Doing Like We Say, Not Like We Do

TRUMP'S NEW BUT PROBABLY NOT FINAL Secretary of State, Mr. POM PAY OH, while traveling, launched what will likely be a long lasting verbal assault on Iran, asserting that the former Persian Empire fully intends to dominate its part of the world, that it is already seeking to greatly extend its influence in the middle east, and that since signing the nuclear bomb treaty last year, has been behaving much worse than ever, in terms of supporting terrorism and meddling in the affairs of its neighbors. He made it clear that all this will not be tolerated, and that the treaty will almost certainly be thrown out by the Trump administration, since, according to wacko American conservatives, the treaty virtually guarantees that Iran will eventually have nukes. The logic behind that "reasoning" is, at the least, dubious, but that's another matter. For an American government official to accuse another nation of seeking domination beyond its own borders, engaging in terrorism, or meddling in the affairs of other nations is, most of all, rich. Other possible terms include "ironic" and "hilariously hypocritical". If there is any nation on the planet which has meddled in matters beyond its own borders, in other countries, it is these old United States, and its been that way for a long time, since the Monroe Doctrine. The history of the extension of American military and economic power into the middle east is well known in detail, and its disastrous consequences equally well known. The current condition of Iraq and Afghanistan, and their terrible circumstances are, almost entirely, the product of American foreign policy. It is worth remembering that even if we Americans cannot see our own blatantly hypocritical behavior and attitudes, the rest of the world does.

Educating Senator Cotton

ARKANSAS SENATOR TOM COTTON accuses democrats of being unable to accept the election of Trump, and still being embittered about it. As usual, the Senator misunderstands. Democrats, and in general those who oppose Trump, who constitute roughly two thirds of the American people, have long since accepted the Trump presidency as fact. After all, what choice do we have? The Senator greatly underestimates our ability to come to terms with reality, and perhaps overestimates his own, as when he attempted to sabotage President Obama's negotiations with Iran, motivating the Iranians to ask: "who is this freak?" On that occasion, the Senator's denial of reality was at least traitorous, at most treasonous. For the Senator's edification, what democrats and two thirds of Americans are embittered about is not Trump's election, but rather his behavior since, while in office. We the embittered majority deem it inappropriate for the president to dismiss man made climate change as a Chinese hoax, particularly considering that the Defense Department identifies global warming as the greatest threat to American national security. We are embittered by the president's removal of the United States from the global battle to fight environmental destruction currently being waged by every nation on earth, except conservative America. We are alarmed, if not embittered, by Trump's embrace of neo-liberal economics, and his tax breaks for the wealthy. The wealthy do not need tax relief. The poor do. A redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, which is antithetical to conservative ideology, would greatly increase consumer demand, which is the only requisite for increased production, job growth and prosperity. Tax breaks for corporations neither create jobs nor increase production, since they do not increase consumer demand. In other matters, the president's inane lies and constant spewing of hatred against those who oppose his policies, such as calling political leaders who oppose him as "vicious" do not embitter us. They merely amuse us, as we roll our eyes, hold our noses, and sadly shake our heads in disbelief.

Identifying Obama's Religion

AT MY LOCAL SMALL SOUTHERN TOWN senior center, one of our resident retired right wing geniuses announced, with great certitude, that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The remark was intended not as a compliment, but rather, an indictment, and a fact. It is none of the above, to any reasonable, reasoning mind. Precisely where he got this information he failed to divulge. Suspects include right wing talk radio, or a fellow local right wing Christian self proclaimed perspicacious authority on Obama's religiosity. As proof he cited the fact that he heard Obama quoting from the Quran, but not the Bible. what more proof could there be? How can one possibly refute such convincing evidence? Left unsaid is that the Islamic scripture is as valid a source of wisdom as the christian bible. Even if Obama were Islamic, which he isn't, what of it? Are not all religious faiths to be respected? Be proud of me. I kept my mouth shut. Why bother? Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain, as they say. Had I spoken, I would have pointed out that if Obama were indeed Islamic, he would say so, because Muslims are no more ashamed of their faith than Christians, particularly bigoted Christians. In fact Obama is a self proclaimed christian, and personal testimony is usually good enough, and is considered the most reliable indicator of one's religious preference, unless, of course, one is guilty of the sin of being half African-American, liberal, and a democrat. Another of my Christian friends called Obama a "cocksucker", and, you guessed it, a Muslim, and further indicated he hated Obama, such hatred being typical of highly conservative Christians. Again, Islamic, Christian, atheist, what does it matter? Are we not all brothers and sisters in the universe, regardless of the religious preference of its creator? One can, however, hardly expect the Christian conservative community to comprehend such a basic, profoundly true concept.

Figuring Out Populism

WHAT, PRECISELY, IS "POPULISM"? I had always been given to understand that populism was a political movement of the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, spearheaded by Robert Lafollette, which embraced the ideal that political power ought properly to begin at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid, and trickle up, a political system wherein the working class took charge of society, extending democracy to the masses, contrary to the explicit wishes of the founders and the constitution, and wrested control from the wealthy elite class. As such, it seemed to me to be a movement of the left. That, however, was in the days when working class America favored liberal causes, government intervention in the economy, and regulation of corporate behavior, in the bygone era before the emergence of Donald Trump and the transition of the white working class into a conservative base. In Lafollette's day, populism was associated with what was, and still is, termed the "progressive era", hence progressivism, or liberalism. The very notion that a populist movement could be led by a billionaire(alleged billionaire, with hidden tax returns) president, with a cabinet filled with certifiable billionaires, and a congress cutting taxes on the wealthy would have seemed utterly ludicrous - until now. Now we have a right wing brand of populism, which is highly nationalistic, xenophobic, and non inclusive, foreign concepts to Lafollette. Trumpian populism appears predicated upon the assumption that everyman is entitled to his own version of the truth, that fake news is any news which fails to vindicate right wing public policy, and, most of all, that everyone is entitled to be his or her own expert. There are no experts, other than the common man and his own choice of alternative realities. Thus we are free to accept or reject whatever scientists choose to tell us, and all academics are no more knowledgeable than the rest of us. Who needs research on the consequences of vaccinations, when we have Jenny McCarthy? She says that vaccines cause autism, and, after all, she is a celebrity, case closed. Climate change? Forget climate science. Your guess is a good as anyone's. Although the scientists tell us that Genetically modified food is perfectly safe, if you say it isn't, it isn't. Bear in mind that most conservative populists believe that higher education is detrimental to American society, and that climate change is a liberal hoax. Welcome to our modern American version of "populism".

Returning To Our Roots

SUPPOSE you are a member of an advanced species, and your assignment is to keep an eye on planet earth, and monitor the progress of its most promising species, homo sapien sapiens. You return every, oh, say, ten thousand years, just to have a quick look see. Each time you see essentially the same thing. Small groups of perpetually migrating semi-hairy primates, chasing and fighting over food. Dozens of times, at ten thousand year intervals, you see this. Then, on, say, your one hundreth visit, you are intercepted by a squadron of jet fighters, which, though still primitive, approach your spacecraft, cautiously. Suddenly, a considerable change has occurred. A precipitous lurch forward has taken place since your last visit. We human beings are not at all well suited to the world we have created. We are programmed to live in small, roving, hunter gatherer groups, paleolithic its called, using spears and knives hewn of stone. We are not hard wired to live in immobile cities, with thousands, or millions of others living nearby. Nor are we made to establish large nation states, and such accoutrements as cars, capitalism, and global economic systems. You notice how we Americans, for instance, feel an urge to roam, to move around. We are essentially primitive primates living far beyond our means, way above our heads. Thus, our current discontent. All that we have now, all that we are now, is entirely new, a product of a few hundred years of high speed cultural evolution. The sixteenth century had more in common with human culture as it was ten thousand years ago than with the twenty first century. And it would appear that we are longing to return to our origins, replacing globalism with a new nationalistic fervor, replacing national loyalty with identity politics, returning to our tribal origins, trying to recapture lost contentment. And if we do not find a way to alter or transcend fundamental human nature, the world as we know it will cease to exist. and we might not even miss it.

Celebrating Earth Day Trump's Way

IT SOMEHOW SEEMS APPROPRIATE that on earth Day, President Trump announces his intention to continue to destroy environmental protection legislation, declaring that the best protection for the environment is the free market. Quite obviously, the free market is precisely the reason why the earth's environment is now in deadly peril, as decades of unregulated corporate activity have given corporations a free pass to throw their poisonous waste materials into rivers, lakes, and the atmosphere and land. As usual, president Trump is so drastically wrong that he seems to be either oblivious to reality, or purposely disregarding it in his make more money for the wealthy agenda. The year of the first Earth Day, 1970, was about the time that lake Eerie and a major river flowing into it caught on fire; the water so saturated with flammable material that fire spread across the water's surface. That's what happened in the days before government regulation began to force the free market to take responsibility for their environmentally destructive habits. Anyone who accepts the reality of human made climate change is not allowed to work in the Trump administration. The Director of the EPA has no concern for environmental protection, preferring to assist big business in capturing large profits while disregarding environmental protection, having spent his career filing lawsuits against the EPA prior to his assuming the leadership of the agency, which is probably why Trump nominated him in the first place. For the sake of the environment, it is to be hoped that it won't have to endure many more years, if any, of this destructive administration.

Lovin' On the Queen

ELIZABETH ASCENDED a couple of years before I was born, so I've never paid undue attention to her, I've never known a world without her, and. quite likely, will rather soon. I've always tended to like her; she has a natural warmth about her, a higher sort of humility which transcends her lofty station. She's never seemed imperious, arrogant, or aloof. Now, suddenly, I absolutely adore her. her Yorkshire terrier that she has loved for fifteen years died, and the report is that the queen is absolutely devastated. And like they said on National Public Radio, if you don't think this is important, ask any pet owner, we Americans understand. It may be that the queen is experiencing just about the greatest pain she has aver felt, because of that special dog and human bond we all know so well. I have long suspected that for most Americans, the death of a long lived and beloved pet dog or cat is more emotionally painful than the death of parents and friends. That's how much we care. and, it would seem, the Queen of England is one of us. Dear lady, please accept my invitation to become an "honorary American." I met and became good friends with a well educated, thoughtful man from china, who had come to the states to pursue an advanced degree. he remarked one day that "you Americans are the loneliest people in the world. You care more about your dogs and cats than you do each other!"...Did he have us pegged, or what? Maybe there is a certain truth in that, and maybe it extends beyond U.S. borders. As for the queen, we know that you will get through this horrible, devastating event, great lady, because you are strong, and good. And besides, you and your sweet doggie friend are still together, and always will be...

The Difficulty Of Changing

ONE OF MY BEST FRIENDS, who appears to be intelligent, denies man made climate change. Well, he's a conservative, so, no surprise. He knows for sure its all a big hoax, because, after all, he took a couple of science classes in high school. In America, there is no uncertainty. Everyone is his or her own best expert - on everything. Climate change deniers, every last one of them, is absolutely, positively, rock solid sure that this whole global warming business is a hoax, of some sort, Chinese or liberal, take your pick. We true believers are somewhat similar; we are certain that climate change is real, and man made, because the experts say that it is. whether or not we understand it,(and we don't) we believe in it, because we trust science. One might expect, from time to time, to encounter a skeptic who isn't sure one war or the other, but is skeptical of the science, but no, one never encounters such a person. The deniers are all rock solid certain, whether thy had science in high school or not. As if they had actually done the science themselves. They are all conservative. you will simply not find a liberal who questions climate science. Liberals are either very gullible, or very accomplished at maintaining conspiratorial secrecy. Belief is expertise has become, it would seem, a liberal value. If the climate is really changing, and if it is really due to human activity, then mankind must make drastic, fundamental changes to its economic systems, which, among conservatives, is anathema. I somehow sense that my friend the climate change denier could study chemistry, physics, and climate science for decades, even while the earth roasted beneath his feet, and his belief would never change.

Deciding Whether To Impeach

ON MY REAR BUMPER is an "Unfit to serve: IMPEACH TRUMP" bumper sticker. It has a small wrinkle, because if you don't get it on right the first time, you don't get another chance. Maybe my hand was shaking with anticipation. But the message is clear, and that's what matters. Ironically, I personally am not on any impeachment crusade; I don't much care whether he's impeached, so long as whatever's done is done justly. My view is that, if left to his own devices, if left in office, the president will inevitably self destruct, and will take down his followers and their agenda with him. then too, I believe in giving people a chance, and to avoid falling into the trap of automatically disagreeing with everything the president does merely because you dislike him, which is the tragic, evil trap that Obama hating racists fell so deeply into. Leave well enough alone; may he tweet to his heart's content. Same with all the other crazy stuff; let the light shine on it, and see where the weird right wing America first agenda takes its supporters. Some leftist anti-Trump online entity offered me a free bumper sticker, and I jumped on the chance. My hope is that it will deter good, honest, conservative republicans, who by now must surely be embarrassed, from following too closely. Does Trump deserve to be impeached. Should he be, even as we speak? Stay tuned. If the Mueller investigation exposes collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, whether or not trump claims to have known about it, the answer is "yes". Soon enough we'll know, one way or another. So what about other possible grounds for impeachment? Stormi, and all she "implies", seems like a possibility. Trump's various conflicts of interest related to overseas businesses are strictly unconstitutional, according to Richard Painter, the world's leading authority on such matters. Then too, there is the "minor matter" of obstruction of justice, as detailed by Former FBI Director Mr. Comey in his book, now being released. But above all else, is the little discussed fact that, according to the Department of Defense, aka "the Pentagon", the greatest threat to American national security is.....man made climate change. According to the D.O.D. which, at last check was a credible source. and yet, nobody who believes in climate change is allowed to work in the Trump administration, and the Trump administration is doing nothing to deal with what is the greatest threat to our national security. For the president of the United States to deny the existence of the greatest enemy it has is....impeachable? Arguably. It almost begins to seem as if it will require extraordinary effort by the president to retain his office. But again, we'll soon see...

Manufacturing Equality

FOR YEARS, Wal Mart was the biggest company in the world, remember? Or maybe it was merely the biggest retailer. Either way, it was, and remains, big. Has Amazon Dot Com passed it yet? In terms of market value, Facebook has indeed surpassed Wal mart. The purpose of a business is to generate a profit for its owners, provide fair pay for its workers, and so supply reasonably priced high quality goods and services to the community, and society, or should be. Right? Which one does all that better? Wal mart, or Facebook? Could they both do a better job than they have done and are now doing, and if so , how? Can we the consuming public force them to improve? Though extremely valuable market wise, in fact Facebook is has twice the market value of Wal Mart, the experts and the numbers tell us, Facebook has no tangible assets, other than a page on a computer screen, a lot of electronic money, and a huge quantity of personal information about its two billion members, which it uses to make a profit by selling it to advertisers, as everyone knows. Facebook delivers services, not goods. Wal Mart, which its stores crammed with tangible material wealth at low prices, provides employment for about a million people: Facebook for only about twenty five thousand. The Facebook folks are far better paid. The intellectual father of modern capitalism, everyone agrees, is Adam Smith, whose 1776 book "The Wealth of Nations" has long been considered a sort of Bible of free market capitalism. Fair enough. We often hear that smith explained why free market capitalism works best as an economic system, why supply and demand work for everyone, but we do not often hear that he also said that properly functioning free markets should produce equality of outcomes, as well as equality of opportunity. Or that government action on behalf of the wealthy is always to be avoided, or that government action on behalf of the poor is always good. Wal Mart and Facebook both, demonstrably, make a relatively few people very wealthy, but do not make many workers nearly as prosperous. Outcomes are not equal. Adam Smith never envisioned capitalism as a system which divides society into the few rich and the many poor. But that is exactly what we have done with capitalism. And to the extant that our largest corporations contribute to that division, they should be forced by the public to do otherwise, and that can be done best in the free market place, where we all consume, or don't consume, goods and services.

Hunting Witches

THE RUSSO-TRUMPO investigation seems to be getting a bit serious. Trump's current attorney, one of them, Mr. Cohen, one of the ones who hasn't resigned, was visited, or rather his office was, by a team of FBI agents with a search warrant, and, by all accounts, they found what they were looking for, whatever it may have been. Something pertaining to communication between the Trump campaign and Russian operatives, possibly. or maybe some juicy obstruction of justice tidbits. Or, a sexual harassment problem or two. The president tweeted something about "witch hunts", and the death of attorney client privilege. The president appears not to understand the concept of "due process", which is exactly the kind of process, all perfectly legal, the "T's" and "I's" crossed and dotted, being used by the Mueller investigation. The president, methinks, doth protest too much, as if the very ideals which undermine american democracy are threatened. You have to figure they had a reason, most likely a good one, for the sudden search, and that it was all on the up and up. Due process is absent from all right wing plans. Famed for its strict adherence to the literal constitution, America's right wing is quite ready and willing, but not able, to incarcerate Hillary Clinton, for...nothing. The lady has never even had so much as a parking ticket. "Lock her up" did not include any mention of evidence, indictment, trial, or conviction, none of which Hillary Clinton has ever undergone. But let a former FBI director ask a few questions about potential treasonous collusion, and, lo and behold, it becomes a "witch hunt". Sometimes when witches are hunted, a few are found.

Not Expecting Much

SOME EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN, one of their leaders, when asked why he, who professes Christian values, voted for Trump, replied: we don't expect the president to have the moral virtue and christian values of a minister. We do not want a theocracy......yes, the slimy little weasel said that. So, he indirectly acknowledges that Trump is something of a reprobate, but chooses not to care, presumably because the alternative to Trump was, horror of horrors, Hillary Clinton, who, heaven forbid, would have forced the wealthy to render unto Caesar, and would have given unto the poor, and would have agreed with a woman's right to control her own reproduction. Eighty percent or more of evangelicals voted for Trump. They don't want a theocracy? Like hell they don't. Other than prayer in school, ten commandments on government, property, and a few other minor details, evangelicals want to separate church and state. Doubtless he thought he was being clever. What a great way to justify voting for Trump, salvaging his Christian credentials, and avoiding seeming hypocritical! It turns out that politics means as much, if not more, to American evangelicals as does religion. When confronted with the horrible choice of voting for the hated Hillary Clinton, a Methodist, or Trump, a male conservative who behaves like the essential anti-Christian, Trump trumps Jesus. So, the evangelical does not expect the president to be a good Christian. Does he expect him to be a decent human being? Evidently not. As Ken Burns asked: what exactly is it about Donald Trump that reminds Christians of Jesus Christ? The wealth? The women? The lies? The narcissism? The good folks at Liberty University, including Jerry Falwell Jr., by supporting Trump, are showing their true colors. The only thing they need to do now is to turn Jesus into a gun rights advocate, a profit seeking capitalist, and a womanizer. Good luck with that. Somehow, they'll find a way.

Rendering Unto Our Children

MODERN AMERICAN CONSERVATISM (MAC) IS EMBODIED IN THE "Jesus, guns, and Money" people, who hate government regulation of the economy and environment, love to bear arms and bibles, and rejoice in their personal salvation through the shed blood of Christ, while firmly believing that everyone else should do likewise, and that the Christian faith should be supported by government. MAC does not like to pay taxes, hence, the TEA party. Their goal is to privatize and capitalize everything, including education. Jesus encouraged rendering unto Caesar and giving unto the poor, and presumably would therefore have no problem with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, and the taxes necessary to pay for them. He said nothing about the profit motive, nor about working hard, getting ahead, and accumulating personal wealth. The United "red" states are dominated by MAC, and there is, quite predictably, a huge problem in places like West Virginia, Arizona. Kansas, and Oklahoma, where conservative values have lowered taxes to negligible levels, and there is no money to pay teachers, or to even keep schools open. In Oklahoma, many students are attending school four days a week. Teachers are either fleeing these states, struggling to barely get by, striking, or thinking about striking. The conservative community, meanwhile, continues to lobby for ever higher military spending, ever lower taxes on the corporations and themselves, as the nation's infrastructure keeps crumbling and millions of children are cheated out of what should be the best education in the world. Surely the sickness will end. But, when?

Putting It On The Other Foot

SUPPOSE HILLARY CLINTON had been elected president, despite losing the popular vote by three million. Further suppose that she, as president, was being accused of sexual misconduct by nineteen people, that she referred to African nations as "shit hole countries", that she bragged that because of her fame and wealth she could hire any attorney she pleased, and, on top of all that, suppose that she was being investigated for possibly having accepted help from Russian operatives in winning the presidency. Suppose, in essence, that Hillary were in Trump's situation, and, for the sake of symmetry, that Trump were in her shoes, having lost the election, returned to private life. Would Trump supporters and America's conservative community be: A) proclaiming that the whole affair was nothing but a witch hunt, a vicious attempt to bring down the president? B) insisting that the investigation must proceed, that we must await the results, and that, until we have discerned all the facts, we simply cannot pass judgment? Or C) screaming, repeatedly: "lock her up"! We all know that the answer is choice "C". Imagine how president Hillary Clinton would be treated by conservatives if her behavior were identical to Trump's! We also know how conservatives in general, and Trump supporters in particular, have reacted to Trump's situation: by rationalizing, justifying, and by trying to convince us all that all negative treatment of Trump is nothing but a plot to destroy him, orchestrated by some imagined liberal elite, the mainstream media, or anyone else within distance. It is beyond the expectations of reason to pose that hypothetical to any Trump supporter, and to expect an honest, integrity based answer. And if, at the end of all the investigations, it emerges that Donald Trump has committed serious, criminal impeachable offenses, it will be most interesting to see how his supporters, especially the evangelical community, which is widely known, until recently, for its high moral standards, responds.

Getting Fired, Again

I HAD, ADMITTEDLY, a sometimes rocky career as a public school teacher, a seemingly never ending roller coaster ride of blissful intellectual connections with students, and often disharmonious relationships with administrators. Throughout my twelve years as a public school student, I didn't much like administrators, being somewhat vaguely afraid of them, like cops, the thought that I could get in trouble even when doing nothing wrong always lurking. I tended to stay away from administrators. Nothing changed when I started teaching. American public school teachers are closely monitored nowadays, by cameras and computers, as well as administrative overlords, state laws and curriculum requirements, as well as the ubiquitous administration overlords. Every state has a veritable bevy of laws requiring teachers to teach in such and such a manner, using such and such textbooks and educational materials, and to teach a particular, specific body of information, by the book. The purpose of this is to make sure that our billionaire corporate overlords are in full control of public education, as they are every other aspect of American society and culture. We have traditionally been required to teach American history, for instance, from the viewpoint that the United States of America sis nothing but a glorious virtuous entity, with a glorious and proud history. that nothing could be further from the truth matter not: we the common masses must be patriotic and fully investe4d in obeying the established powers that be. Only in recent decades have some shreds of truth and balance crept into American history classes, and even that has the right wing establishment types wailing. I got in trouble for teaching that Thomas Jefferson, by being a "deist", was, essentially, a non religious atheist who was hostile to Christianity. Growing up, nobody ever bothered to teach me that fact, and really, somebody should have. Even as we speak, if I were still teaching, I would encourage high school students to walk out of class in order to protest the slaughter of our nation's students. and, of course, I'd probably get fired, again.