Why Doesn't Trump Want A Recount?

THE GREAT THREE STATE RECOUNT is beginning, and why would anybody be against it? If somebody is willing to pay for it out of personal funds, why not? It won't cost the taxpayers a dime, and it will give a lot of people extra work, and an extra paycheck, just in time for Christmas. Good economic stimulus, this recount. Almost certainly the results won't change, and that's fine; at least we'll know for sure. Nothing wrong with knowing for sure. The fact that several computer science professors recommended a recount because they thought something looks fishy justifies a recount. Maybe these scientists can find out whether there was any computer hacking and altering of the vote count. Its possible. In fact, according to the experts, hacking into the election in a precinct or county here and there in certain pre-selected locations is not only possible, it could be done by a knowledgeable hacker, of which there are thousands, and it wouldn't take a large number of people, a conspiracy, or a huge amount of money. It could be done without ever being noticed, unless somebody sat down, looked at the vote count in every county in all three of these states, and noticed something funny, something wrong. And that's exactly what happened. Computer professors who specialize in election study noticed that in every county which had certain voting methods, like computer balloting with no paper trail, Hillary did much worse than she should have, worse than she did in counties which use a paper trail. The pattern was consistent, and it happened everywhere. In paper free voting precincts, much lower vote totals for Hillary. Makes you wonder, right? The paper free part makes it much harder to trace, but it can be traced, electronically, by computer experts. And now, we can find out: one) whether there has been hacking, and 2) who did it, how it was done, and how much it changed the true vote count. All that should be fairly easy to find out, if it happened, now that we're looking for it. Notice how hard Trump is trying to distract us from the recount, trying to sabotage the recount; ridiculing it, accusing its initiators of being crooks, calling it ridiculous, claiming that he really won the popular vote but Hillary appears to have won it only because millions of illegals voted for her. If Trump believes that, wouldn't he want a recount too? No, he wouldn't, because it would make him look even more like a fool, and because he doesn't really believe he won the popular vote. But he may know something about hacking and stealing the election, it it really happened. We'll find out.

Blaming It On Religion (the "Wrong" Religion)

THE STUDENT AT Ohio State who used a car and a knife to brutalize people was evidently not associated with any terrorist organizations, but had evidently self radicalized. A student gets on the internet, surfs the web, and decides he hates the United States and becomes loyal to the Islamic State, and goes on a suicidal attempted murder spree. That would seem to indicate that the internet is either a very powerful force, or can become a very influential and powerful force under certain conditions. Either way, its alarming. What will the internet be used for next? The fact that he did all that damage without using a gun will only serve to inspire America's pro gun conservatives to say: "See? We told you so. If somebody wants to kill people badly enough, almost anything can become a weapon, not just guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. We must allow every good law abiding citizen to carry a gun, so that every good law abiding citizen will have the power at his or her disposal to stop mass killers or attempted mass killers in advance, whether or not the would be mass killer has a gun or some other weapon, like a car or a knife." Dubious as this argument sounds, and dubious as it is, it will be used, over and over again. Also we should be ready for the anti-Islamic bigots to return from the woodwork, since this young man had a middle eastern sounding name. No, he may not have been directly associated with any known terrorists organization, although we can never know for sure, but he was sure as hell acting on behalf of terrorist ideology, because he had a middle eastern name, proving that stringent measures to monitor and control Muslims entering and living in the United States are necessary. You know we're going to hear more of that. But the real problem is something else, something deeper in our minds. We are a culture of fear and hatred, on a planet in which most cultures are similarly afflicted, with fear, and hatred. For all we know our computers and cell phones are poisoning our minds.

Ditching The Press Pool

BEFORE DONALD TRUMP molests women, if, as he said he did, he does, one might imagine that he at least gives his immediate surroundings a cursory examination, to inspect for potentially uncontrollable witnesses. It might prove difficult to catch him in the act, or convict with incontrovertible testimony. Maybe some or all of the more than a dozen women who spoke up and accused Trump of sexual molestation after the release of his taped sexual predatory confession are lying, or engaged in a conspiracy, or both. Frankly, it doesn't look good for the president elect, with regard to sexual misconduct, financial conflicts of interest, his inability to temper his comments or refrainng from telling easy to disprove lies. His prospects for a good relationship with the news media seem dim, considering how easily Trump becomes angry and outraged at journalists, and lashes out unwisely.Trump seems destined to have a rocky and volatile relationship with the news media, the press, over the next four years. The media have decided to pursue the truth no matter what, and to not be bullied. Power corrupts. It has been speculated that had JFK lived, he would have been impeached in his second term, over sex and national security. Clinton cot caught, and the Donald self proclaimed his indiscretions, which differ from Kennedy and Clinton in that his pose a clear violation of the law. After Kennedy was killed the idea of a "press poo", or floating group of journalists who follow the president around like a group of mosquitoes scribbling and observing, witnessing, and holding the president accountable, as well as providing protection. Harry Truman, and maybe a few other presidents, would have ditched their press pools back in the day, but there weren't any around. Trump has already ditched his, and hasn't even started being president yet, and he probably'll keep doing it. The press pool is important; ever since its inception after JFK, it has been regarded as a very important feature of the presidency, something which should and must be near the president at all times, even though there is no law requiring it. Problem is, trump does not agree. During the campaign and on up to the present, Trump has been very dismissive of, rude to, resentful towards, and unhelpful to the press, particularly personal press pool. he's left them stranded at airports instead of letting them fly with him, even though he would have been reimbursed for the burdensome expense. This is troubling, and its likely to get more troubling, as Trump's term begins and his relationship with the media, which promises to get very exciting.

To Be, Or Not To Be Fair

IT IS NOT UNFAIR to remind people that Secretaries of State Rice and Powell both used private email servers during their tenure, but that no republican has ever so much as even hinted that they be investigated, described them as "crooked", or chanted "lock 'em up" in their faces. What about all those classified documents they possibly and undoubtedly transferred into the wrong hands? Isn't that automatically what happens when Secs of State use their own email addies? If they do that, they are suspect, and must be investigated, to find our exactly how the government server and the private server were both used, to make sure nothing inappropriate was done, right? If one didn't know better, which indeed one does not, one might suspect that what we have had for the past seeming millennia is what might be termed a "Hillary witch hunt". Get 'er, by any and all means necessary. Let Rice and Powell, who set the precedent for private email servers in government jobs, off the hook, ignore their potential criminal activity, but, by all means, get Hillary, she's a crook. Excuse me? That old right wing the ends justify the means thing. A classic case of double standard if ever there were one. Nor is it unfair to remind folks that Hillary aint never had so much as a parking ticket, let alone a felony rap for treason, here in the land of the innocent till proven guilty, is it? Nor is it unfair to say that between the two candidates, Hillary and Trump, the self described criminal is the latter. One should never accuse anyone of being a sexual predator, unless the person of the first part self proclaims as much. Or, at least, so common sense would seem to dictate. But let's face it, when society is confronted with an attack machine as lethal as the great right wing media and political conspiracy we now have, and when it is augmented and fully supported by the conservative community at large, common sense and fairness vanish beneath a heaping avalanche of lies, deception, and hatred. The conservative media, always on the attack, while we are led to believe, falsely, that the media is liberal, and therefore, somehow, unworthy. Welcome to the fun house that is America, where everything is grotesquely distorted, and nothing is as it seems.

Wanting To Be Understood

AS I CHECKED OUT at the grocery store, one of a chain (which is employee owned, yea!), I noticed that the lady ahead of me had walked out without her plastic bag containing two head of lettuce. I mentioned it to the check out person, who hadn't noticed, and ran out of the building, and saw a car leaving the parking lot. Altruistically, determined to make a difference, I started jogging after it. It slowed down and pulled over for a moment- then zoomed away. Nice car, late middle aged lady, I was sure I had the right car. Just guessing, but pretty sure. She had taken one look at me, I reckon, and decided to play it safe. Who knows what that person might or could conceivably do. Better to not take a chance. I wanted to find someway to convey to her that my intentions were honorable, but had no opportunity. Maybe she got home, missed her lettuce, figured it all out, and went back to the store, and it all worked out. I can only hope. Seems possible, if not likely. What could I have done differently? What I tried to do really didn't matter; just let it happen, she got home, and missed her lettuce, and all was well. Trying to do to much. I further hope she thought about me, the guy chasing her car, and realized, belatedly, that I had been harmless. I consider a good sign about myself that I care whether some stranger understands my harmless intentions. I care! Yes! I have been thinking recently that I am so far removed from the human race that I like dogs and cats more than I like people, and I find that troublesome. Maybe other people's intentions are more harmless than I think. Maybe power is not the most important thing to Hillary, and getting attention is not the most important thing to Donald. But what is? During the campaign, Hillary was being interviewed by a guy who asked her how she felt about the fact that many people dislike her because they perceive her to be cold, distant, secretive, defensive, unknowable, distant, insensitive, calculating, dishonest, and so forth. She stood there a moment, and said: "well, it hurts my feelings". I believed her. I still do. Maybe that's a good sign. The genius of it was, in one brief sentence she disproved everything her interviewer said. So there you have it. Lady at the store, in her car, just doing her thing, but maybe losing some lettuce in the bargain. I, poor I, trying to do the "right thing", but failing miserably, misunderstood. And Hillary, she gots what it takes, but, surrounded by enemies, tough as nails, so strong that she don't feel a thing, she puts the wrong foot forward. The real hero is the guy who interviewed her, seeking truth, and getting some.

Deciding What Racism Is, And Who Qualifies

WHAT, EXACTLY, IS "RACISM"? Technically, it is nothing other than the arbitrary division of humanity into categories based on skin pigmentation, called "races". It would be as if the species were divided into categories based on eye color, hair color, height, or weight. Like all categories, racism is a suspect convention intended to simplify and render convenient and comprehensible the real world of infinite varieties of unique forms. It may be that every human who has ever lived has a slightly different and unique skin tone. An interesting experiment is to place your forearm next to those of as many other people as possible, and compare color. Most likely you will never find a perfect match, even within members of your own "race". Another definition of racism is that it exists when people who accept these broad categories, as everyone seems to, and then place importance on them. Or, when someone, after deciding to give race importance, arbitrarily decides that one race is superior to another. At least one of these three definitions could probably be applied to everyone, meaning that everyone is, in one way or another, a "racist". Nobody, or very few, admits to being a racist, but it could be argued to everyone is.1)Races exist, 2)races are important,3) races are of differing value. Three definitions of racism. The third definition is the one which we seem to agree on. It can never be proven that anyone is a racist, according to the third definition. We can't read minds, we have to take people's word for it, or we can decide for ourselves whether someone in particular is a racist by analyzing their words and actions. Consider, for example, this so called "alt right" movement. Unless I'm mistaken, this" organization" claims not to be racist. They claim to merely be interested in retaining their identity as white Americans of European descent, and preserving and protecting that identity. Clearly, they qualify as racists under the first two definitions. they clearly believe that races exist, and that categorical racial distinctions are important. What about the third definition? Part of their platform is that there should be a location where members of the white race can live separately from all other races, in order to associate with like people, and to further their aim of preserving and protecting their perceived racial identity. What about the third definition, that races are of differing value? Insistently they proclaim that they do not meet this definition, that their ideology has nothing to do with whether one race is superior to another, but only that different races, especially black and white, do not associate well with each other, and should be allowed and even encouraged to live apart. Are they being honest? Are they putting all this effort into building their all right movement even though they do not consider their own race to be in any way superior to any other race? That's for you to decide.

A Realistic Plan For Saving The Planet

THE EXTRA CARBON in the atmosphere is, to a certain extent, being absorbed by the photosynthesis process inherent in botanical lifeforms. Problem is, it isn't enough. Plant sequestration of carbon mitigates climate change a wee bit, but, again, not near enough. We need more action, of the human made variety, to reverse climate change so we can enjoy our great great grand children. Two hundred years ago, the atmospheric carbon content was two hundred parts per million. A hundred years ago it was over three hundred, and now is surging past four hundred, and rising fast. We know this because its easy to measure it. Everyone agrees on the numbers, and everyone with a basic knowledge of chemistry understands who put it there; we. But we can remove it, and we can stop adding to it. At the dawn of neolithic civilization, there were, it is estimated, seven trillion trees, give or take a few dozen, on Earth. Now, that number has been deforested in half. A worldwide tree planting project could make up the difference in a short period of time. Say, a one trillion global tree planting initiative, for starters. Every military organization, every civic organization, and every community on the planet could participate, every last one of us. Make every day Arbor Day! Already in cities like New York the number of trees has been more than doubled, and that's just in one small city. Phase two could consist of massive solar energy infrastructure construction, to augment an already burgeoning industry. Huge solar arrays could be built to provide energy for desalination plants around the world, and sea water could be cleansed, pumped and piped into deserts and areas stricken by drought. The new trees would greatly slow the carbon buildup, the desalination would not only assist in creating new green land, but would also slow sea level rise, more than you might think, with enough pumping and piping. Pipelines for brand new fresh water, rather than fossil fuel transport. So let's get started! You handle the solar energy and desalination facilities, I'll start planting trees, one by one. Either that, or we can vigorously encourage the incoming president, whoever that might be, to invest federal funds in all the above. It happens all the time, this business of government investing in private enterprise, the government picking winners. Its called "mercantilism", an often productive variation/distortion of free market capitalism, and it often works like a charm. Maybe we'll hook up on the death valley or Saharan solar energy farm and and stroll casually together through the surrounding verdant forest.

Trump, Over the Edge, and Out To Lunch, Upstairs

TO BORROW A QUOTE from John McEnroe: "you cannot be serious!" Unless I'm dreaming, I and maybe we all are living in some bizarre alternative parallel science fiction universe in which a nut job with the emotional age of a third grader and various mental disabilities, among them extreme narcissism and hyper sensitivity emotional personality disorder, has been elected president of the United States, just as he begins a descent into depravity, perhaps caused by dementia. In the latest of a seemingly never ending series of inane statements, Donald J. Trump, most likely soon to be president of that wonderful fun house called America, actually said that he, and not Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote. In point of fact, as the rest of us, we the members of the sane universe are well aware, Clinton won it by well over two million votes, and counting. The reason, Trump alleges, that he actually won , or should have won, is that there occurred massive voter fraud, consisting of millions of illegal aliens casting votes. He declined to specify whether the "illegal aliens" to which he vaguely referred are Mexicans, or extraterrestrials. Knowing Trump, it could be either. Does it matter? First, he said that he could have won the popular vote if he had tried harder, now, this. The frightening part is that he appears to be perfectly serious. The even more frightening part is that, unless the recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania changes the electoral outcome, Trump suddenly gains sufficient lucidity to have himself checked into a mental institution, or the good lord intervenes, this wack job is actually going to become president of these United States. Is this a bad dream, or merely a humorous one, from which we shall all soon awaken? Are we ready to acknowledge buyer's remorse? Has anyone over at Bellevue suggested curtailing twitter tweet privileges for the mentally and emotionally disabled?

Increasing Poverty Through Welfare Reform

ITS HARD TO BELIEVE its been twenty years since Bill Clinton proved he was not entirely liberal by signing into law a reformed, watered down welfare bill, just like the republican congress ordered. Accordingly, welfare money is now handed out to the states in block grants, to appropriate as they please, and the cost to the government has dropped from about twenty billion a year to around sixteen billion. TANF, Temporary Assistance To Needy Families, may, according to the law, be applied in four different ways. As direct cash payments to impoverished families, to encourage people not to have children out of wedlock, for education and work training, and to provide, believe it or not, marriage counseling to married couples to help them stay married in order to avoid divorcing and thus providing society with yet more impoverished single mothers and children. There is now a limit on how long people may receive such assistance. It tuns out that in most states most of the money is applied to marriage counseling and educating people to avoid getting pregnant while single, with a good amount of it going to job training and last and least to impoverished families as direct cash assistance. The problem with the marriage counseling part is that all across the country perfectly affluent middle and upper middle income married couples are and long have been enrolled, which means that although they are perfectly affluent, they are on welfare. Also, it doesn't work often enough. By the time married couples seek marriage counseling, its usually too late. The crusade against unwed mothers may be having some effect, but is offset by a cultural shift in which it is no longer considered a great sin and crime to get pregnant out of wedlock. In fact, many women prefer it that way. Job training is having a good impact, but not good enough, as job skills gained do not always match available jobs. Also, many of those receiving job training are quite capable of getting it at their own expense, because it is available to many income level groups. Direct assistance to families in need, the old fashioned way, still might be the best answer, and the fact that the time allowed for receiving it is now limited helps diffuse the traditional complaints from conservatives that welfare creates permanent dependency. Unfortunately, only about twenty five percent of the block grant money usually goes for that purpose. The end result of all this is that the number of people living below the poverty line continues to increase as a percentage of the population, indicating that welfare isn't working quite as well as planned. It merits consideration, however, that without any welfare system at all, probably half the country would be living in poverty, and that is surely systemic. Unless, or course, someone wants to suggest that half the American population is either stupid, lazy, or incompetent. Not even a conservative would be so insensitive and unrealistic to make such an assertion. At least, so we can hope.

Resisting Progress, By Any Means

CHANGE IS NOT ALWAYS PROGRESS, but progress is always change. The more virulently someone resists progressive change, the more extreme their actions taken in opposition to it. Consider, for example, the American conservative community, the stronghold of resistance to progressivism. In 2010, the once a decade U.S. census was conducted, the results of which are routinely used to reapportion congressional and state representational districts; redistricting, based on updated population distributions. The republican party was right on top of it, and, firmly in control of most state legislatures, controlled the redrawing of electoral districts, both state and national. What emerged from this process was a redistricting map in which likely democratic voters were deliberately concentrated into fewer districts, in order to reduce their impact on all the other districts, so as to increase the chances of republicans getting elected in more at both the state and federal level. The scheme worked like a charm. Because democrats were unprepared and unable to provide a balancing influence, we will be stuck until 2020 with an electoral district map which greatly favors conservative candidates, no matter whether democrats outnumber republicans in any given region or state. That's why republicans are getting elected is disproportionate numbers across the country. The scam is called "gerrymandering", a play on the word "salamander", based on the bizarre shape which manipulated districts assume after corrupt redistricting. (see:Elbridge Gerry, revolutionary era politician) The republican party, in the great tradition of "tricky" Dick Nixon, has even more devious tricks up its sleeve. Generally, the more people who vote, the less chance of winning conservative candidates have, because the outcome of elections in America is often determined b whether the poor and the minorities vote. The ploy here consists of screaming bloody murder about election fraud, which research clearly indicates is a rare occurrence in American elections. They claim that dead people are voting, that people who are ineligible for one reason or another are voting, such as unregistered people and people with felony convictions. Again, such cases have repeatedly been proven to be exceedingly rare. Thus republican controlled state legislatures enact stringent voting regulations, requiring I.D's to be presented at the voting place, reducing early and absentee voting, eliminating election day registration, reducing voting rolls by any means possible, remindful pf the poll taxes of yesteryear. If these voting restrictions seem minor and easily met, reconsider. There are millions of poor people in America for which many basic forms of personal identification are hard to come by, for various reasons, usually financial. The fact that affluent people fail or refuse to understand this does not make it untrue. In a democracy, the easier it is to vote, the more people who vote, the stronger the democracy. We should make it easier, not more difficult to cast a ballot and participate in the very process upon which freedom and democracy is predicated. We should avoid making voting harder to accomplish. Conservative republicans of course realize all this, but to them it doesn't matter. Nothing matters when pursuing an agenda designed to preclude the forces of change and progress from having a voice in the democratic process.

Finding Out The Truth, With No Help From Trump

ACCORDING TO DONALD TRUMP, the election is over. Apparently Mr. Trump is not conversant with the electoral college, which convenes on December 19, and votes to determine the winner of the election, only after which is the election over. Trump's degree is in business finance, from which he seemingly learned the "art" of high risk dice rolling gambler capitalism, not political science. The president elect is among the most hypocritical human beings to ever disgrace the stage of human history by strutting and fretting his insufferable way back and forth across it for a few brief decades late in the twentieth century and early in the twenty first. His eventual inevitable fortunate exit will be a great boon for the rest of us. What, precisely, did Trump have to say, before election day, about the likelihood of the election being rigged, or fixed? That it was not only likely, but inevitable, but only in the event of his losing it. A person with even a modicum of integrity wold be applauding the forthcoming recount in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania as a reasonable protection of democracy, not calling it a "scam", and accusing its instigator, Jill Stein, of initiating it only for personal profit. The president elect is actually accusing the person arranging for and financing a perfectly appropriate and legitimate recount of soliciting donations for her own enrichment, not to for to pay for the expense of the recount, totaling several million dollars. Our president elect, who after the election of Obama eight years ago immediately began a campaign to prove that Obama was born a foreigner, recently urged the nation to unite, and now describes his democratic opponents as badly defeated, demoralized, and poor losers. Not exactly the best way to lead a national unification effort. Trump is a scam artist con man, accusing a good American of planning to pocket most of the recount money for herself. What an incredible display of low morality by Trump. The president elect clearly reveals himself to be a person of low integrity who seems to be projecting onto other people his own lack of decency, a lack of basic decency he has consistently shown throughout his time in public life. With regard to engaging in public affairs for personal profit only, Donald J. Trump is the expert and master. Make a cabinet appointment, do a little business, make another appointment, being sure to appoint a fellow racist reprobate. Roll the dice, lose a few million, declare bankruptcy, let the general public pay for cleaning up the mess, and use your own disastrous business practices as a means of avoiding paying federal income tax, thereby contributing nothing to the financing of the country for which he so piously and patriotically declares his love. But that doesn't mean that anybody other than himself is of low enough moral quality to participate in politics for personal gain only. Then, run for president,feeding off a pervasive anger raging throughout the right wing Obama-hating racist community of deplorables, and claim that his business experience is somehow a positive attribute. Trump should welcome the recount, as a way to get to the truth. It would be surprising if he takes the oath of office and becomes a decent president, but it would be no surprise to discover that the election was indeed rigged, in favor of Trump, and that he was the person who arranged its rigging. The answer to both questions will be revealed soon enough.

Admiring Castro, A Better Man Than The One He Replaced

I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE why I always liked Fidel Castro. Maybe I felt sorry for him. If anyone needs sympathy, its the head of state of a tiny island nation ninety miles from an imperialistic super power hell bent on your and your country's economic isolation and destruction. Being a socialist might contribute to my admiration of Fidel. But I'm a democratic socialist, a Bernie Sanders type, and I abhor totalitarian regimes and brutal dictatorships as much as the next Yankee imperialist. What Castro did was to overthrow a brutal and repressive capitalistic dictatorship which had broad U.S. support and replace it with a socialistic dictatorship which was soon met with unbridled American enmity. The difference is that the American corporate controlled government never met a capitalistic dictator it didn't like and support, and never met a socialistic dictator it didn't hate and seek to undermine, and that includes those duly elected in democratic processes, such as have been elected and overthrown repeatedly throughout Latin America, thank you very much CIA and the Truman doctrine. And now, the Cuban community in Miami dances in the streets, in a display of questionable decency. As if most of them were even alive to suffer under Castro. Those people who fled Cuba when Castro came to power: would they rather that Batista had stayed in power? If so, why? Because they somehow benefited from Batista's cruel despotism? I always believed, and still do, that the U.S. embargo against Cuba during Castro's rule was brutal, barbaric, hypocritical, detrimental to American interests. Corporate America loved Cuba before Castro, with its despotic ruler favorable to corporate American imperialism. I always believed that Castro would outlast all of the American presidents who tried to strangle him and his country, and I was right. No economic system, capitalism or socialism included, could have flourished in Cuba under the conditions imposed on it by the United States from 1960 until a couple of years ago. So don't give me this "Cuba is proof that socialism doesn't work" crap. In fact it works everywhere it exists without being strangled and suffocated to death; it works just like the rest of us work; under conditions in which it is given a reasonable chance to flourish. It works in Denmark, the world's wealthiest country per capita, and it works just fine in the United States, thank you very much. If you think otherwise, go buy your own highway, and your own city street system, and your own police department, and your own fire department. You get the point. At this point the best course might be to include Cuba, Hispanola, and Mexico and Canada along the the U.S. in a loose confederation of nation states, beginning with free trade, and continuing towards open borders and expanded citizenship for all in the new United States of North America. The current nationalistic arrangements are rapidly becoming obsolete, and cannot endure forever, notwithstanding Brexit, notwithstanding Trump, notwithstanding this weird and bizarre conservative backlash against globalism currently en vogue under the curious moniker "populism". I always thought "populism" was a mass political movement of a country's poor and working poor against the wealthy power holding elite, and I assure you, that aint even close to what's going on now. If it were, we'd be hearing a lot more about equalization of wealth Castro style, and less about making America great "again".

Finding Christ, For A Reason

REMEMBER BACK IN THE DAY, when high roller turned politician Donald J. Trump declared his intention of winning the presidency, and precluding anyone and everyone of the Islamic religion from entering the country? Seems like a lifetime ago. Now they, the right wing mob which recently seized control of the land of freedom, the land which invites the world to give forth its tired and huddled masses, is at it again. "The fools would be humorous, were they not in such deadly earnest".(H.L.Mencken) This time the revised plan calls for a national registry of Muslims, like the one George Bush the second invoked, to no effect, shortly after nine one one. "Curse on the stripling, how he apes his sire". (an enemy of John Quincy and John Adams) Suppose you are a devout Muslim, working hard, working on your English, living in, say, Deerborn, Michigan, or Utica, New Yawk, or Princeton, New Joisey, or any of the several other progressive, welcoming communities scattered so precariously across the fruited plain, and you had no intention of landing on some red neck's list of human beings to hate. Just suppose. What would be your strategy? Your best guess, please. Were it I the target, I'd march right down to the federal building, find out whether my name happened to appear on the list of those to be mistrusted, profiled, and surveilled a priori, and if indeed my name was there on the list of suspicious-due-to-being-Islamic people, like a Jew in the Third Reich, I would humbly but firmly declare that there must surely be some mistake. I'd be wearing blue jeans, a T shirt reading "Christ IS Lord" on the front, and "Notre Dame Fighting Irish" on the back, and I'd say that, no, I am certainly not an Islamicist infidel, I aint no damned Moslem-terrorist, I hate those unsaved hell bound creatures, and I would make this declaration with confidence despite my heavy mideastern accent and broken English. I would further assert that in fact I have been saved, because I have long since discovered Christ, and am a witness for the true God, Almighty Christ. I'd lay it on thick, by damn. If a quick check revealed my name on the votary list down at the mosque, I'd sneer and smugly say: "How presumptuous of them. Those sneaky Muslims. Never even been in the place". And by god I'd be damned insistent about it. If they decided to ask around to verify or discredit my tall tale, I'd call the local Muslims a bunch of liars and sinners, cross myself a few times, and remind them that Christ is lord, king, and savior, and whatever the hell else the federal registrars thought he should be. They'd probably get so tired of me that they'd take me off their bigoted list just to get rid of me, and when thousands of other people started coming in and pulling the same routine, the federal oveseer of the list of evil Muslims would get very frustrated, and start to feel like throwing the damned list away. The only question is, why in the name of critical thinking don't our right wing brethren and sistern realize this? Because they're conservative, Christian, and caucasian and rather poorly educated and therefore voted for Donald Trump? Its anybody's guess.

Our National Security Neighborhoods

WHEN EISENHOWER WAS PRESIDENT, and I but a wee lad of, oh, five or so, in the middle class mid sized midwestern town into which I was born, I'd scoot out of the house and sally forth into the 'hood without bothering to inform my mother the registered nurse turned housewife where I was going or what my plans were when I got there. We knew the neighbors well enough to know their kids, and no matter who lived in the neighborhood, the kids played together, sans video games. It didn't matter which house we landed in for a cold drink; we were welcomed. Most folks didn't bother to lock their doors. You try that today, and you're in jail, parentally, foster care, offspringingly. Mon knew I'd be fine, or at lest she had a good enough notion of that to lack worry. I didn't even bother to take a dad gummed smart phone with me. Left it back at the crib. Those care free fear free days of the late fifties and early sixties. Our seat belts had vanished beneath the car seats, ignored and ridiculed. Nobody wore a helmet when riding a bicycle, and I don't remember quality control checking Halloween candy for razor blades and poison. Now, what? No seat belts'll land you in traffic court, and the bike helmets are cute, all brightly colored, styrofoamy and such. But we mustn't leave the house without the electronic gadget of the day, and a solemn promise to check back in, and we must beware of reentering our own homes so that we do not trigger the alarm and sentronic security system, after we make our way past the gate and the privacy fence, and buzz back in. The outdoor solar sensitive light comes on about dusk. When school, started, you could walk into any public school building without pushing a button outside, and flashing two types of identification. You didn't have to report to the security desk outside the main office and receive a "visitor" pass. The crime rate today is about the same as it was then, give or take a few tabloid true stories and a never ending stream of violent televised crime dramas. Are we crazy, or merely paranoid? One theory is that we bombard ourselves with so much gruesome vicarious news-otainment that we take it to heart, and respond accordingly, as if we were characters in an episode of Crime Scene Investigation, or whatever those shows are called. (I don't have a television.) What about ambiant artifiically generated electromagnetic radiation, like, say, microwaveable smart phones? Food preservatives, perhaps?

Replacing Experts With Ourselves

ON MY LAST VISIT to my doctor, I had a confession I was afraid to make; on some days, I sheepishly told him, I adjust my blood pressure medication due to what I perceived was appropriate based on changes in my monitor readings, which I monitor daily. I fully expected to be lectured sternly, or if not, reprimanded gently at the very least. Isn't that strictly verboten? No such bad luck. He dismissively shrugged and said: "No problem. People do that all the time." I was shocked. He is, in my estimation, a top notch doctor, serious, professional, and assiduous. Yet, he was perfectly content to let me play doctor in the privacy of my own home, and adjust my own prescription. Maybe he trusts me; I've been going to him a long time, and we have a good relationship. Or maybe he had simply decided to accept the inevitable; I would probably do what I want to do anyway, no matter what he says. We live in a society in which everybody is an expert, everybody knows everything about everything, or thinks they do. We the American people are so self confident, or arrogant, that we are a society of self proclaimed experts, in everything. As such, we have become dismissive of and even disrespectful towards the true experts, of which every field of endeavor has a class. We Americans self medicate, we accept our own homespun legal advice, and we choose to manage our own stocks on sites like Ameritrade, rather than taking the time and trouble to play it safe, and do it right, and pay for the benefit of getting good advice from people who know more than we. Not only are the real experts often ignored, they are nearly as often held up to ridicule as charlatans and impostors. The most dangerous and common driving mistake is following too closely, we are repeatedly told. And yet we all tailgate without the slightest concern, even though it accomplishes nothing expect putting our lives and the lives of others at great risk. A plant based diet prolongs life, we are told. So what? Where's the next cheeseburger? And the coup de grace: every credible climate scientist, chemist, biologist, and physicist and every person who teaches these subjects from the high school level on up warns us that climate change is real, and is a threat to our very existence unless we address it seriously and immediately. And yet, at least one third of the American population denies it, laughs it off as pure fantasy. as if they know more than people with advanced degrees in physical science. It can't possibly be happening, because it happens all the time, the climate is always changing, and there's nothing we can do about it, as if that is in any way relevant, or somehow precludes human impact. No group is more often ridiculed than academics. Ivory tower eggheads, cut off from the real world by their own cloistered lives, unaware of reality. All that education for nothing. My high school diploma is just as good. No, the opinions about climate change presented by trained scientists are not "opinions", and they are not "all over the map". There is a universal consensus that global warming, as we used to call it, is very real, and that consensus is supported by decades of redundantly verified research and observation. The term "global warming" has been replaced by the term "climate change" not because it is a hoax, but because the updated terminology is more accurate; some parts of the world will experience cooler weather, most will experience warming. And no, it is neither a liberal nor a Chinese hoax, depending on which politician or conservative radio talk show host you mistakenly listen to. As a rule of thumb, your doctor knows more about medicine and health than you do, your lawyer knows more about the law, your mechanic knows more about cars, and the professors of science at places like Harvard and M.I.T. know more about the climate and the forces which affect it than either Donald Trump or Rush Limbaugh, much as we might like to believe otherwise. Experts are expert, even when we don't like what they say.

As Good A Day As Any On Which To Be Thankful

THE VIRGINIA COMPANY SENT FORTH a purely mercantilistic venture in 1607 which landed in North America and named the place after their company and their queen. They set about digging holes, looking for gold. Their intent was to enslave the natives and relieve them of their presumed gold and silver, after the fashion of the Spanish previously in the Caribbean and South America. Unlike their southerly counterparts, however, the North American natives kept neither gold nor silver, nor were conducive to enslavement, being of a more independent bent of mind. Rather than placidly coming forth unwittingly in large unarmed numbers, they merely scattered and fled into the forest, disgusted. Entirely unprepared to hunt, fish, or farm, the English endured their "starving time" in 1609 and 1610, and were reduced to stealing from the natives, and to cannibalism. In 1620, the saints and strangers sailed from southern England to the Netherlands, back to England, then to Massachusetts, where they too were reduced to stealing from the natives, who at one point told them "all you had to do is ask". When they asked why the natives displayed so much enmity towards them at first, the natives replied: "because you're a pack of thieves." They worked it out, largely owing to the inherent good nature of the natives, and their desirable quality of life. Thus began a long tradition of European descendants running away from their Christian communities to live among the Indians and improving their quality of life. Adopting native hunting and farming methods, feasting with them, and giving thanks to God all seemed expedient, and the legend of a day of thanksgiving emerged, even though days of giving thanks can be found in many other primitive cultures, including the Spanish settlements in Florida a half century before Jamestown and Plymouth. Abraham Lincoln, who could have delayed or prevented the Civil War merely by refraining from seeking the presidency, remains the most divisive president in American history, and the most tyrannical. Anyone caught so much as whistling "Dixie" in the streets of Washington D.C. during Lincoln's presidency was locked up, and the key was thrown away when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, the ancient legal principle requiring the lock up law to either show cause why the body was being detained within twenty four hours, of let the corpus go free, alive. Lincoln had good reason to declare a national day of thanksgiving during the war between the states; he had not been assassinated, yet, though not from lack of trying, and the country still existed, though barely, even when a hundred thousand soldiers had been slaughtered, with a half million more to follow. FDR firmed up the date, and the rest is history. We eat, and we watch football, and in that consists our holiday "tradition". We should probably be eating deer along with the turkey, since that's what the pilgrims and the natives did, and because the turkey would have made a fine national bird, rather than the carrion chomping eagle, but Benjamin Franklin did not get his way. In any event, as long as we are fat and happy on the fourth Thursday in November, and well fed, its as good as day as any to be thankful, about as good as every other day.

Voting For Trump, Then Being Betrayed

HAD I BUT VOTED FOR Donald J. Trump, I would not only most likely be an angry white working class male with a limited education and knowledge of public policy and just a smidge of well concealed redneck racism around the edges, but also I reckon I'd wax a mite wrathy 'long 'bout now, feeling mighty betrayed. What about them eleven point whatever illegal brown toned Mexicans you was a gonna chase back across the Rio? Did we the manifestly destined norde americano steal half their country back in 1848 for nuthin'? Plus, why aint Hillary in prison, without even the slightest trace of due process or evidence of actual criminal intent or activity? And why, oh why, Mr. prez elect, are you pandering to the mainstream bleeding heart liberal elite establishment and their cockeyed notion that injecting a mere billion or so tons of carbon into the atmosphere and leaving it there around the clock has any impact on the weather, by expressing your intent to be open minded about their silly anti-growth anti-capitalism disguised as concern for the welfare of the ecosystem of this man's planet? Then too, that liberal elite socialistic class warfare race baiting New York Times-Slimes, a "jewel"? What? And yet, were I a recent for Trump voter I would take heart. The likely incoming Attorney General, a southern caucasian, asserted that "good people do not smoke marijuana", and that groping women in their privates and bragging about it on camera is no crime, in this man's country. Yes, he said those things. You could look it up. Then too, the incoming Secretary of Education wants to transfer resources away from socialistic public education and into privately owned and operated for profit capitalistic education, and that's obviously a great idea. Conflict of interest? What conflict of interest? What's a few business interests scattered around the world compared with the urgency of the exigencies of public policy formation on behalf of the public welfare? Those proposed new hotels in China cannot possibly have any impact on diplomatic intercourse with the Chinese. One can build "exquisite and flawless" hotels, to quote Ivanka Trump, and negotiate with the sovereign government of a billion and a half people while simultaneously erecting tariff barriers, abrogating potential trade agreements, and initiating trade wars. Like Richard "tricky dick" Nixon articulated long ago, anything the president does, by definition, is legal, because, well, it is, after all, being done by the president.

Rigging the System Against Hillary

IF THE RECENT ELECTION WAS RIGGED, it would appear to have been rigged in favor of Donald J. Trump, not against him, as he claimed it would have to be in order for him to lose. He never indicated that rigging was necessary in order for him to win, but it may very well have been. Hillary Clinton, when all the votes are counted in California, as they may well be within the next few days or decades, will have won the popular vote by two and a half million popular votes. Due to mail in ballots and a few other formalities, California has a laid back approach to tabulation, and, like, well, chill, dude. Never has a candidate been more favored by the general electorate and yet lost the election on account of safeguards against the popular will. The only more corrupt election within fairly recent memory is when Saddam Hussein used to run against himself, and rake in about ninety eight percent of the tally, or when Davy Crockett used to hand out swigs of moonshine and twists of chewing tobacco to his neighbors and buddies right about election time, which, he insisted, was purely coincidental. The problem, it would seem, is within what has pejoratively been termed "the rust belt", including the great states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. A computer science professor at the U. of Michigan noticed that in those three states, in every county in which voting was done purely electronically, Hillary's vote total was almost exactly seven percent less than in all the other counties of those three states. The pattern is consistent and pervasive. This interesting circumstance was also noticed by other computer science professors at other major universities, and they all concur; although there may have been no electronic rigging, and as yet is no direct evidence of it, they nonetheless "smelt a rat", to borrow a quote from Patrick Henry regarding the United States Constitution of 1787, the one we use today. All of these professors have contacted the now defunct Clinton campaign and recommended challenging the results. As a general rule, it is efficacious to accede to the advice of academicians. Was it Mr. Trump's dear friends the Russians? Impossible, some say. But, why? What's so impossible about a bit of hacking, rigging, and electronic signature resigning? Hell, happens all the damned time, don't it? Does the term "NSA" cone to mind? We know that any computer which can compute can be hacked. We know it can be done, the question is: was it done in this instance, and if so, who done it?

Trump, Coming Around, Maybe

TODAY DONALD TRUMP disavowed right wing extremism, praised the New York Times after having condemned it earlier in the day (a day can last long), indicated his intention of leaving Hillary Clinton alone, and further indicated that he intends to keep an open mind about human made climate change. Now, that's more like it. He keeps talking like that, and in less time than it takes to bankrupt a casino he'll have a brand new ally and friend, namely, moi. Trump reminds me of myself, being as how he has more mood swings in a day than I have stray cats (four) or he has pending lawsuits (four thousand). No, I do not think Donald J. trump is any more qualified temperamentally to be the U.S. president than I, and that's going some. We need more Obama-esque calm, collected stoicism, not the raging infernal of a child-like emotional make up such as he, and alas poor I possess. Leaving Hillary alone is good strategy, being as how she is as innocent as the driven snow, as indicated by repeated and thorough FBI investigations, never having had so much as a parking ticket. By comparison, Donald J. Trump is a walking maximum security facility. For instance, there is the minor matter of the Trump Foundation, by its own admission, having been so operated as to benefit and enhance the good fortune of other than charitable interests, a definite violation of law. Then too, lest we forget that many of the four thousand lawsuits in which Trump is currently engaged allege further malfeasance on his part, and of course there is that annoying matter of his having, just the other day, bought his way out of a fraud rap involving a certain now defunct "educational" institution. But if he can see his way clear to notice the air pollution which is over heating a certain planet which by the way does not belong to us, but to our descendants, and stop his insane and childish desire to persecute a person no less worthy than he, we may have a deal. There are other steps. He'll need to deal with Vladimir Putin like a man, rather than an ass kisser, and he'll need to get some help from other than white right wing extremists, just to sort of balance things a bit and make himself look a tad more diverse in his thinking. But those things take time, and all in all, today wasn't a bad day for a poor boy from Queens who made good with no help from anyone, other than a few cool million start up money from dear old dad.

Reading The Bible, for Real

THERE IS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, no Bible study group in the world in which the study group begins reading the first words in the bible (in the beginning), and, as a group, reads every word, book, chapter, and verse in order, from beginning to end, all eight hundred and eighty eight thousand words. One can scarcely imagine how long that would take, including providing time for each group member to ask questions, make comments, and analyze the material; possibly several decades. The Bible is one very long book, or rather, sixty six books of sufficient length to occupy one for awhile. Few people are willing to admit that they have not read the Bible, but few people have, mostly biblical scholars at places like Harvard theological seminary. Your average Christian hasn't the time, the inclination, or the endurance. The method of choice is to have someone select one or a few select passages, and focus on them. The ones selected invariably give good advice, contain wisdom, and good guidance. Nothing which can't be found elsewhere though; the Bible has no monopoly on any of the thoughts it contains of value. In fact, all the wisdom that is in the Bible can be found in far older traditions and manuscripts. The problem with this piecemeal approach is that it conceals the real nature of the Bible; which is, as mark Twain said, some noble poetry, clever fables, a vast amount of obscenity, and no less than one thousand outright lies. For an accurate if unflattering portrayal of the Bible, read "The Age Of Reason" by Thomas Paine, written in 1794. According to Paine, who perhaps did more than anyone to incite the American War of Independence with another of his writings, the Bible is more remindful of the Word of the Devil than the Word of God. Anyone who reads it through, with a an objective attitude, will see his point. One interesting project is to count the number of people who are slaughtered in the Old Testament by Jehovah, or Yahweh, as God is variously called. It numbers in the millions. Entire nations are murderer. Few of the people slaughtered are guilty of anything. A single person disobeys the lord's order and takes a quick peek inside the ark of the covenant; fifty thousand and seventy Philistines pay for this horrible crime with their lives. The nation of Israel engages in one killing spree after another, following their God's instructions. You can read all about it for yourself. Someone once told me that the Bible is Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth. A clever acronym, with questionable veracity. Biblical instructions include putting disobedient children to death, and putting to death people who commit the horrible crime of working on the Sabbath.

Sinking Into the Cesspool,Towards the Abyss

I'VE BEEN AWARE of Trump for well over thirty years. I believe I met his aquaintence through tabloid television programs in the late seventies and early eighties. Always the new trophy wife, the recent divorce. Always the new casino, the recent bankruptcy, the sensational, the gossip, the glitter, the glamour, the made for TV hype. Never the sane or sublime. When he announced, I, like everybody else, thought he would never last. I supported him at first, like many people, because he was new, fresh, different, bringing hope. I lasted until about the fiftieth time he called Ted Cruz "lying Ted". Always the slander, the smear. His mentor, Roy Cohn, hit them twice as hard, as if we don't already have enough of that. Then came the big lies, about one every damned day it seemed. Thousands of Moslems cheering as the Trade Center tumbles. Obama, the founder of the Islamic State. The bigger the lie, the bigger his following among people bereft of hope, judgment. or joy. Always the angry, negative, on the attack Trump. Lying Ted. Romney the Loser. Crooked Hillary. I would never accuse anyone of being a sexual predator without hearing them brag about being one. God, what an animal, what a reprobate. And what a nation devoid of hope and joy to support such a monstrous entity. Without blinders, it is impossible for decent people. We must be wearing blinders, we must not be decent people. Putin and Trump, two peas in a pod, two bullies, two monsters, two thugs, two tyrants. Select a sane policy proposal, Trump advocates the opposite. For me conservatism was always Barry Goldwater threatening to unleash hell on earth, the KKK and their Christian racist hatred, the sanctimonious piety of a religion condemning all those who are not saved, according to their definition, worshiping a cruel god who destroys cities and nations at the stroke of a bolt of lightening. A conservative religion with a conservative god for a conservative people. How dare you glance inside the ark of the covenant. I shall destroy fifty thousand and seventy people, to punish one person. In the Old Testament, I lost count after fifteen thousand animals were sacrificed to a meat eating deity. Conservative America, and its meat eating, mass murdering god, and its savior who condones the ancient law. Conservative america, from Barry Goldwater to Donald Trump.

Reforming Obamacare, The Stupid Conservative Way

THERE ARE CURRENTLY five major health insurance providers in America, far too few to generate competition, about the right number to replace competition with collusion and price fixing. If the billionaires have their way there will soon be but three, with two mergers pending. Hell,why not go whole hog, and make it one. Monopolistic privately owned health insurance for the masses, no competition, all premiums, deductibles, and co-pays determined at the whim of a single board of directors, headed by a mega billionaire, say, someone like , oh, Donald J. Trump. The Obama justice department is riding to the rescue, trying to save the America people from utter and complete submission to corporate tyranny. Rumor has it the at least one of the two proposed mergers is already falling apart of its own volition, so the justice department may have its work reduced by half. Either way, it amounts to the same thing, and that same thing is plutocracy, oligopoly, not free market capitalism. The problem with privately provided insurance of any sort is that if you have enough providers to produce true competition, you have automatically too many to provide the large risk pools which distribute risk and reduce prices. There are, after all, only so many folks needing insurance, and the larger the number of providers, the smaller the clientele for each company, hence the smaller the risk pool, and higher the prices. But if you have few enough providers to produce large risk pools, you have every opportunity in the world for cor[orate conspiracy, and we're right back where we started, with health insurance prices determined not by the free market but rather, by the profit seeking billionaires. The only solution is to have a single huge risk pool to distribute the risk as widely as possible, a requirement that everyone contribute to the health insurance system by participating in it, and by paying something in it, from each according to his or her ability, that sort of thing, and that the system be operated not for profit, but for efficiency and effectiveness. that's the way they do it in Europe, with only the United States, surprisingly, not seeing the socialistic light. enter Obamacare, a watered down version of socialism, its only mistake leaving the insurance companies mart of the plan, instead of going ahead and doing it right, with a single payer system. that's the reform Obamacare needs. It needs to become a universal single payer system, and its name needs to be changed to either Reagan-care, or Trump-care, to appease our right wing angry white men. instead, the republican hordes who will shortly come to the nation's capital with their Bibles, guns, and money will bow to the alter of the free market, then ruin Obamacare by reforming it unrecognizably, involving personal health care savings accounts, vouchers, or some other such right wing bullshit. They'll end up destroying instead of repairing a good idea, and fail to provide any free market benefits in so doing. Welcome to the era of conservative inanity.

Faithleslly Electing Hillary Clinton

HILLARY CLINTON WON the popular vote by approximately two million votes, which means that in a true direct democracy she would have been elected president. But alas, we have a representative democracy, a republic, carefully designed by James Madison to prelude the "lesser sorts" as he put it, from exercising political power. In any society the poor greatly outnumber the wealthy, so a true democracy, which has never existed, would mean that a well organized political party of the poor could out vote the wealthy elite, and seize their wealth and power. Plato and Madison, confronted with the same dilemma, had different solutions. In "The Republic" Plato advocated redistributing the wealth so as to render a direct democracy possible without societal upheaval and class warfare. Madison, himself wealthy, among the "better sort" as he put it, proposed in the federalist papers that the new nation erect barriers to direct democracy, including the electoral college, as a safeguard against "mob rule" as he put it. He got what he wanted, and the new constitution was designed by Madison and other wealthy elites to keep power in the hands of the wealthy, where it remains to this day, to the detriment of we the poor people. But all is not lost. There is no requirement that members of the electoral college cast their votes for the candidate to whom they are pledged. They can act as "faithless" delegates, as we put it. On December 19th the electoral college meets to vote, and is it theoretically albeit remotely possible that Hillary Clinton could still be elected president of the United States. What a hoot that would be. So far over four million people have signed petitions online urging electors to do precisely that, and the number is growing, and could reach large numbers in the roughly one month until the college convenes. According to the numbers, it would probably take only about two or three dozen members of the electoral college to faithlessly change their votes to Clinton, people from Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida to do the trick. This would be no more or less unconstitutional than the result of the election itself, and would be as legal and in keeping with the constitutional principle of representative democracy as the electoral college. One million dollars per elector for about thirty or forty electors would probably do the trick. I can think of no conceivable elector who would not become faithless for a cool million. And why not? Since all political elections are bought and paid for anyway, why not take the process one step further? Three times, 1876, 2000, and 2016, the democratic candidate has garnered more popular votes than the republican, but has lost the election in the electoral college; isn't that proof enough that the time has long since come to overthrow our system of elite governance, and put political power in the hands of we the people, where it has never yet resided? The greatest benefit of all, aside from having a good president instead of the imbecile we appear to be stuck with, would be watching Donald Trump and his legion of poorly educated right wing angry white men and their babes have a cow.

The Vice President Elect Gets A Lecture From A Dead Secretary of the Treasury

WITHOUT FEAR OF SEEMING SILLY or anachronistic, hip hop Hamilton raps on to sell out Broadway audiences. The vice president elect might wish he had stayed away. Or, he can embrace the distinction of being the highest elected official in American history to have been upbraided by a Broadway cast mere moments after the bows and applause died away... On what other occasion did Arron Burr and Alexander Hamilton agree and get along? One other time: they both had it in for Thomas Jefferson. Enter Donald Trump, tweeting his way onstage, the most despised surprise participant in a theatrical drama since john Wilkes Booth or Wild Bill Hickok. The president elect thinks the cast owes his next in line an apology. You know how Donald J Trump, always the perfect gentleman, simply cannot abide rudeness of any sort. There's only one small detail. In this country, a president elect does not have the power to enforce admonitions against rudeness. Not even a president can do that. At least this once, Trump will not get what he wants. That's a feeling he'll have to get accustomed to. But he has options. He could buy the theater, tear it down, and replace it with an art gallery featuring images of himself. Or, he could berate the cast as liars and crooks. He'll do something, because like all competent carnival barkers, our soon to be president knows how to draw a crowd, and cannot resist the urge to keep that spotlight properly aimed.

Searching For New Gods And New Friends

ONE THIRD OF AMERICANS believe that extraterrestrial beings are living among us. Not that there is life on other planets, or that they have seen a UFO, or have had a personal encounter with an extraterrestrial. That alien beings are living among us, presumably well disguised. Believer's Opinions concerning purported extraterrestrial reasons and intentions for infiltration vary considerably, from benign to malign. Evidence and proof are not a requirement for humans to adopt beliefs. Whatever someone really believes, we can never know for certain, we must accept at face value, since beliefs are easily disguised and belied. As the ancient Hindu scripture says: "man is a creature who lives by faith, and whatsoever is the faith, also is the man." For centuries at issue was whether there is one god, a handful, or a veritable crowd. We seem, as a species, to have settled on one, again, without evidence or proof. We need messengers and intermediaries, so we establish a hierarchy of angels. It may well be that our modern preoccupation with beings from other worlds is our modern version of a search for gods. You can sense how it happens. We live our lives surrounded by forces beyond our control, far more powerful than we. We emerged from savagery as first the hunted, then became hunters. In a perpetual state of fear, we evolved hatred as a more advanced survival tool than raw, unreasoning terror. Over the centuries, calm, dispassionate reason has slowly supplanted irrational impulses. Religion is on the decline, science is on the rise. We are actually searching for signs of extraterrestrial life, using empirical observation as a tool. Science is a better tool, the best we have. We now know that trillions of planets are orbiting other stars, and that many of them appear to be suited for the evolution of life. And although to date no indication of life beyond earth has been found, we are hopeful, because, at heart, we are social animals, and do not want to live alone is a vast, uncaring cosmos. And so the search continues, and will do so as long as our existence continues. And even if we never find brothers and sisters among the stars, we will at least know that we have looked, and in so doing have to some degree conquered our irrational fears.

Going In A Circle

THE POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES has declined drastically during the past few days, as millions of liberals leave the country, dissatisfied with the outcome of the recent election. The question is not whether this is actually happening (it isn't), whether conservatives really want this to happen (some don't, many do), or whether it is in fact a right winger's dream come true (for some, it would be), but whether indeed it matters one way or the other. It doesn't. Wasn't it Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsburg who indicated before the election that were Donald Trump to emerge victorious, she would leave the country, and perhaps resettle in New Zealand? Didn't she later apologize for her remark? Why is it that Americans, upon expressing negative but perfectly sensible opinions, always feel compelled to apologize afterward? Peer pressure? Media scrutiny? Weakness of the backbone or soul? Stick to your guns, man! Suppose, for the sake of diversionary intellectual amusement, that every liberal in America left the country, or were suddenly raptured into heaven, after a hard fought but losing election effort, a scenario which seems rather unlikely, but remotely possible, from a Christian perspective. There would remain, quite obviously, only conservatives scattered across the lowered population density land of freedom, and a sort of traditionalist bliss would ensue, initially. All would be well, quiet, all arguments having ceased. Then, someone would raise a point, and someone else would disagree with it, if only slightly. Discussions would take place. Topics would range and vary. Small differences of opinion would begin to emerge on every topic of discussion. At length, people would begin to notice that differences of viewpoint would be falling into patterns, amenable to categorization. The conservative viewpoint, say, and the ultra conservative viewpoint. Political parties would reform and reorganize, predicated upon the patterns of differences. Each party would choose a name for itself. Each one would want to have a distinctive name for itself, to distinguish itself from the other party, whose views would simply be....wrong. Those who more strongly favored retaining traditional values and modes of societal operation would perhaps call themselves the "traditionalists", and those who advocated the blending of a bit of change into a traditional framework might consider themselves advocates for progress, and call themselves "progressive traditionalists", then later shorten their moniker to "progressives", and some fine day someone would notice, that we are right back where we started, needing to have another election, just like it was before all the libs left the country, and went to heaven..

Checking Racism In America, For A Pulse, Just In Case

IN THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, an African-American, any and all African-American, is described as three fifths of a person. A bit later in the document, just a few lines down, it says, no, we were just kidding, but the original definition is still there, for all to see, never having been expunged from the record, merely rendered inactive. There they sit, the two laws, right there in our founding document, one racist, the other not, in opposition to each other, rather like prohibition and repeal of prohibition later on down. Racism, like it or not, admit it or not, has been throughout most of American history a core American value, among America's strongest traditions. Wherever you see a racist, you see a traditionalist, a conservative who is opposed to fundamental social or any other kind of change. Historically, American culture is among the world's most racist. But what about today's America? Is it still racist, are there lingering vestiges of this misguided core value, or have we finally eliminated it from our civic culture? In the constitution of the great state of Alabama, there is a provision prohibiting white children and black children from going to the same school. Its been there a long time, and fortunately is conveniently ignored in today's relatively enlightened American southern style culture in post Brown vs Topeka Board of Education America. Surveys indicate that a decade ago about half the eligible voters in Alabama wanted this racist provision removed, but that as of now, only about forty percent want it removed, with the other sixty percent majority of Alabamians presumably either content to let it remain, perhaps for tradition's sake, or actively in favor of it. Its anybody's guess why anyone would not want it removed. If this trend continues, within a few years every adult in Alabama will favor having a provision in their state constitution which is blatantly racist. And to think, there are those who say that racism is dead in America, that we've eliminated it, and that it only comes into existence when liberals bring up the topic. It would in fact appear otherwise. In fact, it would almost appear, if one didn't absolutely know better, that racism is "enjoying" an American renaissance, what with the emergence of the "alt right" movement, and other racist white supremacist groups, the proliferation of confederate battle flags on beat up pick up trucks, the "black lives matter" movement, and other indicators. And that's not to even mention our new president elect, who has been described by more than one observer as sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, and heaven only knows what else. Whatever evidence Trump's critics offer to demonstrate this, his supporters either ignore, argue against vociferously, or don't care about. So, who knows? Maybe racism is dead in America, but if it is, its doing one helluvan impersonation of a living entity, pretty impressive for anything allegedly dead, good enough in fact, to at least be checked for a pulse.

Learning To Think, and To Ignore Manure

THE PROBLEM WITH SOCIAL MEDIA is, as everyone who uses it knows, bullshit. Namely, the sheer amount of it encountered by any social mediator, which includes most of us. Hell, I'm even aware of all the crap and nonsense, and I have never logged on nor utilized Twitter, Facebook, nor any of the others. I guess I'm afraid of it. Social media seems from a distance to be a cesspool of verbal filth, with fake news reports circulating and enabling the twisting of minds. Am I dreaming, or is is true that on Facebook there is a great deal of posting pictures of pets and hate speech? The widely circulated notion that Michelle Obama is a transgender with two adopted children being a good example of the malarcky. To elect a president of teh United States who refrains by claiming that he or she is simply too busy to engage in social media, rather than one who gets into tweet wars with Hollywood celebrities at three o'clock in the morning might be helpful. We love social media so very much because it encourages, enables, and perpetuates bullshit, which is right up our human alley. We need our stories and narratives, and we needn't let any hint of truth get in the way of good ones. It might also be helpful to evolve a citizen body which readily discerns the difference between fact and fantasy, real news and phony news. we all need to know that the Pope has not endorsed Donald Trump, unless he really has, which, her in the real world, he has not, nor is likely to. Furthermore, there can be no harm with our being familiar with the fact that Hillary Rodham has a clean record, legally, and an even greater benefit would be for we the people to imaginatively put ourselves in the place pf a Secretary of State who dearly wants to become president later, and to ask ourselves,: "how likely is she to actually engage in treasonous criminal activity while coveting the presidency, with a seemingly halfway realistic chance of gaining the office? There are worse ways to spend one's time than marinating one's mind online immersed in manure, but not many, and there are few better ways than learning to think critically and intelligently by absorbing factual information, and learning to identify horse manure when one is knee deep in it.

Rigging The Election For Trump

THROUGHOUT THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN, you'll recall, unless you're still in denial, Donald J. Trump insisted, over, and over, and over again, that the election process was "rigged" against him. Interesting, since he seemed to be making the accusation before the election had even taken place. How could he possibly have known in advance, unless he was involved in it? Equally inexplicable was his oft repeated assertion before election day that the outcome would indeed be rigged, but only if he lost. He suggested a wide range of bizarre ways in which the process was fixed; the bias in the mainstream media was infecting voters and turning them against him. The FBI, by failing to detect any criminal activity on the part of Hillary Clinton, was obviously showing itself to be acting in her best interests, probably due to its being in her pocket, or some such. Trump even went so far to encourage his supporters to hang around polling places, just to make sure nothing funny was going on. He suggested many mechanisms for possible election rigging on Hillary Clinton's behalf, but he never clearly stated which of them, if any, or all, were actually being implemented. Now that the election is over, perhaps Trump still thinks it was rigged against him, but that he overcame it. More likely, if it was rigged, it was rigged by him and for his benefit. Did we ever find out why Wikileaks was focused only on Hillary Clinton? Or if the Russians and Vladimir Putin, so much admired by Trump, were actually hacking into Clinton's and democratic party communications? Isn't it interesting that the FBI decided to reopen its investigation into Hillary's never ending email controversy just days before the election, and decided to close it again a mere two days before election day? If this election was rigged, it was rigged by Trump, for Trump, and all the rigging accusations made by Trump were nothing but a diversion. Anything's possible.

Trump Straightening Out, Hopefully

THE VERY MOMENT DONALD TRUMP set foot inside the oval office for the first time and met Barack Obama, he began doing a passable impersonation of a proper gentleman, perhaps for the very first time, unless you include his complimentary election night comments about his opponent, which was no real indication of improved behavior, since it is easy to be gentlemanly in victory. And the act has continued into the second week of his president elect-ism. Doubtless Obama, a true gentleman, had a positive influence. Trump actually looked demure sitting next to the president, as if in awe of his surroundings, ready to be schooled by a better man and mind, which indeed he soon was. However, as we now know, the American presidency does not change your character, it magnifies it. In Trump's case, we hope there is more change, and less magnification. All we can do is wait and see. Soon enough, you suspect, the insults and tough talk will commence, as before, and all will be well. I'm just not sure what the nation will think of a perfectly gentlemanly Donald J. Trump. He aint no Ronald Wilson Reagan, that's for sure. Also, he may be coming to his senses. Suddenly, there will be no wall. A fence will do, at least in certain places. that leaves room for more backtracking out of a bad deal. And who knows, maybe Mexico can be persuaded to send some border security up to assist Nor shall eleven million people be deported. Two or three million oughta do it. Only the criminals will leave. The president elect is showing some sense. May we all begin to breathe finally? Our new anti-establishment president elect is surrounding himself with insiders and lobbyists, because its important to have people who know how the system works, who by definition are insiders. Drain one swamp, fill it back up...with what? New and improved slimy critters? Will Trump listen to the people he talks to? If not, why are they there? Maybe we'll get lucky, and President Trump will never do any of the crazy things he promised. Maybe he'll conveniently forget about them all, and will learn that we must stimulate demand, not supply, and that it is incumbent upon him to put a stop to the upsurge in racist hatred he seems to have, shall we say, unwittingly inspired.

Leading The Way, As Only He Can

WHERE I LIVE, which means my land and my house in lower Midwestern United States, the growing season now starts in late February, and extends into early November. Fall and winter together take no longer than four months, sometimes less, and you have the felling the trend is going to continue. We continue to have more frequent and severe droughts, as if hotter drier climate is imposing itself on us. I sometimes wonder if my area is trying to turn into a grassland, instead of a forest. Meanwhile, it floods every day in Miami Beach, a recent development, yet it seems destined to get worse before it gets better. We need and must have a president in the United States who believes in climate change, and is determined to fight it and win. That is why we the people must collectively work together, and work fast, to turn incoming President Donald J. Trump into such a president, a firm believer in climate change ready to push the panic button, before its too late. The plan would be for Mr. Trump to appear on global television a few days after his inauguration and give a speech in which he suddenly announces that climate change is real, and that he, Donald J. Trump, intends to fight it and beat it, as only he can. Admittedly, doing that would turn a few heads, maybe anger some conservatives and pleasantly shock some liberals, but he could pull it off. And he would love to, just for the enhanced popularity. The plan would be to subsidize solar energy, and assist people invested in fossil fuel in divesting and reinvesting in solar, at, say, half price. A solar panel on every American rooftop! Then, President Trump could boldly announce his trillion tree plan, in which he literally orders the world to get a trillion new trees in the ground pronto. Desalination could be another growth industry, but we must allow the price of water to reach its full market value, which apparently we never have, at least not lately.If we need a business man as president right now, let's at least have one who can and will lead the way in saving the planet.

Rising Above the Fray, Judgmentally

AS A LEFT WING RADICAL LIBERAL, I don't really care if President Trump puts conservatives on the Supreme Court. That people on both ends of the political spectrum are so concerned about this only reveals their own pettiness. To conservatives, the mere thought of a liberal judge is horrifying, which is unreasonable. Whenever there is a case to be decided in which the correct decision reflects liberal attitudes, a good honest conservative justice will make the correct decision without concern that liberal values are being upheld. Take gay marriage, for example. The Supreme Court legalized it by a vote of five to four, on a court with only four liberal justices. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts made the difference by voting in favor of legalization, for all the right reasons. Allowing gay marriage is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the constitution in the America I think I know, even though the constitution says nothing about gay marriage. If Madison and Jefferson were alive today I think they would agree. I also think they would both agree that the spirit as well as the letter of the founding document must be interpreted, and would advise us to interpret it according to our reading of it, instead of trying to read the minds of the framers, and untangle their "original intent". Gay marriage was legalized by an intelligent, open minded conservative who didn't mind that the the liberal viewpoint prevailed in this one instance. He rose above petty ideological concern, and reached for a higher level by interpreting what he saw as the spirit of the constitution as it applies to us today. It would make more sense to appoint the most politically moderate people to the bench, instead of all of us trying to mold the judiciary in our own image.

Allowing Our Religions To Evolve

TWO GIRLS GREW UP in the Mormon church, then got married to each other and adopted a child by utilizing civic, secular institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court. But they are good Mormons, and love their church, as they always have. They want their child to be baptized within the church, but so far, the church refuses. And this, in a nutshell, is my problem with the Christian faith. The bible very clearly articulates a moral code, a code of behavior, which is entirely outdated and out of touch with today's realities. Humanity progresses as it gradually changes, evolving culturally. Throughout human history homosexuals have been mistreated, but now, at long last, we are correcting our past mistakes. By what process do organized and long standing religions correct themselves, and improve? By a very slow and difficult one, at best. Unless I'm dreaming, Mathew 15 4 Jesus tells us to honor our fathers and mother, and to follow the law of the old testament, in Leviticus, by which disobedient children must be put to death. Similarly, anyone who works on the Sabbath is to be put to death. Wouldn't it be nice if our modern churches could overcome their traditional outdated ways, and, for instance, allow a lesbian couple to baptize their kid within the church? What harm would it do? Does religious liberty include the freedom to disobey modern civil law by engaging in ancient religious beliefs and practices which are bigoted, brutal, and or barbaric? In our modern world, we cannot condone murder and slavery and bigotry, although the Bible certainly seems to.

Banning Fracking, But Saving Buildings

I HATE TO SOUND NEGATIVE, an anti-capitalistic, anti oil, anti growth, and all that bullshit, but it is just barely and remotely possible that some consideration needs to be given to the idea of stopping the practice of fracking for oil in the great state of Oklahoma, before said state breaks into pieces and blows away. Anybody who lives in or near Oklahoma knows that earthquakes are becoming more frequent and more powerful. Before fracking, Oklahoma rarely if ever had earthquakes. Now, they have thousands every year. I grew up wishing I could have the experience of seeing a tornado, being close to one, and feeling an earthquake. Now, I am smart enough to know to be careful what I wish for. I've experienced tornadoes and earthquakes recently, and unless I move far from Oklahoma, am likely to experience many more of each before I'm done. It turns out there is a limit to how many times I can feel my house swaying back and forth, and enjoy the sensation. I've reached my limit. This is not entirely selfish on my part. Sure, I care about my house, and want it to keep standing. But what about the millions of other houses and buildings across the fruited plain of Oklahoma? To lose them, and we have lost many already, will make the oil we gain much more expensive. There is a glut of oil on the world market, and has been for a couple of years. And yet, the president elect and his economic ilk talk about opening up new lands for new drilling for oil. Why? We need to save the planet by moving away from fossil fuels, and if we use less and less oil every year, and more energy from renewable sources, we'll have a remote chance of winning the struggle for survival. Solar energy can drive everything else off the market if given a chance, a helping hand from government, and why not? Throughout American history the American government has picked winners, invested in various sectors of the private free market economy in ways it thought would benefit everybody, areas like railroads, aircraft, scientific research, and military manufacturers, among many others. Solar panels on every building would get us halfway to our goal. Let's not kill the coal, gas, and oil industry; let's simply let them die naturally, as consumers and investors and workers transition as smoothly as possible to a new and better economy and world.

Mr. Trump, Governing From Prison, But Only If Necessary

DONALD TRUMP and his supporters, before the election, made one thing perfectly clear: if Hillary wins, investigations of her will increase, multiply, and burden her presidency. Nothing she wants will pass, including Supreme Court nominees, just because she is who she is, and hated, like Obama. That sure doesn't sound very much like a plan to attempt to unify the country, as we are now supposed to do. National unification will require compromise from everyone. Giving the new president a chance, and supporting him, does not mean agreeing with him on everything, or anything. The new president must accept climate change, fight it, and defeat it, as only he can do. The new president must be thoroughly investigated for any and all possible criminal activity, just like Hillary Clinton would have been, is evidently still will be. Trump, as everyone knows, promised to put Hillary Clinton in jail should he become president. He never said anything about due process. They never do. Assuming Donald Trump is as pure and innocent as the driven snow, the FBI investigation and all the other investigations of him will come up clean, like they all did for Hillary. Fortunately, it seems likely that the Hillary supporters and liberals will not accuse Trump's wife of being transgender, or accuse Trump of having been born abroad, which is what the lovely conservatives did to the Obamas. But we're better than that. At least saner. All of the women who have recently accused Trump of sexual molestation must be heard, thoroughly, by everyone. If they file charges, the process must continue, and if Trump is proven guilty, and convicted of a crime while he is president, so be it. The president is not above the law. Mr. Trump can run the country from prison as well as anywhere else, if it comes to that. They'd probably let him have a phone, a laptop, a toupee, and visiting hours. But no matter from where he governs, we as good Americans must support him and give him a chance, no matter how much we disagree with him, because, ultimately, we're all on the same team.

Making America Great, Again, and Again

HATE CRIME is drastically on the rise in America since the election, six months worth of it in the few days since November 8, alarming, as if Trump's election is seen by the ultra alt right as an invitation to strike. Harassment of women and minorities. White kids at school chanting slogans about the fantasy Mexican wall and the greatness of white America. Welcome to the Trump era. Trump himself needs to and must squelch it, if he can, lickity split. So far, he has merely encouraged them to stop, which might not be quite sufficient. Let's give' em some of their own medicine! Lock 'em up! String 'em up! Or at least press charges. Aryan supremacy is trying to be reborn, and reclaim America, at long last. Make America great again, make America hate again. Return to the pre civil rights era, when America was great! Perhaps the new white racist hatred will be accompanied by a healthy dose of Christianity, as usual, to make it more palatable, just like the christian faith was used to justify pre-Civil War American slavery, since the Bible clearly condones slavery. Like the Klan, for instance. Right wing Christian terrorist organizations, stepping out, thinking Trump is their leader. Sure didn't take long. Right wing radio talk show hosts, who are part of the problem, not the solution, like to point out that the KKK began as an arm of the democratic party. More relevantly, it began as a direct manifestation of political and social christian conservatism, which it has always been, and still is now. The problem is Christian conservatism, or the conservative Christian movement, take your pick. (What's in a name?) Blue collar gun and Bible totin' working class conservatives, the Jesus, Guns, and Money crowd, supported by the conservative super wealthy elite ruling class, folks like the Koch Brothers, otherwise known as Trump and his supporters, Hillary's basket of deplorables. Hitler was a hard core right winger, and his enemies were the German left wing socialists and communists. Now its the hard right against the rest of us in America, as we seek peace, harmony, and unity. We the people must get out in the streets, and support the incoming president by strongly encouraging him to accept climate change, lock up or silence all the white supremacists, instead of Hillary, since racial hatred is illegal in America (as you might recall), and address institutional racism in the American economic and criminal justice system. Like Mr.Trump said, its time to unite the country.

Controlling Trump

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME a presidential election inspired protests in the streets? Lincoln? A part of me hopes the anti-Trump protest grow and grow, and end up having a profound impact on America, in a positive way, of course. Its being led in large part by millennials, bless them. The millennials may eventually be seen as America's greatest generation. May the millennial generation conquer America! Its a very liberal group. They seem to somehow have gotten the idea that Trump is a homophobic racist anti-female sexual predator, if you can possible imagine such a thing. Where could America's millennial generation have possibly gotten such an idea? From Donald Trump? From his words? The best thing to do would be to keep the street demonstrations going as long as possible, and organize online, a new movement to take over the country and the world, by creating a common set of facts. With seventy five million millennials in America, it can be done. First, declare unconditional love of and loyalty to Donald J. Trump. Then insist that he acknowledge the reality of human made climate change, melodramatically admitting his earlier mistake in not doing so, and praising his own open mindedness. Then, he vows to fix it, as only he can.Call the organization "Trump Acknowledges Changing Klimate Immediately (TACKI) Next, we the people demand to see a comprehensive, detailed health care plan to replace Obamacare, before you try to replace Obamacare, sir .We might end up merely repairing Obamacare, instead of trashing it, because most of it works. The important thing is to keep getting out into the streets, peacefully, informatively, to convince the multitudes that climate change is real, and we need a president who fights it and wins, now. Trump would be the perfect candidate.

Giving Trump A Chance

ON THE ROAD from Tarsus to Damascus, or an American equivalent thereto, the lord, God, spoke inside me. Not the Christian biblical god, who doesn't exist, but rather, my God, the "infinitely superior spirit" Einsteinian variety. It said: "dude, give the guy a chance". Although I was a bit shocked, I'm pretty quick, and I picked up on it right away, and I even kept the car on the road, despite the shock of hearing God, which saved my life. And, of course, God is correct, as always. Hell, man, I said to myself, give the man a chance. So, my healing is underway, and proceeding rapidly. I might even be out of the psychopathic anger ward before I know it! See, I'm One of these never Trump Bernie Sanders types, ready to carry signs and throw rocks in America's cities. But, wait. Whoa. I've made my point. I've had my chance. Time for me to give the man a chance, a real chance, not just a snotty half assed one, but rather, a seriously fair minded hard listening empathetic kind of chance. Why treat Trump the same way Trump and the conservative republicans treated Obama for eight years, which was like shit? After all, ever since he was elected, Donald J. Trump has behaved like a perfect gentleman, proving that he can do it, even though he never had until after the election. There's a first time for everything, as cliche mongers say. Winning makes magnanimity come easy. If he can do it, I can do it. All I/we need to do now is turn president elect Trump into a liberal. Human made climate change is real, and its happening now. Its not a Chinese hoax, like our future president said, perhaps after after a glass of sherry.. Maybe the conservatives are right. Maybe Trump is not to be taken literally. But Trump disavows climate change, and we can no longer afford to do that. The time for right wing global warming denial fantasy is over. We need to let natural gas compete coal out of business, and we need to let solar energy compete everything else out of business, in order to save the planet, and its happening now, as solar energy is sweeping across the world, so long as we don't stop it by forcing the coal mines to stay open. Time for those who voted for Trump to step up, and fight climate change. This November my crepe myrtle is blooming, and its eighty five degrees in middle America. In November. Hello? Every day, Miami Beach floods. 'Nuff said? I need to change, we need to change, Trump needs to change. And climate change denial aint the only Trumpet core value that needs reworking. But, one step at a time, one issue at a time. For instance, before we trash Obama care, let's replace it with something better. Maybe rename it "Reagan Care", and just fix it. That's another example of the need to rework and amend the Donald. Here in our great rough and tumble democracy, all we have to do is tweet Trumpian climate change denial out of bounds, like a few other crazy ideas he has, and unite behind reason, science, sense, and sanity. It should be fun.

Awaiting The Hand of Trump

DONALD TRUMP, during the campaign, told an audience at Liberty University that "I'm a good Christian". The good Christians seemed to take his word for it. He indeed would be a good Christian, had Jesus said "render not unto Caesar", and had Jesus said that a rich man can enter into the kingdom of heaven more easily than a camel making its way through the eye of a needle. Or maybe he wouldn't be. Although the Bible condones slavery and rape, and Donald is therefore in the clear on the rape issue biblically, Trump is a hard working man, and five'll get you ten that he has at least once worked on the Sabbath, a clear violation of biblical law, one for which, according to the Bible, he must be put to death. Now we return from the realm of God's love to the only slightly less sordid world of American conservative politics. With regard to Donald's suggestion that the United States now unify as a nation, it could be argued that an excellent time to have done that would have been eight years ago, when Mr. Trump enacted his version of national unity by embarking on a years long campaign to prove that President Obama is not a citizen, and thus ineligible to become president. Of course, he later denied having done that. Next thing you know, he might deny having said that John McCain is not a war hero because he got captured, indicating that prisoners of war are not heroes. Trump said he prefers guys who don't get captured. Welcome to the fun house of American conservative political thought, in which a self proclaimed sexual predator (see video of Trump self proclaiming, which he acknowledges as his own) can ascend to the nation's highest office, and can even improve his chances of doing so by engaging in a bit of "harmless locker room banter". Not so harmless, according to more than a dozen women who felt president elect Trump's good Christian hand creeping ever closer to their private parts, uninvited, all because he was so famous, he said, and that therefore he could get away with it. Trump's detractors do not take him seriously, but they take him at his word. His supporters take him seriously, but they don't take him at his word. They had better not, because as Goethe said, we resist the truth only because we might perish if we accepted it. Trump's truth is that Ted Cruz, (who really is a good Christian), is a liar, and Donald isn't, and all across the fruited plain lurk scores of bimbos, sluts, and fat female pigs, awaiting the good Christian hand of President Trump.