Improving, Wherever

THE 1969 MANSON MURDERS seem like yesterday, either because the expansion of the universe causes time to accelerate, or, those of us who remember the murders are getting older, and our metabolisms are slowing. Manson stayed crazy to his bitter end, but the women who followed him didn't. Over the course of their imprisoned years, Leslie Van Houton and Patricia Krenwinkel sobered up, came to their senses, and reformed themselves, morally and spiritually. they became model inmates, working in the prison library, and such. Total personal reinvention. They have spent the last several decades as helpful, hard working members of the incarcerated community. So impressively improved were they that they were recently granted parole, after having applied for it and being turned down on numerous occasions. However, California governor Jerry Brown rescinded it. Their crimes were so senseless and brutal that no amount of time served or good behavior displayed justified parole for the Manson family mass murderers, reasoned the governor. jerry Brown is no hard ass let's get tough on crime conservative, but with regard to redemption, he has his limits. And besides, as long as Leslie and Patricia are doing so much good where they are, why move them? Why subject them to a painful and difficult process of readjustment to the outside world, when they can be of far more service to their community confined within prison walls? Prisons, as much as any other places, require the services of good people, particularly volunteers. And who knows? Were they set free, the urge to kill again might conceivably overcome them again. One never knows.

Fighting It Out

A MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS and democrats, in and out of congress ,distrust each other, as do more broadly, liberals and conservatives. Each considers the other to be a dire threat to American national health and security. Conservatives, surveys reveal, are of the opinion that liberals, who generally oppose the continued exploitation of fossil fuels, are damaging the American economy, costing jobs, diminishing prosperity. Liberals, who are now called "progressives", accuse conservatives of causing climate change by supporting fossil fuel use , and therefor bringing about the destruction of the Earth's eco system, and thus, the United States. The two groups differ in other ways. Conservatives support lower taxes on the wealthy, asserting that progressive taxation punishes achievers for being successful, and that progressive taxation hinders the production of goods and services by decreasing the ability of producers to produce them with investment capital. Liberals respond that stimulating production by allowing corporations to keep more of their profit does not guarantee that the extra money will be spent on production rather than executive bonuses and salaries, and shareholder dividends. Also, contend the libs, lower corporate taxes do nothing to stimulate demand, which after all, is the only factor which makes increased production profitable. Demand must precede supply, their reasoning goes. Demand, say progressives, can be increased by raising the minimum wage, and by giving tax breaks and credits to America's working poor, thus increasing discretionary income for millions of working people, allowing them to become consumers of commodities. Production, thus stimulated by increased demand, creates jobs, so progressives say. the argument would seem to be sound. Ideological differences are far more far reaching than even this. Conservatives tend to favor requiring transgender citizens to use public restrooms corresponding to the gender on their birth certificate. Progressives point out that transgenders, who are no longer the same sex listed on their birth certificates, and that they all prefer using the restroom corresponding to their current gender, not their former. And so it goes. Conservatives, another matter, tend to describe the United States as a "Christian" nation,; progressives assert that that the U.S. is a nation of religious tolerance, diversity, with no state religion, and a secular government and civic sector. They point to a law, passed unanimously by congress in 1797, which declares that the United States is "no more a Christian nation than an Islamic one." Take your pick.

Young Folks, Fighting Back.

COLOMBIA, renowned for its excellent coffee, high grade marijuana, and perhaps the longest civil war in human history which ended only recently, seems also to produced some environmentally friendly millennials. Two of them have filed a lawsuit against their government, and by implication the entire global corporate industrial establishment, alleging that their futures are being damaged by deforestation, which, so they claim, leads to environmental destruction, global warming, climate change, and, ultimately, the extinction of all life on earth. It is arguable that Colombian marijuana and coffee production has become a tad too important, and the rain forest a tad too unimportant, among the nation's economic priorities, and this is what the two socially conscientious youths are seeking to demonstrate in a court of law. There is a trend of people all over the world taking legal action to prevent corporations and governments from further damaging the ecosystem. The millennial generation, those born between 1982 and 2000, are more concerned about the state of the earth's environment than any other generation in history, understandably so, since they have to most to lose by the environment's loss. by the time the millennials reach retirement age, not only might they not be able to retire owing to the probably lack of retirement savings a benefits, they might not be able to live on a planet with a climate conducive to their well being, or even survival. The millennials are showing themselves to be less materialistic, less dogmatically religious, and more concerned about the future of humanity than the rest of us. Long live the millennials.

Taking Control

THE DAY AFTER TRUMP was sworn in, millions of women held marches in cities across the country and around the world. The biggest was in Washington D.C. Whether they were protesting something, advocating something, or sending a message was not entirely clear, but they seemed to be protesting Trump's election and his treatment of women, advocating for gender equality, and sending the message that they intended henceforth to become more politically active. One year later, they repeated the event, with two million American participating, and with surprisingly little mainstream media coverage. Perhaps, the second time around, a two million member march was old news, but most certainly, it was not fake news. The liberal mainstream media seems to have taken a day off. Of our five hundred and thirty five national legislators, only twenty percent are women, among the lowest percentages of any legislative body in the world. For decades American women have been subjected in large numbers to domestic violence, sexual abuse, and pay discrimination, among other inequalities. The election of Donald J. Trump, a self proclaimed sexual predator, has energized America's women, and they are now ruing for political office in numbers never before seen. American women, like America's minorities and America's working poor, have the power, should they chose to use it, ring about social changes which would lead to racial, gender, and economic equality. Try as they might to resist and roll back the forces of change, the conservative, traditional republican party will not be able to stop progressive change, because a majority of Americans support progressive rather than traditional policies. The cow, as it were, is out of the barn. The next step is for the cow to assume control of the farm.

Doing Wrong, Executively

WHILE STEVE BANNON was testifying in front of congress recently, his lawyers were texting the white House, getting an presumably following instructions. it is only reasonable to assume that these instructions came from the president, or that they came only with his approval, such are the abilities of Donald Trump as a liar, lawyer, if not liar. Basically, Trump wouldn't let Bannon answer any important questions. ostensibly, Bannon chose to allow Trump this control over his answers, even though, ostensibly, Bannon no longer works for, is controlled by Trump. Was his sudden acquiescence to Trump's wishes voluntary? Or did the president coerce Bannon? Just asking. Does Trump have negative info on Bannon, something to hold over him, whether fake news or otherwise? Was Bannon's willingness to allow Trump to control his answers voluntary? Obstructions of justice is only one of Trump's many crimes and violations of the constitution, according to many legal experts. The fact that his supporters either ignore, dismiss, or approve of Trump's behavior in increasingly alarming, as the crimes grow and multiply. The greatest crime of all is the deliberate destruction of Earth's ecosystem. the Trump administration is wholeheartedly devoted to the simultaneous denial of climate change, and increasing it, by "bringing back coal", and refusing to fight global warming. What greater crime can there be than the attempted destruction of the Earth's ecosystem, and the life is supports? Congress is forcing Bannon to answer its questions, and the whole truth seems poised to emerge. The Trump administration is built on lies, but no amount of stonewalling and obstruction of justice will save it. Trump is already extremely unpopular, and as the truth about his numerous crimes emerges and refuses to go away, the American people, the thirty five percent who already gotten fed up, will, and remove from power whatever right wing extremists are not removed through impeachment. We can only and pray that as Trump starts to go down, he doesn't start a war with North Korea, or somebody, as a distraction. All we can do is pay close attention, work to defeat his agenda, and vote him out, if he is still in power come election time. He may, or may not, be a great guy, but, he isn't fit to be president. his one year in office is conclusive proof of this. You can't blame hi for wanting to be president; that is a common illness. You can, however, blame the rest of us for giving him the chance. If only he would acknowledge and work to reverse climate change, and stop attacking people, eliminate conflicts of interests by selling his businesses, and stop lying, he'd be marginally acceptable. But, that's a lot to ask.

Revealing Racism Among the Pious

THE ACADEMIC COMMUNITY pays attention, to everything. Public education and higher education combine to produce assiduous scholars whose work illuminates the world, and makes our modern high standard of living possible. this is why republicans, fifty eight percent of whom say that higher education is detrimental to the United States are, to say the least, way off base, as usual. The fact that institutions of higher learning tend to be populated by liberals is not, as conservatives tend to believe , because a liberal conspiracy has insidiously taken control of higher education, with designs on the rest of America, but rather, because people who hang around college campuses tend to be intelligent. While Obama was president, a scholar or two devised an interesting experiment. Knowing full well that Obama is black, but that whoever followed him into the presidency would likely be a white male, our inquisitive scholars went out among the evangelical Christian community with but a single question: should the president of the United States be forgiven his sins? thirty percent of respondents answered in the affirmative. yes, of course, the president, like everyone else, should be forgiven, assuming repentance. Seventy percent did not agree. Sure enough, Trump, who is a white male, succeeded Obama, and our intrepid questionnaire bearers sallied forth again, with the exact same question. this time, seventy two percent declared that, indeed, the president should be forgiven his sins. Obama, who probably sins no more than, and probably much less than the rest of us, a quick background check reveals, lost the voted by forty two percent. Trump, the New England Patriots of sin, as accomplished, demonstrably, as anyone who ever boasted of his ability to sexually molest women with impunity, the winner by a landslide. Why the difference? The only possible conclusion is that the survey reveals a visceral disdain for Obama, and a pr3eference for Trump, either because Obama is a "liberal" democrat, black, or both, or because Trump is a "conservative", white, or both. Italics because neither man can be neatly placed within the respective political categories. Obama is certainly far from liberal, and Trump is not a true conservative, but rather, a political chameleon, available to any popularity-measuringy poll taker. The indisputable remaining factor is race. Thus, the evangelical community has exposed itself as racist. Not that this is anything new, or that anyone should be surprised.

Looking In The Mirror

MORE ACTS OF TERRORISM in America are perpetrated by extreme conservative white supremacist groups than by all other groups combined, Islamic included. And yet, such organizations as the alt right or KKK are not categorized as terrorist groups, inexplicably, probably because they have the tacit support of mainstream conservatism. White Christian conservative America is not inclined to look closely at itself, but rather, to point accusing fingers at others with whose beliefs it disagrees. Fortunately, an organization founded in 2009, "Life After Hate", is looking in the mirror. Founded by a former leader of one of the largest and most dangerous extreme right wing white supremacist neo-Nazi organizations in the world, which originated in Chicago in the nineteen eighties, Life After Hate is devoted to reconciling groups which traditionally consider themselves enemies. It also focuses on encouraging white supremacist groups to redeem themselves, to rethink their pernicious ideology. Their efforts have successfully brought Muslims and Islamaphobes, gays and homophobes, democrats and republicans, Yankee and Red Sox fans together for brief periods of time, without excessive violence. Life After Hate had achieved such impressive results by 2016 that two weeks before Obama left office, the Department of Homeland Security planned to provide several million dollars in grant money to various organizations in the U.S. devoted to fighting terrorism through reconciliation. When Trump took office, all such grants earmarked for groups fighting so called "Islamic-terrorist" organizations were approved, and allowed to proceed, but Life Beyond hate, which focuses on combating white supremacy, was rescinded of its money. if one did not otherwise convince one's self, one might find one's self tempted to reach the conclusion that the Trump administration, which at the time included Steve Bannon, was not sufficiently opposed to the white supremacy to wish to assist to oppose it with financial assistance. Or, that the Trump administration does not consider terrorist hate groups devoted to white supremacy to be terrorist groups. Or that the Trump administration is not opposed to white supremacist terrorism. Or that the Trump administration lacks mirrors.

Tom Cotton, Finally Standing Up

IN THE AGE of privately owned universes and alternative facts, we are entitled to our own facts and multiple, shifting versions of history, all deeply held and defended. Senator Tom Cotton was in the room when president Trump either did or did not call Africa a shithole. Cotton's three versions, and counting, offer evidence of parallel universes, or, more likely, of obfuscation, prevarication, and disassociation. In the first version, he doesn't know whether Trump waxed vulgar, presumably because he wasn't listening, or had ears, and heard not, not wanting to. Version number two has it that the president used strong language but most certainly didn't cross the line into indecency, wherever the line wanders these days. In the third remake, the jig is up, and Africa becomes, beyond all doubt, a shithole. Tall Tom, shittin' in tall cotton, a bit over his head. Tall tom, rediscovering his Harvard upbringing, and progressive relativism, but, at long last, standing up, owning up, and defecating on the high road, which for him is simple acknowledgement of verified reality. Oh, what a prize he must have been among the Harvard Crimson. Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz, a pair of backward looking misfits in a bastion pf progressive absolutism, where facts remain facts, and, once verified, linger long, firmly entrenched in the pantheon we tenuously call "the real world", even if inconveniently.

Leaving Well Enough Alone

REX TILLERSON, who forsook a perfectly good day job to assume a position of questionable efficacy with the trump administration, Secretary of State, announced in a speech at Stanford that the United States fully intends to continue its partial occupation of Syria, despite vehement Syrian disapproval. "Questionable efficacy", because Trump does deals, not diplomacy. "Vehement disapproval" because the Syrian government, actual if of questionable legitimacy, has repeatedly issued statements describing the American military presence as "illegal occupation". They are the experts, one must concede. Discerning readers are invited to consider two titles by Noam Chomsky: "What We Say Goes", and "Who Rules the World?" Tillerson made his broad made his broad shouldered proclamation in a speech delivered at Stanford, which, all factors considered, might not've been the choicest venue for an expression of imperialistic intentions. Universities tend to be congregations of liberals, who tend to abhor American imperialism. Whether the U.S. occupation of Syria is well intentioned, effective, massive, or popular is not relevant to the question of whether it is legal or moral. Every act of conquest in human history, especially in modern, more sensitive modern times, has been accompanied by an avalanche of propaganda on the part of the aggressor attempting to justify the action. Real motives in foreign policy, particularly American foreign policy, tend to be well hidden. Our most recent made in American was of conquest, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iraq again, were intended to fight terrorism, the story went. Actually, they were intended to steal oil, among other resources. The original American sin is the elevation of capitalism and money above morality and decency, a willingness to use violence in any quantity to acquire and secure them, and an inevitable attempt to conflate wealth, the true American religion, with moral imperative, which is not and never has been important. North Viet Nam, our enemy, defeated us in the Viet Nam War, and has now turned Viet Nam and has now turned Viet Nam into a country increasingly favorable to American interests, which is exactly what would have happened had the United States never become involved there in the first place. Fifty eight thousand american lives were lost in a war as futile as any ever fought. Then, we did it all over again, in the middle east. It is almost a certainty that the world would have become more amenable to American interests if the United States would have simply left it alone.

Making, and Waiting For Change

IT MAY WELL BE that the election of Donald Trump was the best thing that coulda happened to the progressive movement in America. Trump's numbers are way down, and falling. The are the rest of the republicans, numerically. The dems are gaining steam, even in their disarray. Honest, accurate surveys say that seventy six percent of the American people want a single payer, socialistic, health care system. Eighty three percent of we the American people believe that all illegal aliens should be given a pathway to citizenship. At least give them a chance of some kind, for heavens sakes. And a solid majority of Americans want to raise taxes on the wealthy, and, Christlike, give unto the poor, essentially redistributing the nation's wealth, if you can imagine such a thing in me me me America. Progressive values win on all issues. So why are we inclined to think otherwise? Conservatism and its idea seem to be holding forth, on the attack, in the lead, just now. As if the left has fallen asleep, and hasn't, thus far, cared enough. the nation is closely divided on pro choice pro life, but, again, the liberal pro choice viewpoint is held by a slim majority of Americans. The progressive, or "liberal" movement has two flaws holding it back: the lack of any organized political party, such as the democratic party, representing its agenda, and the lack of any coherent, clear platform of ideals and goals. Other than that, no problem. As November starts to approach, soon enough, it seems as it the lib dems will have some pretty strong momentum, based on hatred of Trump and a, shall we say, decidedly negative attitude about the conservative movement in general. Many of them normally democratic blue collar rust belt democrat types went for Trump, and are not inclined to do so again, feeling a mite betrayed. If Hillary Clinton hadn't run, Bernie sanders might well be president now. Most likely, in fact, if you look at the numbers. If a democratically controlled ensues upon completion of the forthcoming election, we shall have a radically altered legislative branch, I presume. In 2020, assuming Trump is still in office and eligible to run for reelection and chooses, enigmatically, to do so, his democratic opponents shall be numerous, quite to the left, brilliant, and capable. We have hope after all.

Doing The Job In Reverse

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, an important executive cabinet agency of which the president is perhaps faintly familiar, has lost a significant number of its employees, especially members of its advisory council, whose job it is to render advice unto the Secretary of the Interior. One third, and counting, of its members have resigned en masse, their stated reason being that they have not been consulted since they took office, and that the secretary of the interior himself, Ryan Zinke, ignores them, and ignores their advice when they convey it, which is always unsolicited. One can hardly blame them. People need an identity, a community, and a purpose. The Department of the Interior, and thus its leader, is charged with protecting America's public lands, and managing them. The current interior department has taken upon itself the task of selling off public lands into private hands, and reducing the acreage allotted to national monuments, which is directly inimical to the reason for its existence. This is in keeping with the make up of the Trump cabinet. The Secretary of Education does not support public education, preferring to offer vouchers for private schooling, and to use public money to support private schools. The director of the EPA has shown no interest in protecting the environment, instead encouraging the elimination of regulations which serve to protect it. The Department of Energy is headed by people who want to "bring back coal" rather than move forward with sustainable energy strategies. The State Department is undermanned, and is engaged in no discernable diplomacy. We don't even have an ambassador to south Korea. The list goes on. Mr. Zinke seems to believe that huge tracts of land are better protected with private ownership, and made available for mineral extraction. The wolves, in short, are inhabiting the hen house.

Assessing Progress, Such As It Is

NOW THAT WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DAYS to sober up from the big MLK holiday blowout, we can reflect back in wonder and amazement. The great state of Arkansas, much to its credit, no longer celebrates MLK day on the same day that it celebrates Robert E. Lee day. Lee, gone but not forgotten, has been reassigned to a date unknown at publication time. Both men fought bravely for their beliefs. To date, Lee still holds a slim lead, but King is gaining momentum, despite some recent setbacks. Shortly after King was killed, near Arkansas, Arkansas governor Winthrop Rockefeller, a carpetbagger, took a few minutes away from his investments to stand for a quick photo op with several civil rights leaders, much to his credit. A Rockefeller's time is valuable. Fifty years later, folks like the Rockefellers have a far easier time getting elected than African-Americans, who are largely absent, underfunded, unelected. Psychological research, redundantly verified, reveals that everyone is a racist, if only by virtue of acceding to the dubious concept of "race" as a discrete category. King was born on January 16, but this year the fifteenth was close enough, it falling on a Monday, a making for a nice weekend. To acknowledge birthdays accurately inconveniences us by interfering with three day weekends, so, we make do. On two entirely separate occasions, a future president, whose name you might recognize, was sued by the Department of Justice for failing to allow African-Americans, who in those days were black, to live in his and his father's rental units. Their applications were stylishly adorned with the letter "C", which stood for "colored", not "civil rights". On both occasions, Trump and dad promised to become less racially insensitive, more color blind, and to never, ever make the same mistake more than twice. They may have broken their promise. Two seldom mentioned facts about King are that he was named after the founder of the protestant faith, and that he was a socialist, especially towards the end, when he realized that poverty, not pigmentation bias, is the greater enemy of equality. Conservative capitalistic commentator Sean Hannity fell all over himself effusively praising the "I have a dream" speech as the greatest oration in human history. It wasn't, but to say so suits Hannity's purpose: conservative are not racists, liberals are. Hannity salvaged his true identity by proclaiming that the president's list of shithole countries really do deserve to be on his list. Luther's reformation began quickly; King's has not, but there remains hope. Meanwhile, with regard to Trump and Hannity: you go boy.

Running From Reality

A LADY AT THE SENIOR SOCIAL CENTER, mid eighties, had a problem. Her phone rang, repeatedly, at all hours. The caller was a male with a decided lack of basic courtesy and a proclivity for inappropriate remarks. She asked the police for suggestions, then, covering all bases, asked everyone at the senior center for suggestions. Everyone had the same ideas, the standard ones. Turn off the phone at night, change your phone number. Neither was going to happen. A friend or family member might call with a problem or emergency. The number must not be changed; the sheer number of investments, particularly in oil funds, necessitated accessibility for attorneys, accountants, and fund managers. Fossil fuels trump inconvenience. All these people cannot be notified of a new number. Telephonic terror will simply have to be endured. Here's a better idea for our beleaguered lady: Divest the oil, ditch the professionals on retainers, ditch the pervert, reinvest in solar. Then, the phone number, as well as the energy strategy, can be made new. A favorable residual consequence is participation in the saving of the world. While the current presidential administration seeks ways to "bring back coal", and pretends that climate change is a Chinese hoax, the Harvard forty billion dollar endowment divests of fossil fuels, reinvests in sustainability, and sets a fine example for the rest of us and our 401K futures. Of far greater concern is the Trump administration. Nobody who accepts the reality of climate change is allowed to be a member. Only climate change deniers need apply. All mention of global warming is prohibited online on the POTUS website. During the recent severe cols weather wave, the president, seemingly unaware of the difference between climate and weather, mad the standard conservative comment about cold weather disproving climate change. Considering all this, my lady friend might wish to retain her oil investments after all. We can offer no further help with her ridding her of her stalker.

Worrying About Stray Cats

THIS JANUARY'S EXTREME FRIGIDIGY in which the entire nation has been immersed has created problems I can scarcely comprehend for people I will never meet. Bless them. My strategy is to hunker down, pull the shades, set the thermostat at sixty, and boil water. Humidity equals heat retention, so I am informed. My paramount concern is stray cats, or if you will, homeless cats, though neither term seems adequate. I'm not sure they're as lonely and miserable as we cat lovers like to think, or that they have any real need or desire for human companionship. We tend to enjoy whatever we are accustomed to having. And yet, I think of my three cats, who've lived exclusively in my house for five years. When they were wee kittens, the wanted to come inside with me, and they told me so. Or, they thought I was a big ugly cat who might have a meal for them. often, the facts of my life belie my theories about it. Dogs can freeze to death in zero temperatures. Can cats? I've never heard it confirmed, one way or another. I suppose my feelings are best expressed by Robinson Jeffers, in his poem "Hurt Hawks". I recommend it. Tempting as it is to want all stray cats to move in with a human family, we can at least dream about a country in which all stray cats are vaccinated, spayed, and neutered. Better yet, a country in which cats are regarded as highly as they were in ancient Egypt, where they were in fact not "worshipped" in our modern sense, but were, as an ancient historian said, given very close scrutiny by the people, and regarded as manifestations of the gods.

Grading Trump On Ethics

MODERN AMERICAN PRESIDENTS retain a variety of advisors, with good reason. The complexities of the modern world make for a complex presidency. Washington had essentially no advisors, other than his four cabinet members. Among the advisors is a "chief ethics advisor", an attorney whose specialty is legal ethics, in itself a complicated field. President Bush employed Richard Painter, Obama retained Norm Eisner, both eminent. President Trump seems to believe that he, like Washington, doesn't require many advisors, on ethics, or anything else. It would be advantageous for the rest of us if he would seriously reconsider. Upon his inauguration, Eisner and Painter agreed that Trump's vast and assorted international business holdings presented an ethics problem of great proportions, a problem which, if not remedied by his divestment from all his concerns, would lead to trouble of great proportions, a veritable maze of conflicts of interest. Who can say how his business interests in other countries might influence his conduct of foreign policy? There is a long tradition of presidents liquidating their holdings upon assumption of office. One year into the Trump administration Eisner and Painter are back, having monitored the situation closely, and their assessment is not favorable. In the first place, they point out, there is a forty year precedent of a newly elected president selling off all business interests, and placing the money in a blind trust, a measure, they agree, that is especially important for Trump, considering the far flung nature of his investments. Trump, of course refuses to do this, and nobody can say how his decision making is influenced by having influential foreign dignitaries patronizing his hotels and resorts. Whether he has profited, nobody can say, because he refuses to release his tax filings, another breaking of precedent. According to our two experts, Trump has seriously violated the constitution in a number of ways, not only the emoluments clause. The first amendment and second amendment are equally at risk. At the Trump administration proceeds, it will be interesting to notice how legal ethics experts continue to grade him. To this point, the verdict is: impeachable.

Losing Memory

THE REPUBLICANS in the room cannot recall having heard the president refer to African nations as "shitholes", while the democrat clearly remembers it, and has adamantly said so. Altogether, there were six senators or so present. Party politics never ends. The Bi polarization of the American electorate, and the American elected, continues apace. The question, of course, is, who's lying? Rather, which is more likely: that somebody in a room with the president, with witnesses, fabricates a tall tale to the effect that the president of the United States calls an entire continent a "shithole", and that no such thing ever happened, or, that several people in the same room, wanting to protect the president's reputation and avoid having the world sully it, decide that they never heard anything of the sort? It is uncertain whether Trump's defenders are claiming that he never in a million years uttered the word, or that they simply cannot remember his doing so. Both versions have surfaced. How likely is it that somebody is going to lie about what the president actually said, and put obscene words in his mouth, when there were other people present who know that it never happened, and can attest that it never did? How likely is it that supporters of the president in the same room heard the remark, and knowing the probable consequences, world condemnation, wish they hadn't, and therefore decide that they indeed didn't? Any discerning intelligent person can quickly decide, and the answer is rather obvious. Actually, Senator Durbin of Illinois was the only democrat in the room. A possible scenario is that all the republicans, including Cotton of Arkansas and the president himself, realized that a serious verbal blunder had been made, and that, lacking plausible deniability, would harm further Trump's already dubious reputation. Therefore, all the G.O.P. people decided, in unison, that he had never said anything, meaning that all they had to do was accuse Durbin of fabrication, and leave him to his own devices. Problem is, the world seems to be believing Dick Durbin. Among the conservative radio talk show hosts, its no big deal, whether or not Trump actually made the slander; after all, they reason, he was simply telling the truth. We don't need those people here anyway. Nor do we need three hundred thousand poor people from El Salvador, earthquake or no earthquake. Send 'em back. Among the Christian conservative community, keep 'em out and send 'em back seems to be the order of the day, the welcoming of the stranger notwithstanding. These conservatives are such lovely, compassionate, Christian people, blessed with honesty and integrity.

Walking and Carrying Banners

THE VIET NAM WAR was the dominant feature of my childhood, fortunately, from a distance. As I went through grade school and junior high, and through high school, it was always with me, at five thirty every day, via Walter Cronkite, though I preferred Huntley and Brinkley. I kept track of it, and the casualty numbers became something of a daily scoreboard. t seems the American dead per week averaged about two hundred, the south Vietnamese about a thousand, and the enemy dead about two thousand a week. The war had seemingly been ongoing my entire life, and seemingly would never end. Ten years is a long time for a child. For many years I harbored the thought that they would run out of people before we did, but when that hope was destroyed by the Tet offensive, and Walter Cronkite gave up, so did I, at the tender age of thirteen. At that point I began to favor the war protestors, who, among my family and friends, were the unpatriotic, unwashed bad people. I knew they were right then, and I know they were right now. In fact, by the time I was fifteen I wanted to become one of them, but that was beyond my capabilities; not with my conservative, patriotic parents. It was as impossible for me as Woodstock, which I only languidly wanted to attend. I finally got my chance to protest a war in 1991, when the United States, following the misleading of George Bush, fabricated an excuse to invade and conquer Iraq, then his son did likewise in Afghanistan. Let the record show that both these wars have proven as tragically fruitless as Viet Nam. the lesson is that even the greatest military superpower in the world cannot send half a million armed forces halfway around the word and impose its policy on weaker nations without disastrous consequences. We Americans did not learn our lesson from Viet Nam, have we learned it now? Marching down the street carrying a banner which read "no war for oil", I at least had the satisfaction of being, as they say, on the "right side of history", and being able to do something, however, small, about bout it. Now, another misguided president seeks to use threats and intimidation to rid an enemy of its nuclear weapons, and wishes to stir up trouble by abrogating a perfectly acceptable nuclear arms treaty with another enemy nuclear arms treaty with another enemy. Thus, two more potential wars of American aggression are in the green room, ready to take center stage. My only comfort is the thought that, at long last, our country may have learned its badly needed lesson. If not, my only comfort tis that I can still walk, and can still carry a banner.

Identifying The Chief Executive Shit Hole

BY NOW it is widely known that President Trump referred to African nations as "shit hole countries". Although he made the comment on camera, on audio, in front of a room full of United states Senators, he later twitter tweeted that although his language was strong and tough, he actually didn't say what he said. So much for cogent presidential situational analysis. his denial, however, would seem to indicate that even the president does not approve of the kind of language he used but didn't use, of calling other countries "shitholes", which givers us some small measure of hope. None of his spokespeople deny his having made the remark, which, most assuredly, they would have, had he in fact not made it. some behavior is incapable of justification, even among sycophants. This, from a president who recently said that he wanted to sign an immigration "bill of love", without quibbling over its precise content. When someone evidently told him exactly what is in the bill, he began quibbling, or rather, twittering. The president also commented on Haiti. his previous promise to be Haiti's "greatest champion" is belied by his witnessed assertion yesterday that immigration from Haiti should be strictly limited, and that the United states would do better to accept immigrants from places like, say, Norway. Left unsaid, but strongly implied, is the difference in skin color between Haitians and Norwegians. Omitted was the fact that Norwegians, who benefit from the prosperity engendered by a healthy economic mix of highly regulated capitalism and socialism, hardly need immigrant to what they likely consider to be a shit hole of a country, with a lower standard of living, and unreasonable leadership. Also unmentioned is that countries like Haiti would doubtless suffer less poverty were they to receive meaningful economic assistance from the United states, instead of being victimized by exploitation and predatory loans. At what point does the behavior of the president of the United states become sufficiently deplorable to warrant removal from office? Every four years, if never sooner, and for that, we should be at least somewhat grateful.

Moving Too Far To The Right

CONSERVATIVES OFTEN REMARK, hyperbolically, that the democratic party has moved so far to the left as to be indistinguishable from communism, unrecognizable. This, of course, is nonsense. Franklin Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern and others of the democratic past were in fact far more liberal than today's crop, with the possible exception of Bernie sanders, who isn't even a democrat. Obama, Clinton, and Clinton may as well be moderate republicans, for they are no more liberal than Howard Baker or Nelson Rockefeller or William Proxmire, or Dwight Eisenhower. The Obamas and the Clintons are in fact quite loyal to their corporate sponsors, as indicated in their voting records. The republican party, however, has indeed moved much farther to the right. It is hard to imagine any republican president today establishing the Environmental Protection Agency or the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, like Richard Nixon. An interesting exercise is to download a copy of the republican party platform for 1956, when Eisenhower was running for reelection. Its every bit as liberal as most democratic party platforms of today. In it are provisions supporting labor unions, gender equality, social security, and a host of other plans which today's republicans consider anathema. Late in the Obama administration, the EPA issued a regulation requiring oil companies to repair ruptures in their pipelines, and to clean up the resulting oil spill. prior to that, there had been no such requirement, which demonstrates that the EPA has governed with kid gloves. Oil companies traditionally left pipeline leaks unrepaired, because the cost of repairing them exceeded the value of the oil lost. it can safely be assumed that, based only on common sense ethical considerations, most Americans believe that companies should indeed be required to clean up their onw messes. Trump, not surprisingly, eliminated this very reasonable regulation on the grounds that it imposed an undue burden on industry, and was economically harmful, like all other government regulations. Overwhelmingly, republicans support the deregulation of the economy and the environment, as beneficial to economic growth. For the, the bottom line is more important than keeping the environment clean. They claim that they, like everyone else, are concerned about clean air, water, and soil. they are not. Fifty years ago, they were. The extremism is not manifested in today's liberalism, but rather, within the mainstream conservative movement.

Rolling Eyes, Pointing Gun At Head

LISTENING TO PEOPLE explaining their reasons for having voted for Trump can yield interesting results. One gentleman said that he, like everyone else, rolls his eyes at many of the comments Trump makes, but on the other hand, he continued, he would be unable to vote for Hillary Clinton even if a gun were pointed at his head encouraging him to dim to do so. Upon examination, one fact stands out about both parts of this two part explanation: it is extreme exaggeration. One can safely surmise that anyone would rather vote for Hillary Clinton than take a bullet in the head, even her most ardent detractors, whether thy wish to admit it. Furthermore, merely "rolling eyes" at what Trump says doesn't cut the mustard, so to speak. One must do more. One must, in order to be reasonable, ash whether Trump's comments reveal pathological mental tendencies, narcissism, or mere garden variety dishonesty. When the president of the United States asserts that he lost the popular vote only because millions of people voted illegally for his opponent, or that thousands of Moslems were cheering wildly when the World Trade Center fell, or that it was Hillary Clinton who started the rumor that Obama was born in Africa, not Hawaii, the rolling of the eyes is insufficient in terms of response. One must seek expert opinion from mental health specialists, and, most definitely, one must never vote for such a person, because, if nothing else, such a presidential candidate is clearly a nut case. and this is our great national problem; an unwillingness of the American individual to accept reality, to accept truth, and a tendency to distort same for the purpose of reinforcing beliefs already held. We have a national epidemic of this type of behavior. Nut cases, indeed.

Locking Up Lunacy

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST Hillary Clinton is that there are about thirty thousand of her emails that are missing, that she must have deleted, and that therefore must be bad, evil, harmful to America, and that, therefore, she should be put in prison. You'll recall hearing the chant "lock her up!" during Trump rallies. Lock her up, because there are thousands of emails she sent or received that are missing, can't, for some reason, be found. if that aint a good reason to lock somebody up, what is? Well, what about this? What if Hillary were in exactly the same position that Trump is now. what if Chelsea had met with Russian operatives, and Hillary's campaign were being investigated by an independent investigator and congressional committees for allegedly conspiring with Russians to have them help her win the presidency against Trump? What would the Trump supporters be saying Maybe something like: "lock her up"? Ya think? Do you just suppose that the Trump supporters would have already found her guilty of treason, and want to lock her up? Yo think? flashing back to reality, how are the Trump supporters reacting to Trump's situation? Oh, yes! they are calling it a "witch hunt", a conspiracy of democrats and Trump's enemies to bring him down, fake news, and are further claiming that Hillary is really the one who cooperated with Russians. You get tired of the dishonest hypocrisy of Trump and his off the wall supporters, who have dwindled to a mere thirty five percent of we the American people. These are the people who ignore Trump's criminal behavior, regarding, for instance, sexual predation, among other forms of lunacy. These are the people who want to 'bring back coal". Bring back coal? Excuse me? Coal, Mr. trump, has already been priced out of the market by the very forces of capitalism, supply and demand, which you and your republicans supporters so deeply cherish and respect. Conservatives are so deeply devoted to traditions, which is conservatism, which is coal, and so opposed to change, which is liberalism, and which is renewable energy, that they are willing to destroy the environment to defend them. That is nothing other than sheer lunacy.

Being, Like, Smart, Like Trump Says He Is

IT IS MUCH EASIER to retract or deny having spoken the spoken word than the printed word. On the one hand, Steve Bannon's book "Fire and Fury" will be highly successful, and will make him good money. On the other hand, his back stabbing of Trump has already cost him an even greater amount of money, in the form of support from wealthy conservative donors. So, he's trying to 'walk it back" as the currently popular phrase goes, or "crawfish it" as one of my hillbilly friends put it. (Evidently, crawfish walk backwards). But the mere fact that his slanderous words against Trump will be in print, ubiquitously, makes it impossible, beyond a certain point, for retraction or clarification. Bannon and Wolff did indeed accuse Trump's son of traitorous, treasonous activity in meeting with Russian operatives. No, he was not talking about Paul Manafort, he was talking about Trump junior. and, according, the book does indeed cite testimony from White House personnel asserting that Trump is unprepared and incompetent, petty, and emotional, and spends much of his time seething and watching cable news. Trump's reaction was typically juvenile and hilarious, calling Bannon....what..."sloppy Steve?"...Ah, the junior highness of it all! The presidential twitter tweets never lose their infantile appeal. The president said...I am, like, very smart. I am a stable genius. The addition of the word "like" where it has no place being typically Trumpian secondary school. Richard Wolff says that his book will bring trump down. If it does, he may be credited for putting a miserable president and a miserable nation out of their misery.

Eliiminating Nukes

TO THE PEOPLE of the People's Egalitarian Democratic Republic of North Korea, and their beloved totalitarian dictator, I, on behalf of, frankly, no one but myself, but ultimately on behalf of every living organism on earth with a discerning intellect and concern for the future, propose the following; that we, the humans of earth, all agree on some fundamental proposal to work towards in harmony and unison.. That said proposal be the elimination of all nuclear weapons from the Earth. Isn't that the most desirable ooutcome, really? No nukes on Earth, none whatever? All factors considered, it is a miracle that humanity has not destroyed itself with accidental nuclear bomb droppings. The list of verified mistakes is enormous, and terrifying. Oh, there was the worker in Arkansas who dropped a wrench which hit and penetrated a fuel tank of a missile armed with a nuclear warhead, the fuel tank exploded, and the actual warhead landed about half a mile from where it had been, atop the rocket, but did not, thank the lord, explode. then, there was the time an American B52 accidentally dropped a load of nukes in Portugal, none of which, thank heavens, exploded. then, the time that the Russian on duty colonel detected an incoming wave of American nuclear missiles, headed for Russia, chose not to inform his superiors, which would have triggered a nuclear war, and it turned out that his hunch, that the incoming missiles were a computer mistake, proved true, and his intuition saved the world. Much material is available on these, and many more incidents of near global catastrophe. If North Korea would agree to terminate its nuclear weapons program immediately, to the demonstrable satisfaction of the entire world, we, the world community, pledge to eliminate our nuclear weapons as well, eventually, as soon as we can agree upon a time frame and process. let us first agree that there is no such thing as a safe, harmless, peaceful nuclear power. Humans being, in any combination or group, with such powerful weapons, is a grave threat to all other life on the planet, and are not qualified nor competent to have possession of such weapons. North Korea is not the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a threatening or directly harmful manner. India and Pakistan have for decades been threatening each other with nuclear war, and the United States of America is the only nation on Earth so far to have used nuclear weapons in war, with horrifying consequences. Humans are inherently unqualified, by virtue of their basic nature, to possess such powerful and destructive. North Korea needs economic commerce wit the rest of the world, a thriving free market economy and direct economic assistance from the United States and other countries to facilitate the expansion of its economy and the elimination of the widespread poverty among its people. the current situation, characterized by threats and insults between petty, irrational leaders of the U.S.and North Korea is absolutely unacceptable. We need new leadership in both countries, and a world wide commitment to bringing a healthy economic system into being in a world free of nuclear weapons.

Precariously Supporting Trump

WHEN JIMMY CARTER WAS ELECTED, he quickly sold his peanut farming business. there was never any question about it. It was automatic. both bushes separated themselves sufficiently from their business interests to avoid the appearance of conflict of interests or accusations of corruption. It has always been considered proper and important for American presidents even the appearance of using the office for personal financial gain. Until now. Now, it no longer seems to matter. We no longer care about conflicts of interest, even when they are blatant, as they are now. Harry Truman said that anybody who goes into politics and becomes wealthy is a sure crook. What would Truman think of somebody who was extremely wealthy, using that wealth to become president, then becoming even wealthier while president? Alarmingly, few people seem to really cares bout Trump's blatantly unethical behavior in terms of his business interests. Any expert on legal, political, and business ethics is going to tell you that Trump's conflicts of interests are astounding, and unacceptable for being president. Richard Painter, president bushes ethics advisor, explains it in great detail. Of course, the president's unethical or illegal behavior goes far beyond the realm of conflicts of business interest; and may even include traitorous treason by collaborating with a foreign enemy to get elected. Trump's supporters, by supporting him rather than calling him out and dealing honestly with the problems, are complicit in Trump's unethical behavior, and are in fact guilty of it themselves. Including, most of the evangelical community, which has exposed its hypocrisy. By following trump, they are certainly not following Jesus, if ever thy were, considering their penchant for coveting and collecting personal wealth. The Federation of Evangelical Conservative American Lunatics (FECAL) is protesting way too much the investigation into Trump's alleged connections to Russians operatives helping him win the election. As if they are afraid that their man will be exposed as a traitor, particularly considering the new Steve Bannon book, which accuses Trump of treasonous behavior. You right wing evangelical Christians may end u p regretting your support of Trump, and much else besides. It will be fascinating to see how Trump supporters react if he is found guilty. maybe they'll simply pretend it never happened; fantasy is their specialty.

Knowing Too Much

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS believe in UFOs. The actual numbers are staggering, more staggering than can be explained by mere reality. obviously, whatever else is going on, there is a strong psychological, imaginative component to the phenomenon. Obviously, people are looking for something, and finding it, whether or not its actually there. evolving religiosity coupled with a virulent contagious delusion, possibly. Our only hope is science, which is currently under attack by the very same people who promulgate and profit from the fantasy industry, not surprisingly. All sixty five million citizens who have been abducted by extraterrestrials are convinced that the government is hiding proof of the exist of extraterrestrials. It must be doing a terrible job. I read my first UFO boo, "The Interrupted Journey" when I was eleven or so, and have been hooked ever since. But I have my limits. For me its an unanswered question, and always has been, and might well remain for the foreseeable future. I pity the poor people who have all the answers in Ufology, or anything else, especially religion. They see truth as being external to themselves, available to anybody, indisputable. The poor wretches refuse to either comprehend or accept, or both, that all unverified belief is subjective. This is what makes life worth living. the opportunity to ceaselessly inquire, and learn. We can /either question and improve our personal beliefs and understanding, or rigidly declare that we no no further improvement to make. W have no choice but to agree that the value of pi is three point one four one five, and not simply three, as the Bible claims. And we have no choice but to accept that each person's concept of God is different, subjective, and unique. But try telling that to religious fanatics or UFOlogists who insist that certain extraterrestrial beings come from a certain planet with a definite location and name, and that they know what it is.

Spreading the Revolution

HORDES OF ANGRY IRANIANS have been and still are out in the streets, all across the Persian empire, protesting their government's failure to improve the country's dire economic circumstances. more power to the Iranian masses. May they prevail. We should be doing exactly the same thing here in the United States, and, with a little luck and gumption, soon will be, in huge numbers. President trump, never missing an opportunity for a photo op or for some tweet attention, is acting like some heroic champion of human dignity and rights, warning the Iranian government against committing civil rights abuses against the protesters. The Iranian government soon showed its disrespect for Donald Trump by shooting a few of the street protesters. Maybe the American prez should simply butt out. It isn't as if Trump is renowned worldwide for his strong record on civil rights. According to the American president, the protests were caused by Obama's nuclear bomb treaty with Iran, somehow or other. The vice president strongly asserted that he intends to never miss out on another Iranian protest, whatever that means. We all seem to agree on one thing; the protest is a good thing. Ninety none percent of the world's people have hardly any money and absolutely no political power of any kind. We the world's ninety nine percent should have a world wide protest, based on the previous American Occupy Wall Street movement, with a few changed and improvements. The ninety nine percent versus the one percent, keeping in mind the weird fact that there are many among the vast majority who support the wealthy elite, inexplicably. The people protesting in the streets of Iran probably consider themselves economic have nots, political have nots, or both. And, just like most of the rest of us, they are exactly that. So, why don't the rest of us join them? There are more than six billion of us, probably closer to seven billion, globally. Economic equality, political democracy, an end to poverty, war, and environmental destruction. Some intrepid soul needs to go stand in the middle of the park in lower Manhattan where it all started last time, and invite the rest of us to join in. Meanwhile, long live the revolution in Iran.