Patriotically, Pridefully Competing.

NOT ONLY DOTH PRIDE GOETH before a fall, it goeth well with bad decision making, low self esteem, and, at times, unmitigated insanity. When Thomas Jefferson was in France, he visited a Parisian chess club, since he loved the game, fancied himself accomplished at it, and was respected as a player by his American opponents, including James Madison, with whom he bragged he had engaged in "four hour games". He didn't last long among the French. With every endeavor, there are different levels, as we must all learn at length. One game against a real European player was all it took to wound his pride, and send him back to his pressing duties in his home-away-from-home flower garden. A single disastrously ego deflating defeat was sufficient to drive him out of action, and much later his grand daughter mused that if he had only humbled himself to the possibility for self improvement, and stayed with it, he might have become one of the best players among the highly skilled French - with but a bit more experience. Low self esteem. Now, for some insanity. In a very "small" town, in a small state, in a great and monstrously large nation, two zealous men are currently engaged in a contest, which began on April Fool's Day, unless by now the matter has been settled. This is really happening, for real. They are engaged in a contest to determine which of them is the more patriotic, and can display their patriotism more publicly and ostentatiously. No one knows for sure how it started. Something to do with borrowed Christmas lights, or yard signs. The theory has it that it began as a Cruz Trump thing, which is about as serious as it gets. Perhaps a campaign yard sign went up, facing the wrong way. One neighbor put a small American flag on his mailbox. The other neighbor put a slightly larger American flag on his car's windshield. Then, they started painting. First, the fences, then the front porches, all red, white, and blue. At this point, the neighborhood started becoming a bit annoyed, and not a bit alarmed. The flags have become enormous, and expensive. Unless local law enforcement has stepped in, it may still be going on. Nobody seems to know the actual depth of antipathy and competitive zeal; it is suspected that the whole affair is quite serious, and unfriendly. This is because, at last report, one of the men has been seen dressed up like Uncle Sam, standing erect in front of a huge national ensign, saluting, far into the night. Come to think of it, since the republican national convention is still a couple months off, this thing may go on for awhile.

Editing the Declaration of Independence

WHEN JOHN ADAMS AND BENJAMIN FRANKLIN bullied young Thomas Jefferson into writing the Declaration of Independence, they listed three requisites: the document must clearly state their intentions, must enumerate the reasons for their intentions, which were widely known, and must indicate in no uncertain terms that they were quite unanimous and dead serious about it. When dreamy Tom balked, and asked why Adams didn't write the letter himself, Adams replied: "because you, young man, are ten times smarter than I, you write ten times better, and whereas I am obnoxious and unpopular, you are friendly, pleasant, and well liked." Any more questions? Evidently there were, and big Ben lost his patience. All six four two hundred and sixty pounds of him hovered over the six two and a half one hundred and sixty pound and utterly intimidated and horrified Virginian, and the seventy year old but yet quite strong Franklin spoke thusly: "young man, I assure you that you shall indeed do your duty for your country, without further complaint or argument." That sealed it. Get to it. Jefferson's document was heavily edited by his fellow committee members ("sacred and undeniable truths", for instance, became "self evident truths", because Franklin wanted the script to read like a scientific treatise, not a religious polemic) - which irked Jefferson, because he thought it already presentable, but together they got the job done. Among their enumerated complaints were that the King had summoned assemblies at unusual times and inconveniently far away places, had quartered soldiers in private homes, had exacted punitive taxation, and had "eaten out the substance" of his own colonies, by various means, including failing to defend them against foreign invaders and "savages", and so forth. Certainly it was incumbent upon the British monarch to round up and send to reservations, from four thousand miles away, all native Americans. Why expect less? Also among the complaints was that, ironically, the king "..has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of distant people who never offended him, captivating them and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in the transportation thither." Yes, you read that correctly: Jefferson, the slave owner, was raising cane against poor old luckless King George III for allowing him and his friends to own slaves. How dare he! Without the King's highly immoral forbearance, Jefferson et al would never have fallen into ignominious perdition. The King has failed to make me and my comrades in rebellion men of high moral standards! (Can we say "passing the buck"?) Well, as you have probably by now deduced, that particular anti-slavery passage was promptly stricken from the final draft, not only because it somehow seemed a bit disingenuous to blame the current king for an evil over which he had little or no control, and which had been extant in America since 1619 Jamestown. But also, including a complaint by slave owners that they were unjustly permitted by their sovereign to keep slaves simply seemed a bit...strange? Inappropriate? dare one say "ludicrous and hypocritical"? Give our founders credit for at least one thing: tho' oft they might have gone off the intellectual deep end, at length, they regained their senses, and sent a letter to the king which, though a bit demanding, picky, and unfair to a relatively, compared to themselves, lenient overlord, they somehow managed to make it reasonably reasonable, and, as we say, the rest is history.

Reassessing Jefferson

THOMAS JEFFERSON, in one of his frequent moments of extreme perspicacity, invented the doctrine of "generational sovereignty", according to which, each generation is inherently entitled to remake society in its own image, according to its own lights. Using actuary tables, Jefferson concluded that a "generation" was a period of time amounting to nineteen years, and that, as each generation faded from the stage of life, it should make no attempt to permanently imprint its stamp on the forthcoming one. Thus, he believed that all patents should be granted for a period of nineteen years, which in fact they are to this day, and that a new or revised constitution should be placed in effect once every nineteen years, representing current circumstances, which is indeed not done today. Along these lines, Jefferson, like native Americans, considered each generation's use of the land to be a mere borrowing, not ownership, and that all land and mineral resources should be exploited in such a way as to give the next generation the opportunity to utilize them anew. Accordingly, Jefferson was not a great advocate of any hereditary privilege, inherited titles, or inherited anything. Early Jeffersonian scholars tended to venerate him, while more modern scholarship has produced a cohort of historians who bedevil him; it is now fashionable to point out that the third president was something of a hypocrite. Jefferson, the advocate for all men being created equal, who owned slaves. Jefferson, the advocate of decentralized government, who ruled as a virtual tyrant in his own five thousand acre domain in Virginia. Jefferson, who repeatedly emphasized how much he abhorred politics, while steadfastly pursuing political power at every turn. Jefferson, the moralist whose personal behavior was far from "moral", by our standards, or the standards of his own day. Still more recent scholarship is beginning to be a bit more balanced, because, in the last twenty five years, Jefferson's vast collection of correspondence and other writings have been more thoroughly scrutinized, documentation has been uncovered concerning the dealings with and viewpoints of Jefferson's associates, and what emerges is a portrait of a person enormously complicated, contradictory, but no more so than most of the rest of us. That's the value of what traditionalist often deride as "revisionist" history; it shed new light, as history, over time, takes a deep breath, adds new information to the mix, and arrives at more accurate conclusions. No matter what the subject of historical analysis, modern analysis is vastly superior to that of previous generations, if for no other reason than the passing of time provides a better, broader perspective with which to examine our past.

Owning Up To Socialistic Senior Centers

NEVER A DULL MOMENT at the local senior center, in my small southern town in the land of liberty. All I was doing was trying to walk out the back door, innocuously, carrying a few leftovers from the day's three dollar lunch, when one of the seniors at the card table said to me: "who do you plan to vote for?" I couldn't imagine why anyone at the table would care; most of them don't seem to like me very well, for some strange reason. Instantly I responded: "Bernie Sanders!, but I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary if necessary." But I couldn't stop talking. Couldn't leave it at that. Oh no, not me. So, I continued: "after all, I'm a good socialist". Well, if you don't want to hear the answer, don't ask the question. By the time I had gotten the syllable "Ber" out, they were starting to look a bit blue, or is it green about the gills, and by the time I had uttered his full name, they appeared positively peeked. Announcing to these southern conservative Christians that I am a socialist was the final straw, and the ones who didn't run from the room with hand over mouth looked as if they wanted to kill me on the spot. Fortunately for me, they seemed to have left their hardware at home, (all good God fearing Christian conservatives conceal and carry) and besides, those among them who didn't use a cane need to. I can still run, and even at the advanced age of sixty one can do a twelve minute mile. That, I thought, should be sufficient. But I was on a roll, and, well, you know how that is. "By the way", I further intoned, "everyone here is a socialist, and if you think otherwise, you might wish to decline to accept any further social security checks." By this time they were all looking beneath their colostomy bags for handguns, which I just knew were there, hidden somewhere I hoped they could not remember. When you're in this deep, why even try for extrication? "Also, I might add, this very senior center, in which we all now happily, socially repose, is not owned and operated privately for profit, in direct competition with other providers of the same service, which makes it, alas, a socialistic enterprise, not a capitalistic enterprise. Which is perfectly true, of course. We live, I nearly hastened to add but didn't, in a land of pervasive socialism, including, among other goods and services, social security and senior centers. I don't think they understood what I was talking about, and wouldn't have believed me if they had. To them, socialism is some intractable evil in some other far off land, a land where nobody has the right to do anything, including visit the local senior center, which, as far as I can tell, does not compete in any form or fashion for business with any other senior center, is not privately owned, and does not seek profit, but instead, cooperates with all other senior centers in the area to provide a wonderful array of perks for all those of advanced age. Unless, of course, somewhere far off there is a silent partner who owns and operates, very privately, some senior centers, which compete, very quietly, with other senior centers owned by other silent partners. If that is indeed the situation, we have a scoop.

Learning The True Faith At Harvard Divinity

SUPPOSE YOU FEEL THE CALLING, and are impelled to pursue a career in Christian ministry. You are ambitious, and want a successful, influential ministry. The local Bible college won't do. Only the very best theological seminary for you, and there are many from which to choose. After a lengthy application process, you and up at Harvard, the original divinity school, satisfied that you have indeed achieved the very best. As a born again, fundamentalist, evangelical Christian, you can't wait to get started. You can scarcely imagine how profoundly the esteemed faculty at one of the world's great universities will edify and nurture your faith, and fully awaken you to the glory of God's faith and the Biblical word of God far beyond your fondest hopes. However, unbeknownst to either of you, there are actually two versions of you, living in parallel universes, both attending seminary at Harvard, both studying hard. You both graduate, and are ordained. In both universes, your experience at Harvard turns out entirely differently than you had expected. In one universe, you pursue a successful ministerial career, all the while ignoring everything you learned in seminary. In the other, you become an agnostic, then an atheist, and pursue an entirely different career, in the financial services industry, having left the faith altogether. What happened at Harvard? Here's what happened: First, you were subjected to a rigorous course of study, as you had expected. You are guided through a comprehensive examination of the Bible, the main focus, becoming an expert on the bible, word by word. Every book, chapter, and verse. Nothing is omitted. Although you learn the scripture by heart and by mind, above and beyond anything you had previously done on your own, you notice that none of your instructors ever mentions that the Holy scripture is perfect, or that it is the Word of God. Apparently, you are left to decide that for yourself. Instead, you are taught history, and languages, and are taught that a thorough understanding of the bible requires fluency in ancient Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, especially Greek, the original language of the New Testament. Ancient Roman history and culture, ancient Hebrew history and culture are essential. At Harvard, they teach everything from the ground up. Then come the church history courses, two thousand years worth, from Jesus to the present. Also, centuries of Christian apologetics and historiography. Biblical research, scholarship, and commentary has proceeded for centuries, particularly the most recent centuries, in which vast amounts of new material have come to light, and you learn it all. Christian historical critical thought has multiplied and improved immensely during the past two centuries, so you are given emphasis on the more modern material. You are taught to understand Christianity, not from a perspective of faith and devotion, but rather, from the standpoint of historical, critical, factual scholarship. All serious institutions do it this way, you find out. You learn that Jesus and his disciples were illiterate, and that nobody knows who wrote the four gospels, but that whoever did never met or knew Jesus, and instead got the story by oral tradition, third or fourth hand at best. You learn that nineteen of the twenty seven books of the New testament are forgeries, including the four gospels, having been written by some unknown author other than the author to whom they are accredited. You learn that dozens of similar texts exist, many other versions of the story of Jesus, but were voted out centuries ago. You find out that Jesus himself never claimed to be of divine nature, but that he became so only in 325 A.D., by vote, at the Council of Nicea. Each of the four gospels tells a different story, you come to realize, through an intense comparative study. In Mathew, for instance, Jesus rarely says more than a few words at a time. In John, he holds forth at great length, delivering what amount to lengthy speeches. In Mark, Jesus is reluctant to validate himself by performing miracles, and seems annoyed at the idea that he should have to prove himself. In John, he seems more than eager to show what he can do. In one gospel he runs out the money changers from the temple early in his ministry, in another, he does it as one of his final acts. You learn that Moses probably never existed, and that ancient Egyptian records never mention him or his people. What you learn in seminary is not faith, but instead scripture, and everything having to do with it. What you learn changes you. But isn't that the purpose of education?

Waging Civil War, Any Which Way We Can

All ACROSS THE FRUITED PLAIN, a sort of civil war rages between liberal communities and conservative state governments, and it applies to much more than Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender rights and wrongs, although that is the topic of greatest interest, at least in the media. City governments, for example, are much more inclined to raise the minimum wage than state governments, which in turn are much more inclined to raise it than the federal government. The farther up the political ladder we go, the less generous we become, to workers, as corporate control manifests more fully. Most states, however, are showing some degree of flexibility on this matter, perhaps realizing that by raising minimum wage, they are creating an entire new class of consumers, which will then increase demand for goods and services, which businesses can then provide for their own profit, without fearing the specter of over production, the scourge of depression economics. Local governments are also mandating paid sick leave, and all sorts of benefits for workers, to the consternation of Chambers of Commerce all across America. Fracking is the other big controversy between local and state governments. Often municipalities don't want it anywhere near, but state governments do. Can you imagine such a thing - not wanting to suffer the slings and arrows of man made earthquakes in one's backyard? And no, the new rash of earthquakes is caused by fracking, and would not have otherwise occurred; Oklahoma, for instance, never had many earthquakes, until massive amounts of water were violently pumped into the ground, breaking up rock formations. We notice that it is the conservatives who oppose local progressive ordinances, the same conservatives who usually insist that the more local and less centralized the government, the better. Our conservative brethren and sistern would also do well to remember that sexual predators have many more, and far easier opportunities to prey upon people than going to the trouble to have their gender changed surgically, in order to legally enter the restroom of their newly refurbished gender, and prey.

Getting Over the Brave New World of non Discrimination, Slowly

ALL ACROSS THE FRUITED PLAIN, progressive, intellectual communities full of left wing wackos, usually college towns, are passing ordinances prohibiting discrimination against LesbianGayBisexualTransgender people. In their state capitols, conservative legislators from the hinterlands, morally outraged that a bunch of libs would dare legalize the treatment of human beings like human beings, are passing state laws making it illegal for municipalities to pass anti-discrimination laws. By God, this here sate'll discriminate against any damned weirdo it damned well wants to, and to hell with local autonomy! So much for the conservative crusade against big, intrusive, centralized government, so much for local autonomy, a supposed pillar of conservatism, so much for communities setting their own standards. Flush the conservative anti-big government creed down the toilet, in either restroom, in the name of stopping liberals from being progressives! This is what we have come to in America; arguing over which restroom Americans should legally be allowed to use. In the great progressive (ha ha) state of North Carolina, a new law requires each and every citizen to relieve his or herself in whatever restroom pertains to the gender listed on his or her birth certificate. Sorry, Caitlyn Jenner, you're just plain out of luck, and so, apparently, in a sort of what goes around comes around vein, is the great state of North Carolina, as one corporate entity after another vows to either pull out, or avoid going in in the first place, along with Bruce Springsteen. America's corporate community, long considered a bastion of conservatism, has gone socially liberal; they want nothing to do with anything which might insult anyone who might happen to be lesbiangaybisexualtransgender. This is a reflection of a majority of America's consumers of corporate goods and services: treat everyone equally. The losers appear to be right wingers who harbor intolerant religious beliefs based on primitive, outdated religiosity, who most likely will eventually have to hold their noses nationwide and share restroom facilities with people who are new to their gender. They'll get over it, even if it takes awhile, which it most certainly will. They always do, and it always does.

Getting People To Understand Climate Change (good luck)

MORE AND MORE, it seems as if people are agreeing that we the American people, and for that matter the whole world, need a revolution. Discontent sweeps across the planet, and people like Donald Trump gain popularity. How could we not need large scale rapid change, when the sea level is rising up to flood out billions of coastal people and cities, and war, disease, and poverty stalk us as ever? Ask the people in Miami, Florida, Norfolk, Virginia, or the folks living along Chesapeake Bay or on Pacific islands. The water is rising higher. The climate changes all the time, and always has, on its own, naturally, bleat the conservatives, as if this fact, which everyone already knows is true, has anything to do with whether human beings are changing the climate, along with the natural changes. The fact that Earth's climate changes all the time, naturally, and the fact that many factors other than human activity cause climate changes does not in the least demonstrate that humans don't also cause climate change. Remember that. We humans have simply gotten into the climate change business a bit late, well behind mother nature, but late is not the same as never, and the fact that many other factors influence the climate makes our new human influence all the deadlier, more urgent, not less urgent, and very real, not imaginary. Conservatives often point to predictions made forty years ago that Earth was experiencing global cooling as proof that science is always wrong, and that global warming is also wrong. Quite the opposite is true, in fact. Changing from global cooling to global warming happened because science is self correcting; it repairs its own mistaken theories. The previous wrong global cooling narrative was proven wrong, and its replacement with global warming only serves to enhance the validity of global warming - our awareness of global warming arose from the process of scientific self-correction. That's why we need revolutionary change; to get people to understand that, and to get people to at least try to do something about it, for our grand children's children, if it isn't already too late.

Reading, and Learning About, Rush Limbaugh

I'VE LISTENED TO Rush Limbaugh since 1993. I listen to people I disagree with, because it helps me learn. Just the other day, I decided to read Rush's first book, "The Way Things Ought To Be", published in 1992. As I recall, it was a big seller at the time. But my trouble with it began early. In the first paragraph of the first page, Rush writes: "I was determined to actually write the book, rather than farm it out to a ghost writer."...OK, fair enough...then, in the second paragraph, Rush writes that nonetheless, he thought it prudent to bring in some technical help. Again, fine. So he brings in John Fund, a professional writer. "John's primary role was to interview me on tape, then write the first draft from the transcript," says Rush. What? Huh? Then, in the third paragraph, Rush writes: "editing and the first rewrite occurred after John submitted the first few chapters."....Three statements of alleged fact, by El Rushbo, in three consecutive paragraphs, talking about how "his" book was written. Anybody see the problem here? The first quote is clear - Rush's intention to write his own book. Then, in the second quote, he explains the process by which the book was actually written, that it was actually written by somebody else, the technical adviser, John Fund. Then, in the third quote, Rush says that "his" book was submitted for editing and rewriting, but he doesn't say to whom it was submitted, or who did the editing and rewriting. Rush never says he wrote the book, or edited it, or rewrote it, but what he does is very cleverly mislead the reader into thinking that he indeed wrote it, by merely declaring his original intention of so doing, and by acting as if the writing of the first draft by somebody else is mere technical assistance, and not the actual authorship, which it of course is, without ever stooping to telling a lie! Rush never actually tells a lie! He intends to do the writing himself. Then, he brings in some technical help, dude named John fund, to help with some details. Then, Rush casually mentions that John wrote the "first draft", a statement designed to lead the reader to believe that the first draft was a mere technicality, not the actual book writing itself, without bothering to indicate that Rush himself, as it turned out, did not write it. Well, anyway, here's the fact, dear reader. He who writes the "first draft" of any book, has written the book, dear reader. Anyone who "rewrites it" is merely an editor. Rush is either very twisted, very cleverly deceitful, or both. And yes, after twenty three years of listening, you can hear this weird trait on his beloved radio show. So, how much more, after the first page, of Rush's book should I read, and how much should I believe, or take seriously? And what's the point of all this? This: you can bet your bottom dollar that Rush Limbaugh, to this day, believes he wrote the book. And if you prove to him he didn't, he can always claim that he never claimed to have written it. Wow. What a weirdo. Too bad for Rush that Rush did not write it; the book is very entertaining, and well written.

Thanking The Ladies For The Light

BACK AT THE SENIOR CENTER, never a dull moment. I'm jogging along sluggishly but happily on the treadmill in the back room, with the lights out, in darkness. I don't need to see, because the scenery never changes, and there will be no rocks or holes to trip over. The quiet darkness is relaxing, and invites dreamy, idle free lance thinking, and it keeps me from seeing on the monitor how far I have, and have not, run. So I'm darkly jogging along happily, when suddenly, the light goes on; a whole battery of overhead mini suns, and the room is bathed in blinding light. My eyes recoil, and try to contract instantly, painfully, unsuccessfully. Its like suddenly being thrown into a desert, with eyes wide open, so, I close them so I can adjust. Terribly startled, my thoughts and relaxed state destroyed, I look up just in time to see a petite little elderly lady with a prim and proper and stern facial expression turn, and start to walk away, without a word to me. So be it. I can run in the bright light, and I don't want to get off the machine, and turn the light out, and get back on the treadmill and try to get it ( my old body) going again. Besides, she was nice enough to think of me. Maybe she thought I was too stupid to find the light switch, and was suffering in ignorance. Save the poor dumb bastard from his own folly. Next day, same thing happens, different little prim and proper lady, this time with a brief glance of contempt at me, but not a word, before leaving the room. This time I holler "thanks!". She can hear me, but keeps walking away, silently. This goes on for three more days, different lady each time, but never a spoken word, never so much as a: "sir, you know, there is light available, you don't have to run in the dark. Would you care for me to turn the light on for you, or, do you perhaps, for some strange eccentric reason, prefer the treadmill in the dark?"... I mean, wouldn't you think, just once, someone would actually ask me if I want the light on? It hasn't happened yet. Are these people really concerned about me, and if so, why do they never speak? Or are they merely exercising power and compassion, thinking that I am not worthy of conversation? One day, however, the same lady who started it all was back, and yes, on went the light. I started to speak: "ma'am, several times now, people have come in here while I'm jogging, and turned on the light, and"......She glared at me, turned the light back out, plunged me back into darkness, and stalked off. I didn't even have time to finish my sentence, which was..."and I just wanted to say thank you to all of you!"

Including Everyone

BY NOW IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS to just about anyone; free trade, and this big high rolling global economy we now have, has its up side, and its down side. Its mostly good, one might think, because free international trade enhances prosperity by creating larger markets and makes goods and services more competitive and cheaper for the average consumer. Unfortunately, all this has heretofore been accomplished with pain and suffering to the working, non-ownership class, in terms of job loss through dislocation, and wage depression through expanded labor pools.. But throwing out the baby with the bath water, like Bernie Sanders and others suggest, might not be the answer. Obviously, in economics, one size does not fit all. Tariff and trade reform must be highly targeted; not all goods and services should be subject to the same regulation. In general, small, young, yet-to-be secure and established industries need tariff protection, large, successful, long standing businesses do not. This fact of nature complicates everything, enormously. It makes trade negotiations more difficult with an endless list of specifics and exceptions to rules, and enforcement more difficult. When, oh when, will the wealthy ever learn that ultimately, you expand markets by getting disposable income into the hands of people who therefore had it not. New consumers equal bigger markets, and we can't just sit back and rely on the free market and population growth to achieve this. Economic prosperity for all (on the planet) can be achieved through reason, and dare we say it - planning; the blind, invisible hand of the free market can only do so much, and lest we forget, the theory of free market capitalism bases its success on the notion that people behave rationally, in their own best interests, and when's the last time you saw anything like that happening? That is, unless you actually believe that allowing yourself to become fifty pounds overweight, smoking, drinking, tail gating on the highway, and spilling poisons into the atmosphere are fine examples of human beings behaving rationally, in their own best interests.

Exploiting Whiffle Ball For Profit

HAVE YOU EVER had the feeling that there's a whole lot more going on than you thought? Voices and noises, hidden from view. I still haven't gotten a smart phone. Still don't want one. Too much money, and too much seductive screen in pocket. Suddenly, the thought occurred to me that it must be possible to be walking down the street, minding your own business, and to suddenly see a good whiffle ball game on a vacant lot, and to decide that its worth showing to other people. So, you whip out your smart phone, turn the camera on, and begin..what is it called?....streaming video? Then, you post the live on smart phone camera whiffle ball action streaming video on your facebook page, let it stream live, as the game goes on, and you stand theer pointing at it, and you notify your frineds that its hapnin', and please check it out. Soon, the "likes" starting coming in, as your facebook friends, hundreds and thousands of them, voice their approval, and start to spread the word. Your whiffle ball game, an especially energetic and exciting match up involving about ten sixth graders, goes viral, through your phone and facebok page, and before you know it has a live audience of millions. Am I dreaming, or is this possible, even as we speak? Didn't something very much like this happen just the other day, only, didn't it involve some dude video streaming a rape in progress at a drunken party? One can scarecly imagine the lawsuits possible. I might decide to start charging admission to my online whiffle ball game, type in your debit card number to get the new password, and might end up making millions. Soon, not only does Mark Zuckerberg want a piece of the action, but so do all the whiffle ball players, their parents, and their attorneys. It could turn into a real life changing mess. Better just to keep walking on down the street, minding my own business, with smart phone in pocket, and let the kids play whiffle ball without ever becoming famous doing so.

Government, Interfering

THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, or some damned meddlesome government agency, recently issued a ruling that for now on, stockbrokers, financial advisers, and financial services firms must always act in the best interests of their clients, rather than, say, the best interest of themselves, or their shareholders. Now, you might almost think that that in the land of opportunity you could take this for granted, that professionals would always act in the best interests of their clients, for the normal American christian and capitalistic reasons, and that government regulation wouldn't be necessary - but, oh hell no. Research clearly indicates that, over the long haul, financial professionals heretofore in human history, and especially in American history, have not hesitated in the least to give advice to clients and manage their money in ways which benefited the provider more, and the client less. High fees, many many small fees, questionable stock purchases, etc. Now, no more. The entire financial services industry is in an uproar, claiming that government is maliciously attacking them, robbing them, robbing them of their inherent right as good Americans to fleece their marks. Now, the poor working stiff with a wife and four kids and a measly 401K won't have to worry that his fund is being pilfered by the guy in a suit and tie who drives a new caddy. Strike a blow for the common man! And not only that, but, so far, even though the new rule has been in effect for only a couple of weeks, the nation's economy has not collapsed under the crushing burden of government regulation, government meddling, and socialism, e have not slipped into a recession due to the stifling of the free market by liberal morons, but our conservative colleagues doubtless expect it, and hope for it, to at any moment. Anything to prove the liberals wrong.

Proving That The Millennials Are Brilliant

THE MILLENNIALS WERE BORN between 1982 and 2000, and the generation being born now, between 2000 and 2018 must have its own name by now, whatever it is. A book called "The Dumbest Generation", published in 2009, talks about the millennials, which reads like the traditional panic among the older generations concerning the quality of the new ones, a fun little game humans have been playing since, oh, when.... time immemorial? Must be something in our genes, or the water. Doom is always on the horizon, and its always embodied in the "next" generation. I spend about half my time on a big college campus, and about a fourth of it at the senior center, which gives me an interesting perspective. Just the other day my older sister was remarking how rude the millennials seem to be, and I countered that the senior senior citizens didn't always come up short in the rude department, themselves. I pointed out that today's senior citizens, for the most part, were either teenagers in the fifties, or baby boomers, and that neither group, particularly in its own day, acquitted itself very well in the lack of rudeness department. Particularly spoiled generations, I'd say, what with the post world war two American prosperity and the avalanche of material wealth bestowed upon the children of the fifties and sixties. The only reasonable conclusion is that generation after generation, over the thousands of years of human history, the levels of civility and incivility within any given civilization has waxed and waned a bit, but has always tended to remain within the main part of the bell curve distribution. Then too, of course, standards of behavior change. But now that I think about it, all the time I've spent on a college campus lately, and all the thousands of millennials I've seen, I have never seen any of them reading a book, even once, I have never seen one walking on campus without staring at a smart phone, and I have never seen any one of them walk into anything, incredibly. that proves it; they're brilliant.

Regulating Capitalism, For Its Own Good

PURE, FREE MARKET CAPITALISM, which Americans call "conservatism" and the rest of the world calls "neo-liberalism", simply does not work. Neither does pure, top down, state command socialism. Both systems leave the people out. Government must be involved with the economy, regulating it for its own good. Just the other day, Pfizer pharmaceutical was fixin' to pull a fast one, Uncle Sam stepped in, and the corporate giant backed off its nifty little plan to merge with a European firm, move overseas, and avoid American taxes, while continuing to rape the American people with outlandish drug prices. Same with Halliburton; possible merger squashed by big fed gov. Go feds! We must preserve competitive capitalism against its very own rapacious, ravenous self, and its tendency to keep competing until one person has all the money. Without regulation and democratic oversight, corporate capitalism degenerates into fascism, capitalism under state control, such as in NAZI Germany. A typically brilliant American conservative recently remarked that the term "democratic socialism" is contradictory, like the term "carnivorous vegetarian". Yet, consider Denmark, where everybody votes on everything, free market advocates freely speak their mind, capitalism thrives, and socialism dominates the economy, even as the Danish have the highest per capita standard of living in the world, and the highest level of contentment. Denmark is definitely socialist, and it works. Doctors, lawyers, and custodians live in the same neighborhoods, corporations do just fine in Denmark, as do small businesses. All with socialistic government regulation. Socialism works particularly well in the United States, with our public streets, highways, and sewer systems, public schools, public police and fire departments, and so forth, on, and on. No, government is not the problem, as our brilliant conservatives bleat. Misuse of government is the problem. Sometimes, misuse entails government doing nothing to regulate the economy, when it obviously should.

Replacing Corporate Oligarchy With Corporate Capitalism

THE REPUBLICANS DISMISS Bernie Sanders as "crazy", and Hillary Clinton calls him impractical, unrealistic, and uneducated. Well, whatever. What Bernie Sanders wants to do, mainly, is break up the too big to fail banks and financial services corporations, the ones we bailed out nearly a decade ago because they had all run themselves out of business, and we the American people would simply have suffered too much to let that happen. The fact is that everybody wants to break up the financial services cartel, with the possible exception of those who are wealthy only because of its existence. But, of all the presidential candidates, only Bernie Sanders seems to be talking about it. If he doesn't know how he would do it, fine, just tell folks he'll figure that part out later, and move on. No harm in admitting ignorance, only in an unwillingness to correct it. The process would of course involve government regulatory anti-trust rulings, followed by a veritable avalanche of high powered and potentially exciting law suits, leading to a resolution of some sort, far in the future. So, what are we waiting for? Nobody really seems up for it, save Bernie, yet another indication that he is the best candidate, the only truly good one, should be elected, and very well might be, depending on how well the millennials turn out. How anyone imagine either Cruz or Trump not running? If the feds indict Hillary, and Obama doesn't stop them, then Bernie will become president, as Cruz and Trump cancel each other out. No other scenario will get the job done of replacing corporate oligarchy with corporate capitalism. The result would be worth it. To anyone who saw the latest Hillary-Bernie debate, its obvious; those two are either on the verge of hating each other, or already do. Soon thy'll be as hateful as Cruz-Trump. Obviously, both Trump and some "other republican" are going to run in November, as is, most obviously, Hillary. Only Bernie gets left out. But why? Why not have Bernie stay in it, form a new social labor party, and beat all three of them?

Reaping the Wages of Corporate America

INTRODUCING! the latest smart phone app: guns. That's right, guns. That may sound a bit hard to believe at first, until you think about it, and realize that the union of phones and guns is as inevitable, and as American, as any slice of apple pie to ever come out of the oven. Actually, you'd be disappointed if it happened anywhere other than America, but fortunately, we needn't worry about it. We need only wait for Apple, or whatever company is producing gun-phones, to start retailing, and its off to the races, as they say. Before long many companies will be making them, and most of us'll have one. I'll bet you just can't wait! Rumor has it that the gun holds two rounds, small caliber, but big enough, and fast enough. How long before a vast majority of the American people have one? Too fast to sit down, take a deep breath, and really think about it, unfortunately, but not fast enough for the corporate bottom line. Arm all the good folks with gun phones, because otherwise, only the bad guys will have gun phones, or however it goes. When the murder rate soars, and people start accidentally shooting their own noses off, and some sluggish government entity starts talking tongue in cheekly about regulation, the fireworks will renew in earnest, and our conservative compatriots will save us from tyranny, and deliver us unto our well deserved national epidemic of pocket pool. America's thriving corporate culture of high drama; competition, mergers, deadly products on the market, a generally insane public, and labor strife proves that the working class lives on, in spite of everything, as some of them assembled peacefully in downtown Chicago yesterday, and yelled unpleasant remarks at the management of the Verizon Corporation. For strikers, they make pretty good money, but are being squeezed slowly in what the big people term "necessary cost cutting". This, in a business which netted eighteen billion last year, and in which the top execs "earn" tens of millions per. Somewhere, somehow, there must, in theory, be the perfect balance between management, shareholders, and employees. At least, you'd think. Then too, lest we forget, there are the "stakeholders", which any economist can tell you about. These are the folks who slink and dodge their way down public sidewalks, dodging smart phones, guns, and the Americans who tote them.

Attacking Christianity, Allegedly

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN said that he knew once and for all that he was not a Christian the day a minister strongly tried to convince him that he indeed was a christian, and indeed absolutely must be. Three hundred years later, Christians cry that there is a war against Christianity in America, a war being waged by the evil forces of liberalism and secular humanism, aided and abetted by the media, the court system, and academia. If all that is true, its a mighty powerful alliance of forces, and the Christians should perhaps consider an accommodation. However, the more you listen to the righteous Christian outcry, the more obvious it is that it simply isn't true, its a false alarm. What's really happening is that American society is, in the 21st century, evolving away from its centuries long pandering to one particular religion, and becoming truly inclusive and equal. The faith is not responding graciously to its inevitable loss of its special, privileged status. President Obama said "the United States is no longer just a Christian nation", and the Bible bangers went ape shit crazy with hatred, accusing the president of trying to marginalize, crush, destroy, and eradicate God, or some such melodramatic dishonest drivel. Obama was, quite obviously, simply telling the truth; there are indeed millions of non Christians in America, more than ever. The non Christians, for some strange reason, prefer to treat gay, lesbians and transgender people like human beings, with equality. That upsets the followers of Jesus Christ, just like the truth upsets them. By law, a law passed in 1797, the United States is no more a christian country than it is an Islamic country. Look it up. The American system was not founded on Judeo-Christian values; it was founded on ancient Greek and eighteenth century European values, values of science and reason. Christians have dominated numerically, and culturally. But there is room for everybody, including all the wonderful human beings of varying, not by choice sexual orientations, hypocritically condemned by many, many Christians as "sinners".

Going To the Stars, Now

THERE ARE MANY perfectly intelligent people who are predicting the imminent advent of a golden age on Earth, based on some alleged new energy technology involving magnetism and gravity. Sounds good to me. Please bear in mind: anything's possible, including a telephone in everyone's pocket, pills for a better brain, space travel, nano tech, you name it. A Russian billionaire just yesterday announced his plans to build an interstellar spaceship the size of a ping pong ball, and send it to Alpha Centauri, at one quarter the speed of light, enabling it to arrive there in about twenty years. The propulsion system would involve a big laser beam aimed at a tin foil sail attached to the ping pong ball. Some sober minded, conservative scientist wryly remarked that all the project lacks is a spaceship and the laser propulsion system, but was otherwise good to go. All the technology required is already available, requiring only design and construction, and testing. Solar energy is unlimited, so, we know that free energy is no pipe dream either. The chief impediments to our oncoming golden age appear to be mainly sociological; economic and military rivalry, political opposition, lack of large organization and cooperative plans. For the United States to simply impose its will upon the world does not appear to be the solution, to much of anything. Those nations and individuals who possess the wealth and hence the power are not going to share it gladly for the advancement of all of humanity, without a mass revolution, except for a few glowing exceptions like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Denmark. Stay tuned for liftoff.

All Outsiders Running

EVERYONE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT is an "outsider". They've never had any power, never belonged to anything, never been to Washington, nothing. Hillary doesn't push it quite that far, but she likes to portray herself as having been far, far away from the action when the damage was done, whenever and wherever that might have been. None of them were anywhere around, and therefore, they all give the promise of representing a fresh start, a fresh, clean approach. One of the best ways to get elected in the U.S.A., for some reason, is to advertise yourself as an outsider. As someone who stood against the forces of destruction when they rampaged through the land. It worked for Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, among others. Hillary, of course, is in bed with our Wall Street corporate masters, even as they oppress the rest of us. Trump didn't make it big without cozying up to people with clout,Ted Cruz is the ultimate traditionalist, and Bernie Sanders has been involved in public political affairs as an office holder for so long that he is never outside the system. Yet, they're all self proclaimed outsiders. this would be a great year for everybody still in the race to run in November, to give the American people four, rather than the usual two candidates. Sanders and Trump should both consider going it alone, starting their own political parties. Trump could represent a more secular, socially liberal free market conservatism. Bernie could usher in America's first enduring social labor party, like all civilized countries have. Let Cruz and Hillary carry the banner of the regular repubs and dems, and see what happens. Chaos is what will happen, the more the better. Revolutions require chaos, as a spark. It seems like all four of these characters claims to be an agent of real change, a real revolutionary. (Ted Cruz, "revolutionary"? don't make me laugh). Let's give them all a chance to strut their stuff all the way through the general election.

Blocking Obama For Hate

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER Mitch Mcconnell, a republican, has made yet another statement which inspires one to question his cognitive capabilities. This latest episode involves him saying, essentially, that there aint no way in hell that President Obama would ever nominate a moderate to the Supreme Court. Bear in mind that several weeks ago, long before Mitch made his comment, Obama nominated Merrick Garland, that everybody scrutinized, "vetted" Mr. Garland ad nauseum, and all agree that the good judge is indeed a moderate, and always has been. Where has Mitch been, Mars? The truth, of course is far uglier; Mcconnell, like many republicans, hates President Obama so much that the very thought of giving him the slightest courtesy, let alone opportunity to perform his job, they find unacceptable. True hatred, pure and simple. Obama's great crime is that he is not a far right conservative, so he must be opposed at every opportunity, no matter how reasonable his projects. According to the republicans, Obama has in essence been President too long, and won't be president long enough, to be qualified to appoint a judge. Huh? They would rather wait for Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Trump, or Cruz to make the appointment. The repubs say that if Hillary or Bernie wins in November, they'll give Obama's man a chance, which only proves how nefarious their motives are. If they're not careful, the next president will be a more liberal model than Obama. It has been asserted that were the shoe on the other foot, the democrats would be doing the same thing; blocking a perfectly reasonable Supreme Court nominee through sheer spite, and pretending that the reason is a desire to give the American people a voice by waiting for the next presiednt to make the appointment. Maybe, but we'll never know, and we can hope for the best.

Our Liberal Heroes

IN OUR CONTINUING DISCUSSION about dishonest, biased historical writing, called "hagiography", we all agree what it is, why it is, and why we don't want it. Hagiography comes in all shapes and sizes. If you ever hear a conservative, for example, trying to turn George Washinton, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and last but not least Jesus Christ into conservatives, run for the hills, all the way to a good research library, or college campus. We all agree on motive and method. Good historical analysis requires facts. Conservatives embrace tradition, liberals, aka "progressives" embrace change. You could argue that there is some of both in all of us. George Washington may indeed have been a man of tradition, but when push came to shove, he fought, hard, for the right to make changes, radical changes, which is not conservative. Same with Lincoln. He built his career by straddling the fence on slavery, avoiding the issue, but, even before the war, when push came to shove, Lincoln did not agree with slavery, and the fact that he ended up abolishing slavery marks hims ultimately as a racidal change maker, not a conservative traditionalist. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were revolutionary in their time, intended to be so, radical game changers, and thus, once again, not at all "conservative". All of these people had conservative temperaments, and they all changed, drastically, responding to circumstances. Jesus was Jewish, through and through. He repeatedly affirmed the Old Law. But if you just look at the religion he inadvertantly started, how it spread, and changed the world as its membership grew, again, we have a person in Jesus who created a great deal of change in the world, truly upending tradition. Liberalism is about change, conservatisim is about tradition. "The world advances only because of those who oppose it", said Goethe. Our greatest heros our our greatest "for the good" change makers, like Martin Luther King, who was the opposite of conservative: MLK was, alas, a protesting, outspoken, peach marchin', change mongering socialist, aka, "liberal".

Raising Kids, Becoming Educated

SOME FOLKS, when they hit eighteen, focus on work, and family. Some focus on education, mainly formal. If anything'll keep you from pursuing a formal education, or an informal one, its work and family. If you don't get married and have kids, you have a lot more time for thinking, for study and research, and a lot of other things, including money. Either way, you're on your way to the top. It takes all kinds, as they say. Telling the truth is never an insult. There's no shame in not having a spouse and kids, and no shame in not having a good education. The important thing is to know yourself, know the truth about yourself, and embrace it, while looking for ways to improve yourself. Actions, and lack of actions, have surprisingly widespread consequences, like ripples in a pond. Whatever education you do and do not have has an impact on your attitudes, thinking, beliefs, decisions, and actions. Intelligence and education are two very different things; one can have intelligence without much education, but a good ecudation requires and reveals a reasonable level of intelligence. We are rapidly entering a golden age of education in which everyone, whether married, with, or without kids and job, can have a good education. People form strong opinions, and take strong, influential actions, regardless of their intelligence and education. And that's when a lack of education can become tragic. That's when people start going, poorly educated, astray, ingnoring what is obvious and embracing the absurd. Over the past couple of centuries, thousands of people have staunchly claimed to believe that the Earth is flat, because it says so in the Bible. Millions of Americans still believe that the Bible is the absolutely perfect Word of God. People didn't always believe this nonsense: the idea got started some centuries ago, caught on, and spread like poorly educated wild fire. So much for embracing the absurd. Then, we have the deniers, deniers of the obvious truths, such as evolution and man made global warming. Those are just two examples. Interestingly, often times the people who believe nonesense about the Bible are the ones who deny the obvious about the real world. And yes, these are the folks you wish would get themselves just a wee bit better educated, maybe when their kids are grown and out of the house.

Making the World A Better Place, by Writing About Jesus and the Bible

RECENTLY WE POSTED A BOOK REVIEW of a book we hadn't yet read, but since have, "Jesus, Interrupted:, by Bart Ehrman. Actually, the book we reviewed sas "Jesus Before the Gospels", by the asme author, The main reason for this seemignly crazy method of book reviewing was to point out the dangers of biased historical writing, particularly written by historians who deeply love or admire their subjects, before finding out whether this particular book is an example of it, or instead, is good scholarship. How many books about Jesus and the Bible have been written by people who fervently believed in the undeniable divinity of both? Millions? What are they worth, in terms of reavealing insight or truth? Less than they might lead you to think. Better to have books about the Christian faith written by historians who are well educated, unbiased, and open minded but not Christian, if we want straight truth, instead of hagiography. The project here is/was to discover whether Mr. Bart Ehrman is an historian, or a hagiographer. It turns out that the author of "Jesus, Interrupted" is a former Christian who became an agnostic because of his study of the Bible at the Princeton Theological Seminary, while studying, like all his classmates, to become a minister. Bart Ehrman did his homework, and knows his subject matter, thoroughly. His scholarship is second to none, the Bible professors seem to all agree. And he explains the Bible, and by extension, Christianity, about as well as it can be explained. After all, that's waht they do in Theological Seminary, anywhere, Harvard, Princeton, any University, anywhere. They teach you the Bible and the Christian faith, every last scrap of it, studying every word of the Bible, and a lot more sources as well. You need to read a lot of other books and listen to a lot of good lectures to understand the Bible, so full of material it is. They do this in seminary. Then, the day after graduation, all of the new ministers throw away everything they have learned, and return to their beliefs, understandings, and explanations they had before entering seminary, as they embark on their careers behing the pulpit. Hard to believe, but true. But not Bart Ehrman. Armed with his ordained diploma, he set out of a voayge of grand adventure in the writing profession, as well as teaching the Bible at North Carolina and Rutgers. The world is a better place because he made this choice.

Keeping the Faith

THE JESUS, GUNS, AND MONEY CROWD (aka conservative Christians) is widely dispersed in America. Because there are so many of them, they are bound, like cockroaches, to eventually scatter everywhere. Yes, they might be heavily concentrated in small southern towns, but you can find plenty in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia, and maybe one or two in Boulder, Madison, Berkely, and Cambridge. Most of them, you suspect, will be voting for Ted Cruz, who said that the United States should bomb the Islamic State until the desert glows. He also says that Christ is the way, the only way. last but not least, Senator Cruz claims that the key to economic prosperity is to get the government out of the way, and let the free market choose its own course. Again, Jesus, Guns, and Money. Can you even remotely imagine Jesus himself wanting to nuke the Islamic State, or encouraging people to accumulate as much personal wealth as they want? Only if you're a card carrying member of the conservative Christian cult can you ignore the obvious contradictions between conservatism and the message of Jesus. These people are dangerous, partly because they want the United States to be a "Christian nation", and these people are evil, because they want Americans to carry weapons and they want the United States to attack other countries, break things, and kill people. They are sinful hypocrites because they do not want to render unto Caesar or give unto the poor. And yet, conservative Christians are perhaps the single largest constituency in America. We must change that. There are hopeful signs. The percentage of Christian Americans is declining, down from eighty five percent ten years ago, to seventy three percent now. You don't hear much from the TEA Party anymore. Bernie Sanders is doing well. We the American people, acting through our government, haven't started any wars in the past few days, unless they snuck one in on us without media awareness. And best of all, the right wingers seem to be persecuting fewer gay people and shooting fewer African-Americans. All religions and social institutions eventually fade into history, ultimately replaced by better ones. But the process takes time, and hard work. That should give us a sense of hope, even if little else currently does.

Saving Sanctuary Cities

THERE IS YET ANOTHER nefarious right wing movement afoot (will they never end?); to use any means necessary, including federal power, to force America's so called "sanctuary cities" to cease and desist allegedly giving sanctuary to undocumented, illegal immigrants. Right wingers, you'll notice, ostensibly in favor of something they call "smaller government", are nevertheless always willing, able, and ready to beef up federal government action whenever it suits their agenda. Also, there is their tendency to couch their projects in vague, misleading terms, like "sanctuary cities" and "small government", a term those in favor of sanctuary cities also misleadingly use. The term "sanctuary city" refers to those cities which have chosen to refrain from using local law enforcement to apprehend undocumented, illegal immigrants, and to instead leave it exclusively to the feds, whose jurisdiction it ultimately is. Let the feds handle it as they see fit. Its their problem, and besides, local law enforcement is already seriously overtaxed, and cities financially stretched to the limit. In the United States, illegal immigrants are treated with contempt and exclusion, like legal immigrants and other minorities, and always have been. For them, there is no "sanctuary". The term "sanctuary" implies acceptance and protection, which is hardly what they have. Their circumstances are much more analguous to prison, or ostracization. The anti-sanctuary city doctrine traces the sanctuary movement to the 1980s, when President Reagan's direct opposition to socialist movements in Latin America brought a flood of refugees to America's cities, and inspired America's liberal community to protest by refusing to cooperate in rounding them up. Thus, conservative foreign policy caused the refugee problem, and conservative domestic policy criminalizes the refugees. If the United States would stop driving people out of their own countries, perhaps it would mitigate, at least somewhat, our urgent desire to drive them out of ours.

Being Uneducated In America

ONCE IN A GREAT WHILE, circumstances conspire so favorably that one wonders about karma. The very lady who said to me: "I don't read books, I read the Bible" started another conversation, which I hoped would wax intelligent. It didn't, which reinstated my faith in karma. Her first thrust was more like a parry, or a feint, than an actual thrust; always a bad idea. If you're going to start, start big, start hard. Strike first, don't give the opponent the advantage. She said: "Why did you write on your blog that we're provincial and poorly educated here?" (see below article, "poorly educated seniors")... Is that the best she could do? I shrugged and mentioned the first amendment. Hell, start easy. Then I mentioned books, and the importance of reading them. Nobody who does not reads books is well educated, period? She turned and stalked off in a major huff. Wouldn't you? I almost hope she tries again, and does better. Then I'd have an opportunity of educating her a bit. She deserves it. I might ask her, a good Christian conservative, whether has has ever said "socialism doesn't work", or has heard someone else say it, and quietly agreed? Then, I'd invite her to write for this blog. I'm just guessing that she'd smugly sneer at the invitation, since people reveal their education through writing. I would further imagine that she might answer my socialism question in the affirmative, but, who knows? If so, I'd just point to everything in the town square outside our socialized senior center, to the fire department, police department (does anyone really want a privately owned police dept?), the city hall, library, every street- I would probably be forced to explain that she is looking at socialism in action, right outside the door, working just fine, and that she couldn't get by without it. Socialism doesn't work, huh? Without even having the slightest idea, evidently, what socialism is, and not even realizing that Jesus preached it, they condemn it. That is uneducated. These right wing Christians are amazing, and poor education is the only explanation. The conservative political/economic message in America is the exact opposite of the teachings of Jesus, and the humorous thing is that the Jesus, Guns, and Money crowd itself refuses to see it. But they're like that all over America, so the local poorly educated masses ought not to feel too bad.

Looking For the Real Jesus (as always)

WE WERE DISCUSSING hagiography (see below), a fancy word for history written with a bias, because we don't want hagiography, we want to avoid it, and we need to be able to identify it when we see it, so we can toss it. We see it often, if we read much history; alas, it is regrettably common, what with all the bias in the world. What we want is fair, honest, balanced, fact based history, without bias or distortion, a goal for which it is worth working hard. We want the truth, because, well, it sets you free. A recent book by Bart Ehrman, entitled "Jesus Before the Gospels", is confronted with the fact that none of the fab four says much of anything about the life of Jesus before his thirtieth birthday, and the fact that all four gospels were written at least forty to sixty five years after the cruxifiction, and the book asks: what is the truth about the true Jesus, and how effectively was this truth transmitted for forty years or more, by word of mouth? Some of the most important questions in modern times. Nobody who actually knew Joshua ben Joseph ever wrote anything down about the man. All four gospels are at least second hand, or third or worse, and after the second, it generally gets bad for accurate history. Fifty years is a long time, and, almost every time, history without primary source, eye witness documentation turns out very inaccurately. This has been proven, repeatedly. Remember that game where people sitting in a circle whisper a few words to each other one at a time, the words go around the circle, and the story comes back to the first person, unrecognizeable? And, if anybody was ever biased, it was the authors of Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those authors positively adored their subject from the git go; and no, that isn't good. It never is. History should be written by people who are neutral, hungry for answers, and willing to accept the truth, whatever it is. Christian history, for the most part, should not be written by Christians. Sorry, my fellow believers, but its true. So, do the four gospels know what they're talking about? The fact is, nobody knows for sure, and thus the Christian believer must, of necessity, take it all on faith, and historians must most certainly not, under any circumstances, take anything on faith. Faith destroys good history. This book is a great project, on the surface, but I know nothing about the author, and this book. I will soon enough, but before I do, I want to remind myself that hagiography sucks, and that if this Bart Ehrman is a devout Christian, he already has a strike against him. We don't want somebody trying to prove Jesus who has has already proven Jesus in his or her own mind. So, we'll see.

Driving, Or Taking the Bus, Safely, Conveniently

IN THE 1960S AND EARLY 1970S, there were over one hundred hijackings of American commercial passenger planes in the friendly skies. It became something of a spectator sport, novel amusement for the mainstream media. The act itself was so smooth and easy. Walk into the inviting cockpit, pull your piece, and invite the pilot to redirect to Cuba, and you're on your way. You might even sip a coke while en route to the Caribbean socialist paradise, while chatting it up with a slightly nervous but compliant co-pilot. Cuba was the destination of choice, because of its proximity, and its availability as a non extraditionist refuge from American justice. Hijacking became a copy cat crime for those wanting a seriously fresh start, or to escape stressful lives and haridan wives. Either way, it was no big deal. Drop off the hijacker, get back on the "road", and go home. Nobody gets hurt. In any event, each time it happened, surely it would be the last. Anybody could walk in off the street, up the ramp, and into the fuselage, without showing so much as a boarding pass, let alone submitting to strip searches and the thorough rummaging examination of one's luggage. Why would anyone get on a plane unless they were sincere in their intent to go to Miami Beach? Who would dare to board without a ticket? You'd have to pay later anyway, or face prosecution. The laid back atmosphere included full course meals, free cocktails, and something called "stewardesses"; lovely young lasses in skin tight mini skirts. But alas, the game eventually turned serious and mean spirited, as enhanced vigilance inspired more ruthlessness from those now termed "skyjackers". One creative lad even parachuted to safety in the Oregon wilderness with a sackful of cash, and vanished, which was arguably a breach of protocol and fair play. We then began taking it seriously, and serious consideration was given to prevention. The search turned desperate, and desperation begets lunatic creativity. Thought was actually given to attiring each and every passenger in boxing gloves, to preclude gun toting - but how would one sip one's martini? The idea was bandied about of constructing a fake airport in the southern swamps of florida, and calling it Cuba, to fool the bastards. Too expensive. (No, you can't make this stuff up.) Finally, in early 1973, we entered the era of close quartered passenger scrutiny, and soon thereafter the laid back atmosphere vanished, along with political incorrectness, gender based flight attendants, leg room, and good, free food and drink high above America. Now, as we all know all too well, we submit to X rays, luggage destruction and loss, cramped quarters, eight hour waits on ye olde tarmac, filthy recycled air, outlandish ticket prices reduced only when one agrees to live in an airplane, and bags of peanuts. Now skyjackings almost never happen, and we ask: was the trade off worth it? I think I'll drive, or take the bus.

Making Our founders Look good, At the Expense of Liberal Sounding Truth

IN A RECENT ARRICLE, we pointed out that what we want in historical writing is good, analytical truth, not biased reporting, liberal or conservative. And, if the truth sounds liberal, so be it, let the chips fall, without complaint or conservative indignation. Consider, for instance, Jamestown, 1607. The standard, conservative hagiographic, glory story is that the pioneers of 1607 braved the harsh wilderness, tried socialism, and since socialism in sharing all responsibilities collectively, always fails, they finally came to their senses, tried competitive individualistic capitalism, and built America. Jamestown indeed was a capitalistic venture, underwriten by the Virginia Company, which wanted its money back, and wanted profit. To this end the plan was to enslave the natives, and confiscate their gold and silver, just like the Spanish had done farther south. It worked for them, why not us? Other than that, they hadn't the slightest intention of doing a lick of work. This is a fact. They were ill prepared for labor of any sort, and since the Indians of Virgina turned out to be much more independent and hard to catch than the meek, obedient to authority Aztecs, and since they hardly bothered with gold and silver mining, the plan simply did not work out. So, the Virginia colony started starving to death, eating their dead, and stealing from the graves and storage buildings of the Indians, who resented it, sicne all the indians wanted to do was observe the newcomers, and help if they could. The Indians thought the settlers were insane, because of their complete lack of basic survival skills, which, it can be argued, they were. Sure, the settlers worked together to grow crops, once they stopped running around digging holes in the ground, but working together was not an experiment in socialism, it was desperation. Nothing would have worked, free market or otherwise, had it not been for native assistance, the eventual arrival of more ships from England, and the purchase of slaves in 1619. Does that sound liberal, or conservative? Well, since it does not reflect well on America's earliest founding, call it liberal. After all, liberals are the ones who do not like America, and do not glorify or celebrate it. Problem is, its the truth, and it does not make our ancestors look good. But no doubt we will continue to muddle through with our traditional, pro-Aamerican anti-truth conservative version, the one about bravery and hard work. Its more comforting, and makes our founders look better. Isn't that what we really want, rather than the damnable liberal sounding truth?

Playing Soccer, Losing Well, and Making Good Money

THE AMERICAN WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM, which has won everything in the world except the lottery, wishes only to be given equality with the men, economically. More probably they should be given economic superiority, considering their unrivaled record of success. Let the men take the short end of the stick, if a short end there must be! Heaven forbid that we should, as Americans, endorse the politically correct concept of gender equality. It could be argued, however, that the men should indeed be earning more money, because people should be paid for the quality of their work, should be paid fairly for how well they do what they do, no matter what they do, so long as they do good. And, let's face it, head on (head, soccer, on...): the United States men's soccer team does one thing, and one thing better, than nearly anyone in the country: they lose, they lose with grace and style, and that is good, because, as they say, somebody's gotta do it. They fail to win tournaments, and even games. They fail to bring home hardware from the Olympics and the World Cup. Nobody does it better, this failing to win thing, save maybe the 1962 Mets. Pay people what they are worth! The men's soccer team is worth a great deal: it provides an excellent role model in how to play hard, and lose, and make more money than women while so doing. And that, dear fans of soccer, takes a whole heap of doin'.