I'm willing to be friendly, but only if you're friendly first". Whatever. And heck, I really don't look menacing, or unfriendly, or threatening in any way, unless I'm dreaming, which, I admit, I might be. All I know is, I try to smile a lot. For a long time now, people have seemed angry to me, as if resentful of the world in general. And, interestingly, more and more people are starting to notice this, and talk about it. More and more often, in the media, Americans are being characterized as "angry", and resentful of the establishment, whatever the "establishment" is. Back in the nineteen seventies I thought the establishment consisted of people who dressed properly and voted for republicans, and supported the Viet nam war as an act of uncritical patriotism. Now, it seems, the establishement is seen as the sum total of those who live in Washington D.C., and who have held political power there for longer than a few minutes. There's something called the "liberal elite", something called "the conservative elite", and something called "the establishment", whatever all that might actually be. Any quick listen to conservative talk radio reveals all this. All the hosts are very very conservative, very hateful towards anything remotely liberal, and almost equally resentful of anyone who might be implicated as a "R.I.N.O.". Woe to any republican who gives a liberal, or President Obama, the time of day. To compromise is to surrender to weakness. No matter what obama or any liberal proposes, oppose it, its pure evil. We tell ourselves that we are polarized, then we proceed to polarize ourselves. To meet in the middle, with a smile and a handsake, is utterly out of the question. All indications of courtesy and respect are seen as "political correctness", a disease. Perhaps all this is the end product of a nation perpetually at war, with much of the world, and within itself. Or, maybe, just maybe, its a temporary abberation, an electrical-chemical reaction to ambiant artificial electromagnetic radiation, and but a passing phase, while we go about the business of cleaning up the environment, our poisonous economic and political atmosphere, and our very troubled souls.

Cooking Up Excuses For Non Cooperation

TIM COOK, CEO OF APPLE COMPUTER, is a person of the highest integrity who intends to donate his entire fortune to charity, and serves the cause of tolerance by openly embracing his homosexuality. The fly in the ointment is his current refusal to cooperate with the feds by providing the FBI with the key to a single cell phone, a cell phone of great importance, the one used by a team of mass murderers. One can argue that his position is justified on the grounds that private property must be protected from government intrusion, which he does, and that the unlocking of even a single cell phone begins a slippery slope down which the country might slide towards complete government surveillance of everyone's phone activity. Cook uses both arguments, the legal, and the technical-theoretical. Neither, however, is valid. Any decent hacker will tell you that Apple could very well provide the fibbies with the key to unlock a single phone of interest, then throw the key away, without endangering the rest of us, and our smart phone privacy. Any legal expert will tell you that, in reality, the slippery slope argument is pointless, pure speculation. Not only that, but Bill gates himself has come out in favor of full and complete cooperation by Apple. it is worth noting, however, that is has now been revealed that the feds now have a list of twelve other cell phones they would like to have unlocked, and that apple has cooperated under similar circumstances no less than seventy times previously. Slippery slopes do not always result in disastrous slippage, though they admittedly do sometimes, and, after all, if the information retrieved on the phone in question results in useful information being gleaned, so much the better. The rest of us can still go about our electronic business, fully encrypted, texting, sexting, and emailing at will. The American government seems usually to be on the wrong side, but not this time.

Socialism, Working

IN CAPITALISM, goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed competitively, by privately owned businesses, for profit. In socialism, goods and services are produced, distributed, and consumed cooperatively, in publicly owned enterprises, non profit. Both systems work just fine, if given the chance. Machines must be operated properly, and maintained. Each time a conservative colleague asserts that "socialism doesn't work", I try, usually in vain, to point out that local fire and police departments, streets, bridges, state and federal highways, sewer and water systems, public schools, and numerous other providers of services are owned publicly, and operated on a non profit basis, yet somehow manage to get the job done. The conservative always tries to argue, something about "these are special circumstances", rare examples of non capitalistic activity, which are actually supported by the capitalistic economy, and are therefore not true socialism. The arguments are always trash talk. Just the other day Marco Rubio suggested that anyone wanting socialism should simply move to a socialist country, apparently unaware that we all, including himself, already live in one. Of course, one ought never to expect very much comprehension of reality from any conservative politician. All of the above are indeed examples are socialism, pure and simple. Some small colleges hire conservative history professors, of which there are only a handful, fortunately, who stand in front of their classes, and proclaim "socialism doesn't work", even as they get their paycheck from a socialized entity, their employer, the small college. Small budgets, small minds. Larger universities are usually able to avoid hiring such provincials. Can you imagine a privately owned police department, in business for proift? You'd have to decide which police department to summon for help, since, in a free enterprise economy, there would naturally be more than one police department in every community, competing like dollar stores or fast food restaurants. That wouldn't work at all.

Following the Christian Conservative Christ

THIS TIME, POPE FRANCIS the whatever number he is has really gone and done it. He has angered the American Christian conservative community, and for that, he shall surely rot in Limbaugh-Cruz hell. The vicar of christ has made the terrible mistake of espousing Christian values, which, as we know, one must never do when speaking with our American Christian conservative community. Build bridges, not walls, says the Pope to the Trump. Within the American Christian conservative community, capitalism is king, and the free market Christ towers above all, even Trump towers. One must work for one's living, and, failing that, one must starve, because, within the American Christian conservative community, free handouts and government welfare programs only enhance the plight of the poor, by rendering them dependant on others, and a burden unto the wealthy, who, within Christian conservadom, wish dearly to hold on to their hard earned money. Put those loaves of bread back wherever they came from, distribute fishes to nobody, join the TEA pary, andmake 'em work for it, for we are taxed enough already, and Caesar can only ask for so much. Besides, what would Caesar possibly do with all that tax revenue? Instead of strengthening the military to defend freedom's free market land in the name of the capitalistic Christ, Caesar would probably fritter it away on, you guessed it, the unseemly poor, whom the New Testament socialistic Christ would prepare for heaven, and, doubtless, further mooching off the power that resideth thereat. It turns out, you see, that the Holy father is something of a socialist, just like the new testament version of Jesus, the version disdained by our christian conservative brethren and sistern, in that he thinks folks oughta render unto Caesar, sell whatsoever they hast, and give unto the poor, and by so doing reduce themselves to a condition of voluntary poverty, in order to steer the camel around the eye of the needle, pass go, and enter into the kingdom heaven. The American Christian conservative Christ is a bit different to the one portrayed in the gospels. The conservative christ shall keep all the poor from entering into our american borders, unless they can contribute to the free market by selling their labor at the fair market price, which is defined as as little as the employer can get away with. If only Pope Francis would stop following that penniless, homeless teacher from Nazareth, and look to Adam Smith instead, he'd be on the road to Christian conservative salvation.

Ted Cruz Cleaning Grout

ACCORDING TO TED CRUZ, conservative republican presidential candidate, nobody is qualified to become president of the United States unless he or she begins each day on his or her knees. Cruz didn't specify whether he was referring to cleaning grout, having oral sex, or praying; let's play it safe and go with the prayer concept, and leave it at that. Only a devout Christian is qualified to be president, according to his santicmonious devoutness. This is bad news for George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others, including Abraham Lincoln. None of these folks was a devout Christian. Washington had a strict policy: never kneel to anyone, God or man. Formally an Episcopalian, a faith in which one genuflects at the drop of a hat, Washington was never on his knees in church, nor anywhere else. He didn't take communion, preferring to leave the building early. While he was president, Washington was visited by a group of ministers, who requested that the president declare Jesus Christ his lord and savior. Washington wouldn't do it. Thomas Jefferson thought it was hilarious, and said: "the old fox has outrun the hounds". Washington, a notoriously taciturn man, never talked about his religion, or about much of anything. Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had an outstanding wager concerning the true nature of Washington's religiosity. Neither man ever collected. Your best bet is that George was a deist, which most intelletcuals of the day were, including jefferson, John Adams, Madison, and Monroe. (see: "Nature's God: the Heretical Origins of the American Republic", by Mathew Stewart). lincoln never talked much about his religion either; nobody ever heard him describe himself as a Christian. You can count on Ted Cruz to refuse to accept these historical facts; you can hope that while on his knees, Cruz prays for a little common sense, some good history books, and intelligence, which he will not receive if he is only down there to clean grout.

Accepting the Limits of the Sacred

ANTONIN SCALIA considered evolution a guess, a very bad one, and believed that since the constitution doesn't mention gay marriage, neither should we. He enver said whether he considered the second amendment to apply to any arms other than muzzle loading muskets, bows, arrows, and knives; probably not, since he was an "originalist". To Scalia, the constitution and the Holy Bible were sacred, God given, above and beyond modern interpretation. It is one thing to believe such things, quite another to never question them, thus to never improve them. However wonderful and brilliant Scalia may have been, he succumbed to uncritical, dogmatic thinking, unwilling to question his fondest convictions. He stands as a perfect example of why the United States needs a new constitution; so we won't be held hostage to what we think people thought and meant by their words two hundred years ago. Our conservative colleagues are already insisting that Obama won't be president long enough to nominate a replacement, and vowing that no matter who he nominates, the person will be rejected. So it goes for people who claim to strictly interpret the constitution. That would mean that this year's supreme court session will carry on with eight justices. Our conservative colleagues, we can rest assured, are above petty politics, and place the nation's business above their personal preferences. Is it unreasonable to assert that the constitution and the law are neither liberal nor conservative, or shouldn't be? Evidently. The constitution is dead, as justice Scalia maintained. Words are inherently imprecise; all reading is interpretation. Aren't words therefore immortal? Scalia said that original intent is everything, the only thing. So how could he possibly argue that modern Americans have the right to bear arms that weren't even in existence in 1787? Perhaps he believed that an AK47 is the same thing as a muzzle loading musket. Since he is more liberal than conservative, Obama will likely nominate someone who is not very conservative, a liberal he hopes will not be too liberal for congressional approval. That's what its come to, what we've come to. You can look at the career of any supreme court justice, and and categorize him or her politically, although they often surprsie us. If we had a new, more relevant constitution, we could address AK47s, gay marriage, abortion, and a whole host of other contemporary issues, thus cutting back on all this liberal-conservative nonsense. The constitution is not sacred. Nothing on paper is. All documents can be improved; if only we could accept that fact.

Millenials Solving Problems

THERE ARE MORE TONS of plastic than fish in the world's oceans. We add eight million tons a year, a truckload every minute. American conservatives do not believe the plastic is actually there, they believe that it is a liberal hoax, but it really is there. Huge clumps of it float freely. Conservatives believe that no matter how much plastic we dump into the oceans, it doesn't matter, because the forces of nature will simply "take care of it." They won't, of course. We need to clean it up before we drown in it. A twenty one year young man in the Netherlands has just the plan to get the job done. He's been working on his plan since he was seventeen, and he has a lot of support, financially, thanks to the internet, and good old Dutch ingenuity. He claims he can scoop up and recycle about half the world's oceanic plastic garbage within about ten years, using a large system of V shaped nets in the Pacific. This Dutch kid'll put his system into place, the ocean's will become clean, problem solved, and our conservative American colleagues will claim that there was never any problem in the first place, bless their little hearts. That's fine, no matter. The good news is that the generation known as the "millenials", those born between 1982 and 2000, are starting to shine. We of the previous generations gave them the problems, and they'll give us the solutions. They have no intention of living a their lives watching the planet be destroyed.

Longing For A Popular, Revolutionary Foreign Policy

THE UNITED STATES, just a few hours ago, accused the Soviet Union of aggression, in the Crimea, the Ukraine, and Syria. This accusation would seem, at first glance, to reside safely on the side of accuracy; however, The Democratic Republic of Russia, or whatever its called these days, wishes to inform the American representatives that the term "Soviet Union" no longer applies, that there is no Russian aggression occurring anywhere, and furthermore accuses the United States of trying to restart the Cold War. The Unites States could perhaps argue that if dropping bombs on and rolling tanks through the above named places is not "aggression", then we simply don't know what aggression is, and we think we do. Undoubtedly, the Russians think they are acting in "self defense", or something of that nature, not aggression. All this does not auger well for the success of peace talks concerning Syria, or for the ability of the United States and the former Soviet Union to negotiate anything. Russia insists that, in order for Syrian cease fire talks to commence, all hostilities must stop. In other words, in order for talks to begin for the purpose of creating a cease fire, there must be a cease fire. That would certainly make things easier. The United States might reply that if a cease fire is a pre-requirement to cease fire talks, there is no need for cease fire talks. Perhaps we begin to see the obvious folly of international relations conducted by elite rulers, who claim to be acting in the best interests of the people they claim to represent, but obviously do not. If only the people of the United Sates and the people of Russia could act on their own behalf, make foreign policy decisions themselves instead of turning over the process to an elite, inane few, the world would be a more sane, and less violent place. But that would require a revolution.

Seeing Two Sides of A Coin, or Failing To

IT IS BECOMING POSSIBLE to engineer babies. So advanced is our modern science that we can carefully examine the genetic make up of a tiny fetus, and change it. Amazing. It is becoming possible to determine, choose, and change hair color, eye color, and I.Q. for people still in the womb. Also possible to find and eliminate genes destined to cause horrible diseases like Parkinson's, cancer, muscular dystrophy, before they ever have a chance to manifest i a person's post natal life.. Two thirds of we the American people are against all this, all of it. Two thirds of us are against having the power to choose hair and eye color, and against he power to find and eliminate disease causing genes. Against all of it. The same two thirds who don't want gene manipulation for cosmetic purposes also don't want it for disease prevention! It makes one wonder whether the people who answered the question fully understood the question. Or whether they were, for the most part, basing their opinions on broad based, moral and religious grounds. Either circumstance is sufficient to produce an intellectual disaster, such as this survey seems to be. Who in their right mind would possibly object to eliminating all genetic based disease? OK, sure, fine. let's not even get started with this business of giving wealthy young snobbish racist American parents the power to choose their oncoming kid's I.Q or looks. That indeed would be a rocky road. But refusing to get involved in eliminating Parkinson's or cancer from someone's future? Is there anyone who can see the difference, who is in favor of the good opportunity and against the bad one? Surely there is, there must be, and it is to be hoped we start hearing more from these enlightened, reasonable souls.

Making Prosperity Happen

IF YOU MAKE a hundred dollars digging ditches in America, you pay a higher income tax than if you make the same money investing in the stock market, and that just don't seem right - to anyone. Bernie Sanders, who makes Hillary Clinton look conservative and capitalistic, proposes a transaction fee on all stock purchases. With this new tax revenue Sanders would pay for free college, or at least some of it. Throw in a modest yet reasonable increase in the capital gains tax, and Wall Street finally begins to pay the American people back, belatedly. Such a tax would slow down the frenetic day traders with their super fast computers, and possibly smooth out some of the volatility which has plagued the markets of late, without slowing down the market unreasonably or bringing capitalism and the American way to a halt. Great Britain already has a transaction tax, and the rest of Europe will soon. Since most American wealth, or much of it, is safely hidden beyond our borders to avoid contributing taxes to the rest of us, perhaps the owners of this wealth should be vigorously encouraged to bring it back home - or go join it. No residency without taxation, something like that. In our modern American economy we need more than billionaires providing "financial services" for the purpose of becoming multi-billionaires. We need more than a vast army of accountants, attorneys, and stockbrokers quibbling over and clipping coins. We need production of real, tangible material wealth. How about some food, clothing, and shelter? Throw in some infrastructure and education, and we're on our way to economic health. If we could manufacture some real prosperity in america, if only as a mild diversion from our paper shuffling and litigating, we might even eventually become as prosperous and wealthy as all those socialistic European countries we seem so determined, strangely, to avoid emulating.

Talking About Racism To conservatives, and In Federal Court

THE CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME to roost in Ferguson, Missouri, which is a town you've heard of. Put another way, what goes around is coming around. The feds have finally lost patience, and filed suit in federal court. The racism in Ferguson is just too obvious, and can no longer be tolerated. Too bad Michael Brown had to die to prove it. Or, maybe the cops had no choice but to kill him, as our conservative colleagues tend to say. Either way, you can't ignore the black folks going to jail and the white folks getting probation for the same crimes, or the black colored traffic tickets, or the police dogs - evidently, its pretty horrible, and everybody in town knows about it, and has for a very long time. Racism is rampant in Ferguson, Missouri, and you wonder; is it even remotely possible that racism is out and about in other locales across the fruited plain in freedom's land? Maybe, but don't try telling that to a good American conservative, to whom all mention of possible racism is America is an intrusion of big government, or trouble making for the sake of profit, or other crazy things. The conservative attitude seems to be; get the government out of our citizen's lives, and let our communities decide for themselves, by their own choices and actions, privately, how to deal with issues such as race. The only problem with this is that you end up with a racist society, because, well, the white race is full of racists. So maybe a few basic racial equality laws, and their enforcement, is not altogether evil, although, to talk to to conservatives, you might think so.

Responding, Or Not...

LAST APRIL I TURNED sixty, retired, and decided to start having a really good time. I went to college, for free, and joined the senior center in my small southern American town. Elderly folks in the morning, hordes of twenty year olds by afternoon. Quite a contrast, and I felt out of place both places. Too young in the morning,, and too old by afternoon.. I like the senior center crowd because they don't constantly look at their smart phones. They are, however, almost all of them politically conservative Christians, a combination I find revolting. I like the youngsters because many of them seem ready for a revolution, Bernie Sanders style. Plus, they seem more open minded, better listeners, surprisingly. One day an eighty five year old lady asked me about my "background." I replied that my teaching career was long and rough edged, due to the fact that I taught American history, and I insisted on telling the truth, which'll get you fired. The truth, I explained to the elderly conservative Christian lady, is that the United States was not founded on Judeo-christian principles, nor was it intended to be. Quite the opposite, in fact.The United States, alas, is a by product of the scientific revolution, the enlightenment, which is the opposite of religion. Our most prominent founders, folks like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and George Washington, tended not to be christian. My lady friend wasn't having any of it. Obviously upset at my heresy, she repeatedly interrupted me, as if by stopping my words she was wiping out bad history, avoiding my horrible lies. Her reaction reminded of of students, parents, and administrators in American public schools, many of whom have twisted their religious beliefs around their perception of history. Another senior center lady kept looking at the cover of a book I was toting around, Mathew Stewart's: "Nature's God: the Heretical origins of the American Republic", so I asked her what her reading preferences were. None, she proudly replied, except for the Bible. I was proud of myself for not responding to that.

Fearing America

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, it is remotely possible that other countries live in perpetual fear, or terror, of these, our beloved United States of America. Hard to believe though it may seem. The very notion of any foreign nation being apprehensive about the greatest and most virtuous nation on Earth seems crazy. Why would anyone fear a country which has a mere eight hundred military bases on foreign soil, and a measly seven or so thousand nuclear warheads? Go figure. And, hell, the United States has only invaded two or three, at last count, countries around the world over the past couple of decades; not too bad. It could be worse. But everyone sees things differently. For North Korea to test ballistic missiles might not meet with America's approval, but, surely we can agree that it is understandable, if you factor in fear, and the instinctive tendency of humans to react defensively to perceived threats, which, among humans, one always must. One wonders what the North Koreans think they can do to defend themselves against Yankee aggression with only a couple of ballistic missiles and maybe one or two primitive nukes - well, you just feel better if you try to defend yourself, even if it a meager effort. The Chinese could easily put a stop to North Korean weapons seeking, but choose not to, largely because they understand that it isn't really that great a threat. They'll change their tune fast if one of North Korea's little missile tests end up smack on top of Shanghai by mistake. We Americans all know that it is very unlikely that the good ole USA will actually put North Korea out of business, even if the North Koreans don't know it. But of course, that could all change, if, for instance, someone like Donald Trump ends up in charge of American foreign policy.

Fat, Starving, Or Both

THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC, like most manifestations of American culture, has gone global. Perhaps this is a positive development, a sign of spreading prosperity, unless its root cause is globalization of American fast food. If it is, we're in trouble. Time was when you didn't see all that man corpulent sorts upon the fruited plain. Those days are long gone, along with balanced home cooked meals, immovable telephones and remote-free TV. Traditionally, in most parts of the world, obese people have been rich; american fast food permits poor fat to be fat as well. The Chinese'll find out soon enough; American fast food kills, fast, or slow, your choice.. The USA is so obese that we are beginning to take extreme measures. In some places in freedom's land school children are required to consume fruits and vegetables, or suffer severe consequences. The Bible says that disobedient children must be put to death, and, after all, America is a Christian nation, so say our Christian conservative brethren and sistern. Obese people in America are paying to have their intestines surgically separated from their stomachs. Mayor Bloomberg tried to impose a soft drink size limit in New York, but was thwarted by the forces of libertarian freedom. Meanwhile, the fast food industry continues its meteoric explosion of prosperity, decades ongoing now, as ever new and clever forms of the stuff are invented, marketed, and digested by the expanding masses, at home and abroad. And yet, twenty percent of American children do not get enough to eat everyday, we are told. In a country overflowing with cheap food, a huge surplus of it. In America, if present trends continue, everyone will either be morbidly obese, or starving to death.

Being Consistently, Conservatively Hateful

EARLY ON, Obama was an incompetent boob who was accidentally destroying America through sheer stupidity. A really stupid dude. When the obvious flaw in that line of reasoning became obvious to a candid world, obvious to all except American conservatives, the right wingers were forced to develop a new narrative, which they did, in great earnest. In the new and improved version, Obama is really rather smart, and is destroying America not accidentally, but by design. Evil, malicious design, changing America forever, ruining her, destroying her, as we rush headlong into a world of Obamacare and gay marriage. The destruction has already happened, in this scenario, and if the next president is a democrat, will be engraved in stone, forever unalterable. Marco Rubio is giving this version, over, and over, and over again, and even his fellow republican presidential candidates are making fun of Rubio's repetition. Evidently, at the present time, there is still a slim chance of bringing America back to her traditional and glorious form. At least, that seems to be the standard conservative line; Obama has already destroyed the country, but the country can be rebuilt, if only we elect a conservative government, and keep it in place....forever. This is no exaggeration. This is what these fruitcakes actually believe, or have deceived themselves into believing. And if it sounds a bit crazy, that's because it is. America is still here. A brief look around America is enough to convince even the slowest learner that, really, the old girl is pretty much the same as always, and that Obama and his horde of radical liberals haven't really changed her all that much. It sure is hard to accept the truth, no matter how obvious, no matter how simple, when an invented narrative, a lie, serves our purposes better. The purpose of conservatives is to hate Obama, to hate progressives -no matter what. They hated him before he was even sworn in. Perish the thought of giving somebody a fair chance, and a fair opinion. If nothing else, the haters are consistent.

Giving Credit To The Ladies

THOSE OF A CERTAIN AGE will remember Gloria Steinem from the nineteen sixties and seventies, the radical feminist who fought, and still fights, for women's rights. Isn't she the one who once said that a woman needs a man no more than a fish needs a bicycle, or something like that? She's in her eighties now, but feistier than ever. Gloria, and many of her feminist ilk, seem to believe that the proper and matriotic thing for all American women to do is to support Hillary Clinton for president. Granted, there is a certain logic in this, but in truth, although Hillary indeed has her lioness's share of the female vote, and might become president with women's support, all the other candidates, including the republicans, including Cruz and Trump, have a fair share of women supporting them as well. It would seem that American woman have diverse political beliefs, based on far more than simply gender affiliation. Fifty one or two percent of American voters are female, so its a relevant issue. The female gender can make or break any politician. It could be argued that we all, as good citizens, should choose our candidates based on issues and values, rather than gender, in this supposedly enlightened era of gender equality, but, what the hell. Gloria further says that girls who support Bernie Sanders are there because that's where the boys are. Whatever. The news, Gloria, is that the boys are not with Bernie, but rather, with Trump, and Cruz, and Rubio. Plenty of girls there too. Isn't Gloria being a bit, um, self defeating by assuming that any American woman who does not support Hillary Clinton has some really base motive for not doing so? C'Mon, Miss Steinem. With all due respect for your accomplishments, your spirit and all, maybe you should give your fellow members of the American female gender credit for being somewhat more liberated and enlightened than you might think. After all, aren't you the one who helped make them that way?

Deep Sixing Outer Space

THOSE OF A CERTAIN AGE will remember that in the nineteen sixties the United States was plunging head long and ever upward into outer space, with high hopes for future space flight. Then public interest waned, funding dried up, the bill for the Viet Nam war came due, and we (America) ended up with the space shuttle, and a dead end. The Russians, meanwhile, bless their socialistic hearts, kept right on going, and even as we speak, they have a fine rocket engine, the DM-180 they call it, which takes cargo, including American cargo, into space all the time. Each rocket engine costs thirty million dollars, and the United States uses Russian rockets to launch its satellites, including spy satellites, into orbit, because it has no rocket engine of its own. Now, there is interest in the U.S. actually purchasing some of these rocket engines from the Russians, and an acrimonious debate about the whole topic is underway in political circles. Senator John McCain thinks its very dangerous to maintain this dependency on our enemy. When Russia launches one of America's spy satellites into space, how do we know that they aren't stealing information off of it at the same time? Well, we don't. Hence, the uproar in congress. The United States has nobody to but itself to blame for this predicament. First, it was obviously a mistake to end the American space program with only a dead end space shuttle, with no other long range plans or goals. Secondly, it was a mistake to make an enemy out of the former Soviet Union. Neither was unavoidable. But why not cooperate with the Russians, and others, in outer space? Countries such as India and China already have their own plans; working together would be considerably less expensive for all concerned. But don't hold your breath; the United States will undoubtedly find a way to make sure this never happens.

Calling Liberals "Progressives"

WE NO LONGER use the word "liberal" to describe left wingers. Now we use the word "progressive", or so it seems. At least liberals do. Conservatives, however, still call liberals liberals. Why shouldn't they? Conservatives, especially in the mainstream American conservative media, have succeedded in demonizing the word "liberal" so completely that the liberals have all abandoned it, and the conservatives wave it like a blood soaked victory banner. But what's in a name, right? The only difference is, Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton are both accusing each other of not being "true progressives", instead of attacking each other for not being true liberals, or liberal enough. This is of course the same game the conservative republicans play, in reverse. By investing all this time and energy into demonizing the word "liberal" out of existence, didn't the conservative geniuses realize that the libs would merely replace it with another word, like the word "homosexual" has been replaced with "gay"? The word "progressive" has been in wide circulation before, about a hundred years ago, and here it is again, rebooted and ready to go, dodging conservative slings and arrows, for the time being. Who knows where the chase will lead next? All the way back to the very roots, let's say, back to traditionalists versue innovaters, or, if you prefer, changers. Society changes. Progress happens. Its just a matter of how, and how fast. Notice, if you will, the difference in our spcietal attitueds about and treament of African-americans, women, homosexuals, non Christians today, and yesterday. From yesterday's oppression and exclusion to today's growing acceptance and equality. Maybe the word "progressive" isn't so bad after all.

Reading Enough Books, Including the Bible

I'VE READ SEVERAL thousand books, not enough to really know much, but enough to know something about books. enough to find it impossible to believe, no matter how hard I try, that God ever had anything to do with writing one. "It is beyond me", said Goethe, "how anyone can believe that God speaks to us in books and stories." Amen to that. yet, here in our primitive culture, millions of other wise intelligent people believe that the Bible is the undeniable Word of God. I find these people disgusting and barbaric, intellectually. I think this belief is harmful and dangerous, and I wish I could help change it. It will change, over time, surely. Where I live, small town southern U.S.A., damned near everyone believes this nonsense about the Bible being the Word of God. Damned idiots. As if God writes books. In my neck of the uncivilized woods, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting some country bumpkin who has never ever read a single book, including teh Bible, yet swears on his mother's grave that the Holy bible is the sacred word of God. No matter what the topic, these people, sooner or later, declare the final answer to be Biblical, and that's that. I never inject the Bible into conservation in try to prove that my viewpoint is Godly, and if anyone does, I reject the claim. This is not unfair in the least, but they always get angry about it. If I point out that the Bible commands the execution of disobedient children and strongly implies that the Earth is flat, half the time they insist that no such Biblical passage exists. When I prove otherwise, they inbvariably point out that the Old Testament is old, and that, anyway, the God of the new testament has a brand new personality. The whole notion of divine scripture, that god speaks in books, is not only ridiculous, it is harmful and dangerous. It is a myth which hinders progress and improvement, and undermines the human intellect. Generally, the more fervently a person worships the Bible, the fewer books the person has read, the less educated the person is. The more books people read, the more they understand and appreciate them for what they are - human. Many of our conservative christian colleagues go to church their entire lifetime, get old, join the local senior center, and attend Bible study classes. How long does it take to learn one book, especially if its the only book one ever reads? Intellectuals tend to absorb books by the bushel. Our conservative Christian colleagues reject climate change and evolution, but insist that every word of the Bible is true. These folks are perfectly intelligent, but poorly educated. And like the rest of us, they simply haven't read enough books.

Hoping For Bernie - Or Anybody

THE UNAVOIDABLE TRUTH IS THAT, by nature, anybody enough well qualified to be a good President of the United States is smart enough to not want the job. We might prefer a professor from M.I.T. with a double doctorate in history and political swcience, and a solid bibliography of intellectually sound publications; instead we get career politicians, pretty boys, slick boys, you know the type. We get people who are so zealously covetous of the job that they seem to think of themselves as crusaders to save the Earth, as if the world simply cannot get along if they aren't in power. We need candidates who are willing to take it, or leave it, candidates who merely offer their services, but don't bend over backwards trying to get elected. Nobody wants to be of service that much. People do, however, want power, fame and wealth that much. Anyone seeking the American Presidency with such all out abandon is not seeking to serve, but rather, to rule. All of the people currently seeking the job are smart, but poorly educated, bad tempered, or both. Take Ted Cruz. Well educated, certainly. But how can a well educated person in the highly advanced year of 2016 still believe, or claim to believe, that the Bible is the literal truth, and that the jury is still out on climate change? Can we say "squandering one's education"? Cruz seems to think that he is carrying the sacred torch of the Christian religion back to where it rightfully belongs in America; the top positions of power. Nothing could be further from the truth. You would think that a man of Ted Cruz's education would accept the fact that the United States is a secularly governed nation, always has been, and, unless we go way astray, always will be. The only candidate who actually discusses the real issues is Bernie Sanders, which is why he has a chance to get elected, but probably won't. But we can hope.

Waiting For the Rapture, In the White House

THE MORE CONSERVATIVE you are, the greater your chances of rising to the top in the Republican party, the better your chances of getting the nomination to run for president. In other words, the less open minded, the less amenable to other opinions, the better. Its a sort of social sickness. All the republican candidates, except Donald J. Trump, are falling all over themselves trying to convince we the American people that he or she is the very definition of "conservatism". The more conservative, the more "Truly Conservaitve", the better qualified, according to the ideology-mythology, like some weird and twisted test of devotaion to a religious cause. That's a good reason to vote for Trump. He doesn't play that game. Trump rises above, or perhaps is unaware of, the standard mainstream liberal-conservative paradigm, and is perfectly willing to take any stand on any issue, provided he can see benefit to himself in it, in terms of poplar approval. And what, pray tell, is democratic government all about, if not leadership actively seeking popular approval? That's what makes Trump a great politician, a natural. That, plus the fact that he doesn't ever say anything of substance about any issues, and doesn't try to convince everyone what a wonderul Christian he is, unlike certain other sanctimonious republican candidates. Fellow American citizens, we really and truly do not want some super conservative religious fanatic in the White House, waiting for the rapture, like, say, Ted Cruz. We need a good, solid, secular civic minded citizen, someone with a little knowledge of history, political science, and economics. Someone willing to be seen in sweats or bluejeans, someone who embraces science, not religious fanaticism. To be a more devout Christian is not the same thing as being a better person, or a better political leader. To be a devout Christian, an extremely devout Christian, or an extremely devout conservative, is, rather, to be an unbalanced, unhinged fanatic.

Loving The Mainstream Media

I LOVE THE AMERICAN mainstream media. You heard me. Whatever that thing is, that everyone hates so much, that thing called "the mainstream media", I love it. All of it. All the television networks and channels, the social media online, Facebook, radio, talk radio, all of it. Well, not so much "The Kardashians" - them I could do without, so I do. Likewise most reality TV. Enough is enough, already. Then too, all commericials are corporate brainwashing crap, and have you noticed that about the only thing television attempts to do these days is seduce us with sex and violence? Plus, it must be admitted taht social media is a veritable quagmire of low culture. and yet, to repeat...in general, I love the mainstream American media, simply because so many Americans villify it, and blame their ills on it, which is absolutely hilarious, its so stupid. The more everyone else hates it, the more I love it, which is the way I do Obama and Obamacare. I dare to think outside the box. I am a contrarian, and I recommend it for everyone. Whatever it is, this mainstream media, its neither liberal nor conservative. The major complaints about the mainstream American media is that it is liberal, and that it lies. Of course it lies, we all do. Get over it. Learn to see through it. But the media aint pro liberal. Overall, its pro profit, attention seeking, seductive, sensational, shocking. If you can't see that by now, see it now. As much as I love the mainstream media, I love my freedom to ignore it, and to ridicule it. The media a vehicle for the spread of information. It seeks to caputre our rapt attention, and to take our money from us, conspiring with the maintstream American corporate community to so do. Don't follow the herd. Ditch your text messenger; maybe even talk into your phone once in a blue moon. One possibility might be to disconnect the cable and satellite, get a ten dollar radio, and get all your news from National Public Radio. Save a lot of money that way, homes. A cheap tablet and public WiFi will do, for internet access. Like Bernie Sanders keeps saying, we need a revolution in America, political and economic. By cutting off home television and internet, we bypass the big corporations and can still stay in touch. I love the mainstream American media, but probably not for the reasons the mainstream American media would like me to love it. Call it a barometer on American societal health and nature. By criticizing or ignoring it, we can influence it to change, for the better. Or at least, we can try.

Wondering What People Think

HATE TO BREAK IT to you, but you simply can't tell by looking at a person whether said person is an adherent of the Islamic faith. If you're lucky, you can tell by looking at any given human being its approximate age, gender, and perhaps even place of origin, but certainly, not the religion. That we keep inside. Moslems wear everything and anything from dockers to blue jeans to three piece suits, to sweats, and they range in color from light to dark, from young to old, male, female, and all other gender options, what ever they are at any given time. If the United States ever decides to adopt Donald Trump's foreign policy and exclude Islamic immigrants from American soil, any among them wanting entrance will need only place a check mark in the "non Moslem" box, and get in. Sometimes you have to wonder where people get their ideas, and how long they spend really thinking about them. The Great Wall of Trump comes to mind. As it snakes along the south side of the Rio Grande, how tall will it be? How thick? Of what material will it be made? And how, above all else, will we ever stop people from climbing over it, digging under it, or blasting through it? If we station guards along the wall to protect it from abuse, we'll need quite a few guards. With that many full time guards, we might as well station the military along the Rio Grande, in which case, we won't need a wall at all. Sometimes you wonder what folks are thinking.

Denying the Laws of Nature

I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND how anybody could possibly, honestly disagree about the amount, approximately, of carbon in the atmosphere. It can be measured, anywhere, anytime, by anybody. We all agree on that, right? Nor can we disagree about the accuracy of our beloved periodic table of the elements, that bastion of scientific organization and convenience. Praise Mendeleev! We all, every last one of us, agree on the number of chemical elements, their arrangement, and their chemical properties. Properties such as weight, size, and coefficient of thermal retention and expansion. We all agree on the basic laws of physics and chemistry, the three laws of thermodynamics, the three law of motion, etc. Every chemical element ha a different mass and weight, and the greater the mass, the more heat energy the element absorbs, and the more slowly it releases heat back into its environment. We also all agree on how much carbon was in the atmosphere, approximately, two hundred years ago, one hundred years ago, and now, and how much of the increase, roughly, has been due to human activity. So, um, how can anybody possibly believe that climate change, man made, doesn't exist? The only possible answer is pure, raw emotion. A desire to cling to existing belief systems, regardless of their falsehood, and refusal to accept new paradigms based on empirical proof. If we want badly enough to retain our fossil fuel capitalistic economic system, simply deny any need to replace it. Climate change quite clearly tells us that we need to change, fundamentally, the way we do things. Sustainable, renewable, safe energy sources, and all that. Why deny it? Why? If you have a vested interest in keeping the old system and refusing to accept the new one, deny the need to change it. In order for man made climate change to not exist, the laws of nature would have to be different from what we all know them to be. That's how serious this denial is.