Trump, Transacting

Donald Trump, rumor has it, ever the trans-actor, is back at it again, transacting. It seems to be more than a rumor. Word is he approached the fossil fuel industry and made it, them, the boys, an offer they cannot possibly refuse. The genuine stuff of mafia mob movies. Don, the godfathah. All it will take, said the Don, is a one billion dollar contribution to his campaign-personal bank account, and he, the next president of these United States, promises, with a blood oath, to deregulate the fossil fuel industry, to get the government the hell out of the way of not only corporate profiteering, but of fossil fueled corporate societal hegemony to boot. Since the Don has long been a "made man", the boys'll doubtless lap up the generous offer in a heartbeat, lest their brains be placed upon the table. Never mind that inconvenient little thing, the forthcoming election. He wants his money now, in small bills, because even if the media and the ballot boxes and the vote counters and those damned dishonest cheating computers say he loses, he says he won. It is amazing that the Donster even has the time to stay on the line for a conference call, considering his busy schedule. Flitting and jetting from courtroom to courtroom all day every day is a full time job for most people, even if you take an occasional nap while seated at the defense table. But not for a stable genius, it seems. After all, was it not he who, early in his presidency, boasted of being a world class multi-tasker,a magic man who could run both his business empire and these United States sumultaneously, presumaby both "businesses", Trump world and the U.S.A., one in each of his small hands? Yes, it was. Never let a trifling inconvenience like the constitution's "emolument clause" get in the way of a good juggling act. I can make this happen, he assures his fellow billionaire corporate control freaks. Just leave it to me, he assures the chief execs of Exxon, Chevron, and all the other criminal enterprises. I have ways of getting things done. A few friends of mine, the Don assures his fellow mob bosses, who happen to be collectors of fine firearms, already know how to get to the Capitol, and what to do when they get there. The Don's organization is strong and vibrant, and everybody is loyal, or else... he leaves the room, and hops in the limo, to the jetport, to the helicopter, and exsits. Off to the next criminal defense table in the next courtroom. Officially, he was never even there, of course. Nobody squeals, or else. The little get together never happened....Now, where I come from, the way I was raised,unless I'm dreaming, this is called "bribery", or maybe "solicitation of bribery", or "fraud", or "extortion", or "crime". You name it, your choice. But things have changed. Namely, morality, and societal standards of proper professional behavior. Now, one can down dress.And, best of all, if there is one thing the Don knows, he can always count of the unconditional loyalty of his largest crimiinal organization of all; his seventy million member mob,the Republican party, the MAGA cult gang. Hell, after all this, they'll love him ever the more. For he is the Don, conservative America adores gangsters, and with every crime comes more adoration.

Suspecting Facebook Perfidy

THE OTHER DAY, while scrolling aimlessly on Facebook, looking for girls, funny posts, cute kitten pictures or what the hell ever,I came across a wonderul picture of a wonderful painting. I described it in an essay (scroll down to see essay, not painting). The essayis titled "Painting A Picture of Traitors", for obvious reasons which I explained in the essay. The painting was titled "January Sixth", and is quite controversial, quite political in its message, very anti-Trump, which is tantamount to "very truthful". I liked, shared, and commented until my fingers got blisters,my eyes got blurry, and the cows came home. Then, I got ready. I braced myself for what I expected to be a veritable avalanche of comments, both from decent intelligent people expressing their love of the painting and enthusiastic agreement with my ascerbic, accurate, hateful remarks, and from idiotic, delusional, traitorous mainstream American Trump supporters, includng those of the evangelical Christian kind, hateful reprobates all, viciously attacking me with infantile, mispelled grammatically butchered insults,and attacking other patriotic Trump haters with the same. Vile spew. But it never came. It never happened. I never saw the beautiful picture of the beautiful painting again. Although its only been a couple of days ago,and maybe I am premature in my assessment that the lovely work of art is gone forever,it is, in my opinion, gone forever. I can just sense it. I hope, of course, that I am wrong. Maybe I am. My particular mental illness is paranoia, paranoia which has often led me astry, to make bad judgments of people, their actions, and their intentions. Oh, how I hope I am wrong. What I think, in all my full blown paranoia, is that mother effing Facebook took the iconic artwork down,banned, banished it, perhaps, and probably on the phony pretext that it "does not meet community standards", is "innapropriate", or some such idiotic, contrived pretext. Isn't Facebook owned by a bunch of effing right wing Republicans? What about Zuckerberg? He's the only one who matters. I don't keep track of all these billionaire bastards because I don't give a rat's ass about them. Elon Musk, for instance,and Jeff Bezos, if memory serves, are both far right wing mothers. Bill Gates, now there's a real man. Ditto Warren Buffet, and George Soros. Real men of integrity who have the compassion and concern for the "common man" to be progressive, and to live lives devoted to progressive ideals, meaning focus on human needs, aspirations,and care, rather than exlusively corporate profit. Maybe I'm wrong, I sure as hell hope I'm wrong, but that's what I think. If I'm right, screw Facebook, and the horse it rode in on. Doesn't Facebook claim to be politically neutral, a conduit for all points of view? I can't say for sure. I have other concerns, better things to do, and don't keep track of it. But, again, if I am right, screw Facebook, and eff Facebook. Then today, effing Facebook had the temerity to put me on "restriction", whatever in the hell that means. They said I cannot comment until May 14th, so, no big deal, whoopty doo, as we like to say. I cannot comment for one whole day, oh horror! In point of fact, I am still commenting, so, it begins to seem as if their threat, "their restriction" is a false flag, a lie,a mere bluff.They sent me an "explanation",but it made no sense.Some gibbersih about community standards, with no specifics given. So,on Facebook I remain, promoting this website, and fighting against Trump, the Republican party, the evangelical Christian Trump supporting community, and the dreadful specter of conservative politics and ideology. I also flirt with a few hot ladies,but they always message me first, looking for true love,aka money. At least effing Facebook is good for something.

Despising the Nation State of Israel

I DESPISE ISRAEL, the nation state, the military super power with nuclear weapons. I long have. I love the Jewish people,only because they are people, even though, on balance, I do not like human beings, and much prefer animals, as intelligent people often do. And also, I despise Judaism, and all other organized religions. History, told honestly, can have that effect on you, as can a lifetime of living among human beings and animals..."I make friends with people. And I wear a derby on my head as others do. I say "they are strangely stinking animals." And I say "no matter, I am too". (Bertolt Brecht).... That about sums it up for me. I despise Israel for living on stolen land, and for not taking the lead in establishing a Palestinian nation state, a "homeland" as we call it. And now, this genocidal war. Yes, thousands of years ago the Hebrew people lived on that land. Before they came, others lived there. Many people have come and gone there, like on all other land masses. But in 1948, both Jews and Palestinians lived there, which is the relevant fact, still do, and both should be accomodated. To this day, the Israeli genocidal tyrant opposes the establishment of a Palestinian homeland, the bastard. I love the good people, young students, bravely risking their futures and freedom protesting Israel's genocidal war. As a child, I felt the same way about the college students protesting the the evil Viet Nam war, and the imperialist murderous United States. I still do. They were right, history hath shown, just as these students, two generations removed, are right today. I have rarely if ever met a progressive protest I disliked and didn't support. I finally got to participate in the first Iraq war protest, and almost got beat up by a conservative imperialist thug. Women's rights, gay rights, civil rights, the bonus army, Black Lives Matter, Iraq, Iraq,etc.....bring it. All for sacred causes, all for peace and justice.. The Viet Nam war was ill conceived, plain wrong, an American imperialist adventure to make Viet Nam safe for American corporate investment, correct? We know that now, if we didn't fifty years ago. (I did,even as a child. I knew it!)... Women should be allowed to vote, correct? "Black" people deserve equality in apartheid America, correct? Gay people are human beings, am I right? We are just beginning to see the folly of Bush's many wars against Iraq. Soon, we will completely see it. Hindsight is twenty twenty, as we say. All progressive protest movements are sacred causes, including the current one. The mainstream conservative corporate American media distracts us from the sacredness by focusing on the miniscule negative. The looting and violence of the "Black Lives Matter" movement was emphasized out of all proportion to the ninety nine percent good peaceful people who participated. Martin Luther King marched peacefully down mainstreet, and the media put the camera on a thrown rock, more than on police German Shepherds ripping holes in peaceful protestors. Herbert Hoover called the Bonus Marchers, heroic veterans of World War One, "communists" and thugs. And here we go again. Ninety nine percent of today's college campus protestors are peaceful crusaders for justice. A few fights break out, and there go the cameras, showing the fights, ignnoring the peace protestors. History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. (Mark Twain). "In the earthquakes to come, it is to be hoped I shan't allow bitterness to quench my cigar's glow."(Bertolt Brecht)

Going to Church Part II

I WENT TO CHURCH, as I had previously indicated my intention of doing. (see: "Going To Church" Part I, below). Altogether, I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. The building is located deep in the Ozark woods, amid splendid scenery consisting of green wooded rolling hills. That in itself made the adventure worthwhile.The nineteenth century structure entirely of brick was charming,with a small dining room,and a large outdoor pavillion next to it, open air, with a metal roof and a nice large barbecue smoker. I can only imagine some of the wild parties they have had there. The congregation consisted of about fifteen people, which I was told was unusually large, mostly older folks. This Presbyterian church cannot survive more than another few years. I predict that I will outlive it. I formed an immediate connection with the minister, an older gentleman who was quite pleasant to me. He indicated that he had undertaken the ministry late in life, in middle age. I do not know what his formal theologocial credentials are, if any. He said he had attened law school, so I assumed his first and primary profession had been the law. That's where our connection began. He graduated law schhol at the same university where my father did, many years befor he, and the same university where I completed my doctorate and taught for many years. We traded stories about one of the law professors, one of the most esteemed legal minds in the country. My new ministerial friend was honored to have studied under this renowned scholar, as I am honored to have known him, and to have been his friend, through my father, who also idolized him. I'd go back to this church if only for the scenery, for the quaint, immaculately clean tastefully decorated church, and to spend time with my new found friend. His sermon was obviously impromptu. He rambled from topic to topic in a disorganized fashion, talking off the "top of his head",combining personal anecdotes with messages relating to the matter at hand, the Christian faith, and its redemptive possibilities. Very positive in tone. Sure, he said a few things I disagreed with, but too few to mention. He probably assumes that I am a Christian, rather than a person who is not only not religious, but who generally has contempt for religion. My guess is that he would be cool with the idea that one can love Jesus and God without embracing the supernatural dogma, without anthropomorphizing God,and without any belief that God speaks to us in books and stories. The essential message of Joshua ben Joseph (Jesus) is sublime, with only a modicum of barbarity, and can be embracedand valued by anybody, regardless of personal religious beliefs or lack thereof. This, despite what any fervant mentally ill Christian might claim. I did not like the way the collection plate was passed. Rather than passing it from pew to pew, a lady approached every congragant, and practically shoved it in faces, as if demanding a contribution. Not good. A prominently placed adonation box would accomplish the same purpose, and make donating more voluntary, less mandatory, eliminating possible embarrassment for non contributors, embarressment likely being the intended objective, as punishment for non contriubtors. Payment under pressure. All churches pass the plate. In my opinion, the practice should be modified. I borrowed a couple of bucks, and dropped it in the plate. (later,I paid my friend back) But, best of all, the minster made no mention of either eternal damnation in hell, or of being saved by washing away one's sins in the shed blood of Christ, concepts which I find primtive,bararbic, evil, insane,fictional, mentally ill. I wonder whether he ever does that, preaches nonsense. I hope not. If he doesn't,I might go back. But, as Confucius, an intellectual equal of Jesus who predated him by five hundred years and from whom Jesus may have borrowed heavily, said: "Only fools predict the future.

Painting A Picture of Traitors

THE PAINTING had the style of Thomas Hart Benton, but I do not know enough about art to remember what that is called. "Representative realism" let's call it. Why not? Somebody has to invent terms to describe artistic styles, and, hell, I reckon mine's as good as the next art critic's. Anyway, it is a great painting, well done, revealing real talent, in my humble but honest opinion. I may knot know good art from bad, but I know what I like, as the saying goes. What I like is great art, and in my universe, most art qualifies. Again, I consider my opinions as worthy as anybody else's. Truth be told, when I enter an art gallery, any art gallery, from the world renowned to the local high school art room, I seem to always like about ninety nine percent of the hanging paintigs. What that means to me is not that I have no taste, standards, or discrimination, but rather, that I am open minded, appreciative of the attempt represented, and that I am not an art snob, but rather, a happy, appreciative if poorly educated art lover. But, I digress. Back to the painting I mentioned. I confess that I do not recall the artist's name, to my eternal shame, but his name will be known to many, surely it already is, and, in any event,as Casey Stengal once said: "you could look it up." The title is "January Sixth". On the right side of the canvas is a caricature of Donald Trump, the flaming, overwrought ridiculous orange hair, pursed lips, the whole ball of wax,standing on a high place, pointing to the Capitol, directing traffic, the "traffic" being his violent mob. At his feet is a MAGA flag, A MAGA ball cap,and banners of the "Proud Boys", and the Republican party. All the guilty parties represented by banners and flags. To the left and far below is the U.S. Capitol, in the middle of the insurrection, the mob surrounding the building, smashing doors and windows, smoke billowing from within. The painting had been posted on Facebook only a few minutes prior to my seeing it. I could tell because it had not yet been swamped with thousands of comments and likes, which it no doubt soon would, and by now is. I have not been back, but will soon return to the page. I hit the share button over and over again; I lost track of the number of times I shared the beautiful thing. I want the world to see it, and by now, that is happening. On one of my shared copies I wrote: "The traitor,leading his traitorous mob". On another, I typed in: "the traitorous tyrant orchestrates his violent insurrection". I put comments of that nature on what must have been twenty copies. Facebook no longer seems to linit the number of times you can share a post, as it once did. Perhaps popular outrage changed their policy. Yes, we the teeming masses can indeed influence corporate behavior, if only by pitching a collective fit. If justice prevails the original will be displayed at the Louvre, the Met, Chrystal Bridges, and every great art museum in freedom's land (the U.S.), and places all around the globe. What matters to me is that it will be emblazened within my memory and appreciation forever. Conservatives will doubtless call it bad art,claim that the event depicted never happened, or accuse the artist of being in cahoots with Biden and the Democrats. When this begins, all decent patriotic art connoisseurs will have a good laugh, and shake their heads at the idiotic lunacy of those who can't discern great art from garbage, who, not coincidentally, are the same folks who are responsible for the insurrection, and who support the evil tyrant who orchestrated it.

Teaching Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, and INCLUSION (DEI). These are among the three most inspiring, uplifting, and pleasant words in the English language, grouped together. Actually, I personally prefer the word "equality" to the word "equity" in this context. Although I happily own my own home, with one hundred percent equity in it,this word, "equity", when used is the context of human equality, seems less powerful, more vague, more remindful of home ownership than the word "equality". Nonetheless, many words have more than one meaning, and, well, whatever works. Don't sweat the small stuff. Don't be too picky. Perhaps these three beautiful words are nearly beneficial as, for instance, "I love you", or "let me help". Entire programs and departments at world class universities are devoted to them, what they stand for, and what they strive to achieve. And yet, for that very reason, they are anathema, slanderous blasphemy to what is among the world's greatest malignancies, American conservatism and the Republican party. It is nearly inconceivable that anyone, that any morally decent person, place, thing, or organization could even remotely consider opposing them, rather than glorifying them and uplifting them, evelating them to the level of respect enjoyed by another great malignancy, the Christian Bible. The Christian bible is filled with violence, obscenity, lies, and bad advice, just as are the votaries of the American conservative movement, and the Republican party agenda platform. Conservatives would prefer a super majority white Christian society and culture. They despise cultural diverstiy, preferring cultural uniformity. They despise human equality, preferring instead a society of extreme economic inequality. They prefer social hierarchies, in which Christians are superior to non Christians, men are superior to women, heterosexuals are superior to homesexuals, and white people are superior to black and brown people. Inclusion? Fuggettaboutit. Their laughable accusation that progressive intellectuals are "elitists" reveals their own elitism, which they project onto others, much as the pathological liar, Donald Trump, who is the perfect example of American conservatism, projects his own dishonesty onto others. Trump, the most frequent flier liar in human history, calls other people, people who disagree with him and identify his lies as lies, liars. Hence, in conservative "red" states, all across America's fruited plain, the white evangelical conservative Christian bigoted elite community is outlawing, cutting off funding for DEI programs at public universities. This is part and parcel of their attempts to indoctrinate American students with the insanity that there is no racism in the united States, and their malignant book banning crusade. Diversity, equality, and inclusion encourages and supports the lofty, sublime ideal that people should gladly accept human cultural, racial, sexual and religious differences, should embrace human equality, and should encourage inclusion of all people in all aspects of social life. This ideology is the exact opposite of the current conservative agenda, which promotes its elite racial and Christian agenda, disgusing it as "freedom". The opponents of DEI are insufficiently intelligent to realize the banning books is not effective, that books will remain accessible, that students will become aware of American racism despite their misguided attempts to prevent it, and that universities will continue to promote DEI, by insinuating it into their curriculum in other ways. Decent people will continue to promote diversity, equality, and inclusion, regardless of its opponent's perfidy. Unfortunately, conservatives haven't thought of that.

Choosing Between Insurrectionists and Immigrants

THE FACEBOOK POST was stark, meaningful, replete with overtones. On top was a potograph taken at the United States Mexican border, a photo like we have all seen repeatedly, of a horde of refugee immigrants massed on the poverty side of a tall barbed wire fence, tents, backpacks, brightly colored T shirts and sneakers adorning young, stolid, hardened faces. In nothing else, Hispanic refugees manage to dress in bright colors; they look better than I do, better than white conservative Christians, attire wise, as well dressed, even while living outdoors for weeks, than most Americans. On the bottom of the split screen facebook post, another iconic photograph, of hordes of MAGA mobsters massed outside the U.S.Capitol,climbing up the walls, breaking down doors, smashing windows, many wearing those all too familiar red MAGA ball caps,angry grimaces,mouths wide open, screaming, Christian nationalist banners, Trump banners. Their attire, overall, less fetching than that of the refugees. The caption made clear the message of the person who posted the dueling juxtaposed pictures; "I would rather have the these people (the refugees) than these people (the insurrectionists). Then, on down the screen, scroll bait, the numerous comments, trailing on down and out of view on the computer screen. Folks were weighing in. Most of them said "so would I". Or something similar. They would rather engage with, welcome, and share citizenship with; the refugees, rather than the MAGA insurretionists. I agreed with them. Do not doubt that I did likewise, posted a comment. What I typed and posted among the other posts was "any decent person would". Any decent person would prefer Hispanic refugees to MAGA violent insurrectionists, asserted I. Then the MAGA magots descended upon me. "your an idiot" (they can't spell). "Biden is a traitor, you fool", responded some MAGA fool. (anyone who does not think America is already great, rather than being in need of being made great "again", is, it seems to me, by definition, a traitor. MIGA: America is great already!). I quickly typed in: "well, at least Biden hasn't organized a violent mob and tried to overthrow the United States government by insurrection", I retorted. (that seemed, and seems, as Jefferson might say, self evident". Actually Franklin said that, and forced Jefferson to use the phrase, in the declaration of Independence. instead of "sacred an undeniable, which, to Frankin, sounded too preachy, insufficiently scientific). Then, I blocked him, the MAGAt, like flushing a toilet. He must have felt frustrated when he typed some horrible insult, like calling me a liberal idiot, only to find that he couldn't hurl it. The verdict is in; Trump supporters, largely self described "Christians", prefer violent criminal insurrectionists to foreign refugees whose reason for trying to enter the United States is to look for work, to feed their families, to survive. Christians. Trump supporters. I repeat; any decent person would prefer to hang out with, to welcome into their lives Latin American illegal undocumented immigrants than insurrectionists, rather than Trump supporters, who, undeniably, are the true traitors, as any deent person can and should surmise.

Leaving The Country

Editor's note; this is an unedited version of this essay. Not only did the proof reader quit, but the staff decided to take advantage of the "opportunity" to present an easy in all its unedited, unproofread glory. So here goes. Enjoy! THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY nine million American citizens living in foreign countries. This number, merely an estimate, may be inflated; some estimates put the number as low as five million. There is no way to accurately tabulate the actual number, since no entity within the U.S. government formally keeps track of them, and apparently neither does anyone else. Unless those living abroad renounce their American citizenship (otherwise they retain it, regardless of number of years outside the U.S.), they can still vote in American elections. They tend, as a rule, to keep tabs on happenings back home. These departed folks are often referred to by the term "ex-patriots",sometimes referred to as simply "immigrants". The two terms are essentially identical in meaning, although the term "ex-patriot" somehow has a more romantic, evocative ring to it, in an almost Hemmingwayan sense. "Ex-patriot" somehow has an emotional, political, ideological cannotation, as of having left the country for reasons of difficulty or discontent, for political reasons, or for the purspose of evading a dangerous or untenable set of circumstances. Beginning in the nineteen twenties, there was a steady flow of African-American writers, musicians, artists and intellectuals of all kinds to France, a country in which racism, as in most other countries, is far less in evidence than in the land of freedom and opportunity, America. Many settled in Paris's famous "left bank". One highly positioned African-American lady, a corporate executive, was transferred to France as part of her professional responsibilities, and decided to never come back. She laughingly related that in America, people tended to be afraid of her and distant towards her, while in France, she received no special attention setting her apart. She could cut in front of people in line in America without opposition from seemingly intimidated American women; French women wouldn't put up with it. American ex pats are scattered far and wide, all over the world. A large percentage of ex pats settle in Europe, all the way from Scandinavia to Italy, and points in between. Cuba and Canada are among the most popular destinations. Americans in Cuba are attracted to the relatively low cost lifestyle, vibrant culture, and cuisine, while Canada has been the destination,notoriously, of young American men who have been drafted into the armed forces seeking to avoid military service. Evading taxes, debt, or criminal prosecution motivates many to flee, especially to Mexico and other Latin American countries where apprehension and extradition is difficult and often fails to manifest. People living in eastern Europe, Hungary, among other places, report being very happy with their new locations and lives. Only a small portion of those who leave the U.S. express any desire to return for any reason to their native land, other than to visit. One startling statistic, apparently confirmed; no less than one third of Americans today say that if given the chance, they would happily move out of the country, and make a new life elsewhere. Lack of money and family ties and obligations often thwart their dreams to of leaving. This meshes with other studies indicating that the level of hapiness among Americans in general has in recent decades sunk to an all time low, especially when comapred to Europeans. In Europe, with greater economic equality and opportunity for upward mobility (yes, upward mobility in Europe is far greaer than in the U.S., despite claims to the contrary), and a far greater sense of community, contemtment is higher. Goeteh, who in the early nineteenth century saw what he considered to be troublesome trends torughout the various pre-German states such as Prussia, said that thw rold might be a safer place were people of Germanic ethnicity scatter to far destinations all voer the world, thus taking German cutlure with them, thus attenuating and softening it. It may be that this is a good prescription for American culture, what with its aggressive, overly competitive, imperialist, expansionist, violent characteristics. Preserve, but ameliorate the American cultural behemoth juggernaut! The decrease in population in the United States could esily be compensated for, replenished by the constant avalance of illigal Hispanic immigrantscrossing the Rio Grande. After all, arguably, this notorious, controversial, contentious phenomenon is, in a sense, nothing other than Mexicans reclaming the "occupied territories" as they call them, of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California,stolen from Mexicao by American imperialists so shamefully, shamelessly, so long ago.

Banning Banning Critical Race Theory

CRITICAL RACE THEORY, as most people have no idea, is an area of academic, scholarly research, largely within the field of legal scholarship. It asks the question: is, and if so so to what extent and degree, is racism inherent, embedded within the American legal system? By extension, it attempts, when going out on a limb, to ask the same question of American culture in general, concerning American institutions generally. It arrives quite easily at the obvious answer, "yes", and continues from there. It can become a bit cumbersome, inundated with facts, figures, and a comprehensive analysis thereof. American conservatives, by nature disinclined to respect scientific studies or intellectual inquiry generally, despise CRT. They, incredibly, seem to regard the study of racism in America as racism. As if, by comparison, when one studies war, one is warring, or by studying history, one is making history. In conservative, regressive states like, for instance, Arkansas, it is illegal to not only teach but to even make mere mention of CRT, even though CRT is much more suited to law school than high school. What good political science, history, and sociology teahers should do and often do do in high school classes is to teach about racism itself; the history of it, and, profoundly, its obvious presence in contemporary America. However, it is, essentially, illegal in most conservative "red' states to duly inform students that there is racism in these United States. It is illegal to teach the truth. Teachers are required to lie to, indoctriante, and mislead their students. When they dare tell the truth, they are accused of "indoctrinating" students. it is the opponents of CRT who are actually doing the indoctrinating, indoctrinating children with the false narrative that the United Staes is not a racist country, that racism in America, if it ever existed at all, no longer does. Conservatives prefer to pretend, for example, that there were benefits to slaves from being enslaved, incredibly. Once in a blue moon, federal judges come to the rescue, and save the country from the idiotic insanity of far right wing extremist dishonest indoctrination. This happened in Arkansas when a federal judge ruled that banning the mention of Critical Race Theory, prohibiting all mention of extant racism in public schools, is unconstitutional. And thus begins the interminable process whereby the appellate process leads ultimately to the Supreme Court of these United states, itself now a far right wing extremist entity. In the high court, several years hence, it is easy to imagine the conservative justices reinstating the Arkansas ban on reality. The upshot is that, at the end of a very long and arduous day, nothing will change. Conservatives in conservative states will continue to insist that racism does not exist, and progressives will continue to prove that it does, to no avail. Ironically, it is the racists themselves, the conservative community, which insists so sternuously that they are not racists, and that racism does not exist. If it does exist, they say, then it comes into existence when and only when progressive intellectuals and teachers merely mention it. Since teachers have college degrees, they are generally intelligent and educated, and therefore tend to be progressive, rather than conservative. As long as people with college degrees are appointed to positions as federal judges, there is hope that reality in public education will prevail. But it is faint, and, in some places, rapidly fading.

Going To Church Part I

THIS COMING SUNDAY, May 11, I plan to attend church. I do that occasionally, but no more than once every few years. The plan is for the senior center director, a young, intelligent, well read lady who has become a friend of mine, to drop by, pick me up, and deliver us unto. I appreciate this, because I hate driving, and the church is located around the bend, over the hills and far away, in a remote tiny town in our small remote tiny state. I'm looking forward to it. I am given to understand that the congregation normally has twelve members, mostly elderly, but that usually no more than nine actually attend. The organist is a friend of mine from the senior center, and I hear that he is quite good. I recall that for a time they were having difficulty retaining a minister; their usual one was spending time at the Mayo clinic with an illness, and they used a series of substitutes, until finally the situation settled down. Its a Presbyterian outfit, so, no yelling, snake handling, or speaking in tongues. As far as I know Presbyterians don't take communion; if they do, I'll pass. Like George Washington, who sat in the back pew, never stated his actual religious beliefs, and snuck out early just before communion, I consider it ritual symbolic cannibalism. With such a small, elderly conregation, I assume that they can use new members, as well as help in the singing, which I can certainly provide. I even suspect that within the next few years, the church will shut its doors for good; it seems to be dying, as is, in fact, the Christian faith all across America's fruited plain and Europe. I am not religious, being more of a pantheist,but am open minded, amenable to new opportunities. If they sing "How Great Thou Art", one of my favorite songs, its a done deal, at least in terms of my willingness to make return visits. In the event that I become a regular, hell will have frozen over. The chances that I will actually convert to the christian faith are essentially null, comparable to the chances of Donald Trump becoming a decent human being, or of uranium transforming itself into plutonium without the asistance of a breeder reactor. I have often articulated my reasons for my antipathy to organized, established religions of all kinds; my thesis long since nailed to the open doors of my ever evolving mental parish.. My essential theses in opposition to Christianity are: that the anthropomorphic deity is fiction. That the biblical God is a mass murdering, vicious, pernicious lunatic. That "God" neither writes books nor inspires others to do so. That God does not, as Goethe said, speak to us in books and stories, but that the universe reveals itself to us much more honestly and directly. That nobody ever died for our sins, except ourselves. That we pay for our mistakes every day, all by oursleves, often quickly, directly, and painfully. There are others, but needn't be mentioned here. Suffice to say that the concept of my sins being washed away in the blood of Christ repulses me, no less than strapping a virgin to an alter and hacking her to bits to assuage the appetites of a meat eating Mayan God. When the biblical god relented after mentally torturing Abraham for fun, and settled for a sheep in the bushes, he, she, it, showed some promise, but never followed through. The monster was right back at it on calvary. Some Gods never learn. I hope its a good sermon. Most of them tend to bore me, which, among many other reasons, is why I seldom attend.

Surrendering

THERE IS A CAT, a stray male, which keeps coming around. I feed him, so he keeps coming. I feed him seperately from my females, because I want to make sure there isn't any trouble, and that my females feel safe and secure. The stray male has never made any trouble, never bothers the girls, who are spayed, which is why I keep feeding him, albeit separately. You never know. Only problem is, he doesn't want to dine alone. He wants to be part of the family, to be included in the meals of the females. He is adament about it. No matter how many times I chase him away from their feeding area, he keeps on coming,often ignoring his own full bowl of food on the other side of the yard. The other stray male I feed has no such issue; he willingly eats from his own bowl, even though the male bowl usually has food which is a bit, shall we say, less tasty and expensive than the female food. The persistant stray has learned this, has found out that merely by lurking in the bushes and delaying his meal a few minutes, he can horn in on the ladies, and steal their food. Hence, my chasing him off. My admiration for him is his persistence. I think his desire to be included in the family is a stronger motivator than the better food the ladies have. I respect that, and I, grudgingly, respect him. I hereby announce my surrender. From now on, if he wants to eat with the ladies, he eats with the ladies, but only after they have eaten....for many decades my sister and I have lived far apart, on opposite ends of the USA. I keep in touch with her, but she doesn't keep in touch with me. All the phone calls, texts, and emails originate with me; sometimes she responds, sometimes she doesn't. But she never ever initiates contact. I have tried to explain to her that communication is a two way street, that reaching out to people makes them feel appreciated, and all that, but to no avail. She simply will not reach out to me. Her introverted nature is just too powerful a force. My intent, as of recently, was to stop reaching out to her, to stop initiating contact. Why bother? If she insn't interested, why bother? But then a notion struck me, that by so doing I would be depriving myself as much as depriving her, that it would result in no improvement, no change in her behavior. So, I decided to surrender. I remember back in the nineteen eighties I would write her snail mail letters, with pen and paper. Only rarely did she write back. Finally, in one missive, I asked her: "Why do you never write back, nor write a letter to me first"? She wrote a letter in response, which, paraphrased, said: "I don't write back because, I have nothing to report, nothing to tell you. I have nothing to say. Every day I get up early, go to work, work all day, come home, eat, watch a little television, then go to bed. I do the same thing the next day, and every week day. On weekends, I sleep in, get up, have breakfast, clean house, and go to the grocery store. I never do anything, I never go anywhere, I don't spend much time thinking about anything, and I'm not trying to do anything important, like save the planet. But thanks for writing, and please write again soon. Love, sis." In point of fact she is a very interesting person, with a degree in music, a good husband, and a career which consisted of playing in the army band, and working at the Pentagon. But try telling her that. Again, I surrender. I've already lost the argument, and why keep fighting a losing battle?

Our Pets, Enduring Us Part II

THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION was, under the circumstances, quite reasonable. He had noticed, as doubtless had many others, my proclivity for sharing pictures of cats, large and small, on Facebook. As a result, Facebook, ever algorythmic, sends me a constant feed of cat pics, cats large and small. Ninety percent of what I see on facebook is cats. I am content. (I never post anything original on Facebook, being content to share other's posts.) His words were, if memory serves: "I have to ask: what's up with all the cats?" Fair enough. Initially annoyed, as in "what business of his is this?, I calmed myself, and typed in an answer. (I have discovered the prudence of a cooling off period). My response was, approximately, "Although I think the answer is self evident (I admire Thomas Jefferson, and the phrase "self evident" in the Declaration of Independence), I appreciate your inquiry, and, if I have offended you, I apologize." That did the trick, as intended. An apology, whether appropriate or not, never fails to soothe the savage soul. It is far more effective than, say, "none of your freaking business". As I expected, he relented. He rejoined: "Don't apologize. You do you. I simply do not like cats. I can always just scroll by". Further emboldened, I concluded the exchange with: "thank you for your understanding and tolerance". Later, I noticed that he was hitting the "like" button on a few of my tiger panther and lion shares, but not on my housecat post shares. I had found the precise source of his anti-catism! I not only like pictures of cats, including cute kitten photos supplied by Facebook members, I love cats in real space and time. I have several, about seven at last count, all former strays, all "rescues". Its the only kind I'll have. I don't cotton to special made to order pure bred cats, with a world full of animal shelter angels waiting for something better. But what, exactly, is "better" for cats? I don't like the term "rescue", because I can't be sure that I have rescued anybody. For all I know, they would have had a much better life homeless than in my garage and yard. I'm also newly skeptical about the popular proposition that cats are better off confined to a house than they are when allowed to go outside. Sure, they don't get hit by cars and chewed by dogs when indoors, but neither do they roam freely, hunting, which is a primary soure of their happiness. I am now inclined to believe that the best solution is to give them a choice, to allow them to go in and out at will. A simple collar with a cute little tinkling bell can serve as fair warning to birds. I like the idea of clipping off the top corner of a cat's left ear, giving it the full range of vaccinations, spaying, and neutering, and setting it free, out of the animal shelter, out of strict indoor home confiment Beats killing it, any day. Recent studies indicating that both cats and dogs are miserable being confined to an existence with humans who restrict their range of activities have had a profound impact on me. I am no longer an indoor cat only person. Nor, for that matter, only outdoor cat. Providing them with a choice, it seems to me, can only enhance their happiness and contentment. I don't like people who don't cats, so I probably would not like the "what's up with all the cats?" guy. But I love cats and dogs, more than I love people, whether or not they love me, whether or not they are miserable living with humans, as is now becoming a paradigm under consideration. Of this I am convinced; we can, if nothing else, ameliorate their misery, by feeding them outside, thereby giving them the false impression that they have successfully foraged for their own food, have been sucessful hunting, even if they have not, which seems to be the crux of their alleged discontent, . This is a cheap trick, but it may be the best we can do. One thing I know for damned sure. We humans sure as hell are not going to surrender our sacred pleasure of dog and cat "ownership", whether or not it makes them miserable, because it makes us happy, and that, after all, is ultimately all that really matters to us.

Our Pets, Enduring Us Part I

OUR PETS are miserable, according to various studies, says animal ethnicist Jessica Pierce. She made her remarks on an interview on National Public Radio. A vast majority of dogs suffer from one form of anxiety disorder or another, says Pierce. Her findings have been confirmed, allegedly, by earlier studies of animal behavior, particularly dogs and cats living in households. Pierce stated that although she currently has a pet dog, it will be her last. She goes so far as to advocate an end to pet ownership, which, needless to say, has generated considerable controversy, Although a vast majority, as many as eighty percent, of the world's dogs are homeless and roam free, they, the free ranging dogs, are far more satisfied with their lives and surroundings than their peers living in "captivity", animal scientists seem to believe. The same holds for cats, among which the homeless, feral variety greatly outnumber those domesticated. The primary source of their misery is their confinement. In a feral state, dogs tend to gather together in packs, like their wolf cousins and ancestors, while cats, who are essentially solitary animals, also form into loosely knit communities, usually near reliable food sources. The deprivation of community is evident. For that reason, pet owners often care for more than one pet, two or more dogs, two or more cats, or a combination of the two. Food acquisition is the primary source of their discontent. Both species have strong hunting instincts. Cats are especially adept at hunting, and are considered among the world's most efficient hunters. Dogs likewise are good hunters, in groups. The basis of their unhappiness is the deprivation of all opportunities for hunting, which is among their most basic instinctive behaviors. They seem to prefer foraging for their own food to being fed by people. Living in a made for humans environment deprives them of not only their most essential behavior, but of any sense of purpose at all; all living creatures have a purpose; more intelligent species need and have an awareness, a "sense" of purpose". Our precious pets, it would seem, are in effect prisoners trapped within the confinement of the madr for human environments we provide for them. We humans, ever projecting our own emotions on to other creatures, both human and non human, derive perhaps our greatest pleasure from pet "ownership". We tend, quite naturally,tend to mistakenly assume that our pets are as happy with us as we are with them. In the United States alone, more than forty million dogs and forty million cats live with human caregivers. The joy felt by the caretakers is, so it seems, not reciprocal. Everyone knows the grief experienced by people at the death of a beloved pet. Arguably, there is no greater grief among humans. Similarly, numerous anecdotal instances seem to verify that dogs and cats grieve no less when their human companions vanish or die. Most people have seen photographs of dogs lingering at the gravesite of a recently deceased human companion. Maybe they do grieve. Or perhaps what we interpret as grief is in fact a far less extreme emotion. Our ability to interpret behavior is limited, and our ability to read minds is nonexistant. Another consideration is that although the behavior of any household pet can be monitored, measured, and to a certaine xtent interpretated, we can never, by definition, know the state of mind of the same animal had that animal been allowed to live its life in the wild, or free to roam at will in a city. Since no individual, human, dog, or cat, can simultaneously live two divergent lives, direct comparisions are impossible. There are solutions which can mitigate their unhappiness. Dogs can be allowed to chose their own route on walks, can be let of the leash to roam around a little and explore their environment. Cats can be allowed to go outside, or to live both indoors and outdoors, alternating environments, within limits. Rural environemnts appear preferable. One fact remains certain. People want what's best for their beloved animal companions, and, in most instances, are willing to strive to provide it. Most disconcerting is that thought that the best way to accomplish this might be to simply allow them their complete freedom by giving them up.

Killing Snakes

THE LADY who heroically abandoned her running automobile in the middle of a busy intersection to escort an elderly handicapped gentleman across the street, while traffic raged and flowed around them and her idling car, is back at her old tricks. This time, assuming the story is true, she saved herself. Previously she had confined her philanthropy to handing out money to down and out strangers, then, the heroic pedestrian rescue. She decided to take some time off, maybe relax a bit. The place to do that was, as it often is, in the comfort to of her home swimming pool, the one which is pictured with predictable frequency on Facebook. (she never shows us her house, nor herself, but the pool, and her daily lunch, are ever front and center.) But she lives in a part of the country experiencing a prolonged, severe drought, causing her pool to require topping off every few days. Top it off, hop in, and float or swim. Best take a quick peek first; never know what if any critters might have beaten her to the quick dip. She relates that she has been confronted by snakes and 'gators submerged. The drought has changed the dynamics. Animals are drawn more than ever to her pool, chlorine or no chlorine, and every day promises a new adventure in fauna. This time the snake was, so she said, sitting placidly by the pool's edge. That's when the adventure began. This one, according to legend, reared its ulgy head, raised up, like a cobra. It opened its mouth, and showed venom dripping from its teeth, almost as if in the very process of sinking its fangs into a victim. This was the first red flag. Venom dripping, without even a puncture wound to whow for it? Don't they save their venom for their victims? To cut to the chase, she killed it, she said. Had to, she said. There, I disagree. She did not have to kill the snake, cotton mouth water moccasin that it most likely was. Nor did it chase her, as cotton mouths are reputed to do. Actually they don't. They don't chase people, they simply regard people as tall, shadowy objects, pillars, under which they can hide in broad daylight, with which they are neither accustomed nor comfortable. It didn't chase her, so she had time to turn right around and run, lickety split, right abck into her house, which nobody on Facebook has ever seen. Or, for that matter, she had time to settle down with a cocktail, make a few calls, put her alleged house on the market, sell it, move out, and settle into new quarters, one without, one might imagine, a swimming pool. Instead she stood her ground, just like the law says, and killed ths snake. I didn't ask how she accomplished the killing. She didn't say, which raised another red flag. Did she shoot it? No, that would have done damage to her nice pool deck, of which she seems so proud. Strangling would be out of the question. Not worth the trouble and venom. What about a garden tool,and a good slicing, hacking, or beating? She simply didn't say. Why she didn't tell the world precisely how she killed the snake, or what kind of snake it was, only she could say, and she seems intent to spare the details, and take the truth to her grave. That leaves me skeptical, of the details, and of the whole story. Maybe she killed a snake, maybe she didn't. I wish her a good swim, free of snakes and alligators, and, in any event, there's always an elderly man or two to help across a busy street while her car runs out of gas in the intersection.

Protesting

THE TERM "SEMITE" refers to Arab ancestry or ethnicity, to anyone whose ancestors originated within the Arabian peninsula. Therefore, technically, ironically, Arabs and Jews derive from the same ancestry, are closely related, close cousins if you will. Jews, alas, are Arabs. Whereas the phrase "anti-Semitism" is always used to describe anyone hostile to the Jewish faith, it could be construed to refer to all arabs. And although there are people who have a negative attitude to Arabs in general,it is the Judaic religion, not the ethnicity, with which misanthropic folks take issue. And, lest we become confused, anti-Semitic attitudes, which reamin quite extant, as is quickly becoming evident not only in these United States but in Europe and other places in the world, is, overwhelmingly, a product of the Christian faith. It is Christians who tend to promulgate and perpetuate anti-semitism. This too is ironic, in that the Christain faith is an offshoot of Judaism, its holy scriptures inclusive of the Hebrew scriptures. The offshoot, casting off its historical parentage, even while embracing the nation state, Israel, which carries on formally its own Christian cultural roots. A bit schizophrenic, perhaps. Even more ironically, the term "Palestinians", which always is used to refer to people who live in the land area historically called "Palestine", actually references people with Arab ancestry. Hence, Palestinains and Jews are both Semitic, although, again, any use of the term "anti-Semitic"never is used in reference to Palestinains, who by and large embrace the Islamic religion. Two features of the ongoing "pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses all across America's fruited plain, stand out. The first is that the protests are not necessarily "pro-Palestinian": in the sense of supporting Hamas in its current conflict with Israel, nor are they necessarily motivated by anti-Semitism. What the protestors demand is an end to the conflict, a permanent cease fire, and that the Palestinian civilian population be spared from the enroaching genocide being enacted on it by the Israell "defense forces". This seems a reasonable basis upon which to conduct a protest movement. Most of the protestors would most likely be highly supportive of the establishment of a national Palestinian homeland, a true nation-state, with formal bounderies, government, and international recognition. Argaubaly, all this is not only reasonable, but quite in keeping with the traditional, historical position of most of the global community. Secondly, and perhaps more surprising, is that the campus protests are almost exclusively the project of American liberals, "progressives". Perhaps, however, its not so surprising. The political divide in America is such that American conservatives tend in large numbers to be supportive of Israeli aims, including that country's foreign policy objectives, and that progressives tend to be much more amenable to Palestinian concerns, including its supprssion since 1948. Most public protest movements are valid, most advocate for just and admirable causes. Arguably, the current one is no different. And most such movements, at least in the United States, are manifested from within the progressive community. Conservatives, being grounded in tradition, tend not to advocate for the kind of rapid change which underlies most protest movements. Viet Nam, women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, among others, provide proof of this. It is the libs who tend to take to the streets. One must always be cautious in generalizing. And although the current campus disruptions are being called "pro- Palestinian", among the generally well intentioned students and professors who are dutifully carrying signs and shouting slogans advocating fair play for Palestine, there are among them, insiputably, anti-Semites. This is to be expected, as inevitable. This proves the point; it is not always the progressives who advocate exclusively for "progress". Interspersed among them, in what one hopes are small numbers, are bigots whose hatred is directed not only against injustice, but, alas, against members of the Jewish faith.