Considering Ted Cruz As President, And Shuddering

I WANTED TO FIND OUT whether presidential candidate Ted Cruz believes in evolution, and I don't think he does. The internet seems to indicate that he indeed does not, which I suspected. Senator Cruz wants to capture the evangelical Christian vote, so disavowing Darwin would indeed be the politically correct thing for him to do. Cruz is chairman of a senate science sub committee, which, considering his apparent ignorance of and lack of interest in science, is somewhat of a joke. What did he do at Harvard, other than study the U.S. Constitution? Since he was fourteen, Cruz has studied the U.S. Constitution like some sort of sacred manuscript. Speaking of the U.S. constitution, the best thing that could possibly happen to it would be to replace it with an updated version, which could easily be modeled on the traditional one, but much improved. Let it retire, the poor tired old thing. Its earned it. But for conservatives like Cruz, this is unthinkable, since in their world traditional documents are somewhat sacred. Can you imagine an updated version of the Bible, one in which the Earth is described as round, and does not rest upon four pillars? Perish the thought. Tradition must be preserved at all costs, even if, in order to preserve it, evolution, climate change, the round earth, the need for progressive economic reform, and the very existence racism are denied. Can you imagine Ted Cruz or someone like him becoming President? All attempts by the United States to halt climate change would evaporate, prayer would return to public schools, along with creationism in science classes, and the government would vanish from all participation in the American economy, leaving it under the control of our elite wealthy corporate masters. Happy New Year!

Questions About Good People Carrying Guns

NOT LONG AGO in a crowded shopping mall in North Carolina, an off duty police officer drew his gun and killed another man, who was also armed. This information alone is sufficient to raise red flags, or to at least rasie a few questions. The whole thing will doubtless get sorted out in court over the ensuing months, but just suppose for the sake of argument that both men were carrying guns legally. That means that they were both good people, with no criminal records, no history of violence, responsible citizens of the sort we want to have carrying guns, because people like these two men can stop a mass murderer and save lives. Isn't that the reasoning? We want good people not only to have the right to carry, but we want them to actually carry weapons, to protect us all from potential mass murderers, from armed bad people, right? We have taken the guns out of the hands of bad people, legally, and now bad people can only carry guns illegally. That's the best we can do, make it illegal for bad people to carry guns, and legal for good people to pack heat. So now, many many good people are legally carrying. Two such people were the two men in the North Carolina mall; two good guys who happened to have a difference of opinion, one of whom ended up killing the other over a personal dispute. Question: in a soceity with many good people carrying, how often will one good person kill another good person, over some dispute, or some mistake or misunderstanding? That's a fair question. It would appear that we will soon have a chance to find out.

Merging Wealth Into Greater Wealth

2015 WAS THE YEAR OF the merger. Over four point three trillion dollars in corporate assets were merged worldwide, a world record, over half of which were American. This doesn't include the biggest merger of all, which is pending but evidently inevitable; the merger of Dow and Dupont. Most if not all of the recent epidemic of corporate mergers are arguably illegal. When the industrial revolution came to America after the Civil War, powerful wealthy people and large corporations started forming monopolies, stifling competition, free trade, and capitalism. We passed laws against this behavior, laws which work quite well, when inforced, but the anti-trust laws are no longer enforced, and haven't been since Ronald Reagan made America a friendlier place for the extremely wealthy. Every major industry is continuing the trend which began in the eighties; consolidation, conglomeration, the establishment of a monopolized economy. Welcome to the surrealistic world economy thirty five years into Reaganomics: the wealthy are wealthier than ever, and the poor at least as poor as they have ever been, and more numerous. How long until one person, possibly a corporation, has all the world's wealth? What we in America call supply side trickle down laizzez faire free market Reaganomics, the rest of the world calls "neo-liberalism". It consists of an absence of governement as an influence in the capitalistic economy, aka deregulation. Exclude the government from the economy, and what you end up with is not greater prosperity for one and all, as advertised, but rather, a wild west economy of chaos, with a few very aggressive people becoming extremely wealthy, and most of us impoverished. There was a time when corporate monopolies were illegal, and technically they still are, though you would never know it. Neo-liberal economics is based on the belief that the more freely the economy can operate, the more successful it will be, which is an utterly insane notion. The Sherman Anti-trust Act was a good idea in 1890, and its a good idea now, band we are lucky people like Ted Cruz and the Tea Party haven't repealed it, although, in reality, they have.

Planting A Trillion Trees

THE DAY AFTER CHRISTMAS was seventy degrees in my neck of the woods, south central United States, unseasonably warm. Then came the eight inches of rain. When it rains nowadays, which isn't very often, it rains extreme. When it doesn't rain, the drought is extreme. Extreme hot, extreme cold, extreme storms, with extreme wind. Everything extreme. Tornadoes flitting across the American landscape, on Christmas. Isn't that a bit extreme? We're likely to see more of the same, from now on, starting about now. Isn't that the predicted pattern for global warming? Meanwhile, Obama comes back from Paris, having lead the United States, kicking and screaming, into the Paris climate accord, a monumental achievement, a cause for hope. The first thing the Senate majority leader does is warn us all that Obama has made promises to the world that he cannot keep, promises such as trying to help reverse climate change, and save the planet for future generations. My my, such a kill joy. Through the miracle of satellite photography and computer analysis we now know that there are an astounding three point oh four trillion, with a "T", tress on planet Earth. We also know that there used to be twice that many, but a certain species of destructive primates have taken half of them, and continues killing trees at a net rate of about ten billion a year, which is of course ultimately unsustainable. All these numbers are surprisingly high, but apparently accurate. Organizations and individuals who had been talking about planting a billion trees, or ten billion, are now talking about a trillion, which would, it appears, be a good start. Somehow, though, you get the feeling that American conservatives will fight all tree planting tooth and nail; after all, what immediate profit is there in it?

Christians Visiting Mosques In Wyoming

IN GILLETTE, WYOMING, a conservative leaning town, lives the Khan family, which came from Pakistan in the nineteen fifties. Through consequent generations the family has assimilated to American culture, and today there are about thirty family members, American as apple pie. They are, however, Islamic, and have erected a small mosque. The law abiding, hard working, achieving family is starting to feel the effect of an American society increasingly fearful, angry, and anti-Islamic. Some local conservative idiot has a website, called "Keep Islam Out Of Gillette", or something stupid. Its enough to make you fearful that not only might the U.S. decide to prohibit further islamic immigration, but to deport the several millions of Moslems already here! Surely we wouldn't try to do that..or would we? To do so would be the opposite of helpful, which is regrettably not at all unusual in American foreign and domestic policy. What is needed, of course, are closer ties and more communication between the United States of America and the Islamic faith, not less. Trying to improve the situation in Gillette, the Khan family has invited any and all members of the community to visit the mosque and sit in on worship services, and several local cowboys have taken them up on the offer, much to their cowboy credit. One fellow indicated that he saw very little difference, and much similarity, between his own Christian church and the mosque, as if they were somehow seeking the same God, and espousing the same peace and prosperity for all. Imagine such a thing, in li'l ole Gillette, Wyoming. Maybe there's hope for us, after all.

Wishing that Christmas Would Never End

NOW THAT OUR CHRISTMAS BREAK is over, and the holidays are ending, we must return to reality, albeit with great regret. Oh that Christmas would last year round....returning to the bleak reality of American presidential politics after the escapist immersion in Christmas just plain sucks...republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, on closer inspection, is even crazier than we might have imagined. Apparently he wants to return the United States to the gold standard, here in the futuristic year twenty sixteen, which would be like returning drivers to Model T's; utterly insane. During the past century the amount of gold in grubby human hands has at least doubled, to over two olympic sized swimming pools full. Meanwhile, however, the amount of good old American currency in circulation has exploded exponentially with the enormous expansion of the economy. Can someone please explain that to Senator Cruz? Soon? There is simoply no way in hell, heaven, or earth that the quantity of available gold can cover the vast amount of money in circulation, which is precisely what the glod standard requires. Ask any high school economics teacher. While you're at it have the good Senator ask any high school chemistry or physics teacher about global warming: he doesn't believe in it, and badly needs to. If you want to pour molasses over the economy, slow it down, seize it up, apply the gold standard, and see it happen. Incredible that anyone would even suggest it, let alone believe it. Didn't Ted Cruz go to Harvard?What gives? didn't they teach him anything at that rinky dink outfit? lest we forget, the two Bush Presidents, either of whom is widely regarded as a paragon of intellectual talent, went to Yale, proving that even the Ivy League has its limits. Seantor and presidential candidate Ted Cruz believes in neither global warming nor evolution, likes the gold standard, wants to end Islmaic immigration to America, and wants to turn the Islamic State into a glowing radioactive mess. Frighteningly, these views are typical of republican presidential candidates, and indeed, of conservative America. Oh, that Christmas would enver end..

Blaming It All On Some Damn Drone

SAY YOU'VE GOT A SPOUSE AND FAM, and a job as an airline pilot to support it all. You're coming in for a landing, in touch with the tower, smooth flight, all's well. Down on the ground, some goofy twelve year old kid launches his new Christmas drone, a shit eating grin on his befreckled face. Into the sky rises the six inch plastic bird, heading straight towards your 747 just as you're descending towards the runway. The drone, looking like some alien probe, buzzes directly in front of your window, then darts down and out, and starts making circles around your left wing, pausing to hover ever so briefly right in front of the inside left jet enigine. Your heart rate races, you scream something into the microphone at those fools on the ground, then fight the urge to jerk the stick violently to the left, seeing as how so doing would definitely ruin your text book perfect landing, and quite likely crash the plane, killing all aboard. So, you bring her in, and everybody dis-enplanes, never knowing that they were inches from death. You race into the terminal at full speed, straight into the bosses office, and start screaming. She (airport manager) looks up from her I Pad, frowns, and invites you to sit down, start over, and explain yourself, calmly if possible. At this point, the best thing for you to do, trust me, is to calm the hell down, stop screaming, get your damned temper under control, and try to talk sense. And none of this whining and griping about drones, danger, and your sorry lot in life. Look, the plane landed, right? So... why the histrionics? Need a little more attention, is that it? Anger management issues? Not been getting enough, um, you know what? Aha! You must be a normal, spoiled, self absorbed, me me me American! At least be decent enough not to blame your problems on twelve year old kids with drones. Merry Christmas!

Holding Your Breath

CONSERVATISM AND LIBERALISM are the twin towers of American polarized hatred. Where once (1940-1980) Americans lived in a country with a very large middle class and a very large political center, in which conservatives and liberals shared a broad consensus underpinning their differences, we now inhabit a culture of a steadily shrinking middle class, now less than fifty percent of the population, in whcih American are either moving up or down, and are divided economically into rich and poor, and divided politically into extreme left and extreme right. This situation is more dangerous than one might think. It is a condition perfect for anger, hostility, and civil war, between the rich and the poor. Conservatism embraces tradition, and resists change, liberalism encourages change, and tends to want traditions to change. And ne'er the twain shall meet, or so it seems. In specific, tangible terms, conservatives tend to enbrace traditional religion, and liberals often prefer altermnatives, or are sometimes hostile to religion. Conservatives often don't believe in evolution; liberals nearly always do. Same with climate change. In America, capitalism is traditional, and socialism something of a necessary evil. If the middle class were to ever expand from its current forty nine percent of the American people back to where it used to be, say, seventy or eighty percent, you'd see a great increase in conciliatory points of view. But don't hold your breath.

Rhyming History With Barack Hussein O.

DURING THE NINETEEN FIFTIES the American people were terrified of the Soviet Union, and something called "communism", whatever that was. Hardly anyone in America at that time could define commmunism, but the corporate propaganda machine told them that it was a very bad thing, and that was sufficient. The U.S.S. R. developed an atomic bomb in 1949, and a hydrogen bomb in 1953, and the panic spread. President Dwight D. Eisenhower knew better. He knew that the Soviet Union was an economic hollowed out shell, still trying to rebuild its cities and economy from the devestation of World War Two, and was hardly in a position to contend militarily, or any other way, against the United States. But Harry Truman's cold war rhetoric had sunk in deep, and when Eisenhower tried to comfort the American people, and to assure them that all would be well, nobody believed him. He was described as a weak leader. Ensuing events proved Eisenhower correct; the United States need never have started the Cold War after all. Fast forward to Barack Hussein Obama and his confrontation with the Islamic State, which until recently we called "the self described Islamic State". Obama tries to reassure us that this Islamic State has no real military power, but only the power to propagandize and randomly kill, which is bad enough, but certainly not any existential threat to America. Nobody believes him. He is chastised for abandoning America's defense, for refusing to carpet bomb the middle east, for being a weak leader. History never repeats itself, it merely, as they say, rhymes.

Saying No To solar Energy, For Reasons

DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS, the cost of solar energy has decreased by about seventy percent, and is continuing. Sunlight is free and unlimited, the only cost is the equipment. Solar panels are becoming more efficient, as is their manufacture. The chinese are investing heavily in both wind and solar energy ,and preparing to phase out fossil fuels. Germany is leading the way, and the rest of Europe is following, into a solar powered future. In the United States, there are now more than fifty thousand wind turbines in operation, producing at least five percent of the nation's energy. The recently concluded climate change convention in Paris affirmed the world's commitment to spare the world the most catastrophic effects of climate change, although close observers note that the agreements did not go far enough, and are only voluntary. Petroleum exporting Venezuela is on board with the agreement, as are nearly two hundred other countries. And then there's the conservative community in the United states of America, denying the reality of global warming, and objecting to being described as "deniers". About forty percent of the American people fall into this anachronistic category, climate change "disagreers." The educated world, which fortunately includes most of us, can only roll eyes, and keep trying to talk sense. In North Carolina, the community of Woodland was offered the opportunity to receive a solar energy installation. The city council argued pros and cons. Pros included new jobs, economic stimulation, cheap, clean energy, a chance to lead the way into a clean energy future. The arguments presented by the cons (conservatives) are rather interesting. They asserted - and no, we are not making this up - that the installation of solar energy panels in their town would soak up sunlight intended for lawns and gardens, and kill vegetation, and that solar energy panels cause cancer. The cons won the day; no solar enery installation for woodland, North Carolina.

Explaing Carbon To Conservatives, or Trying To

CHEMISTRY IS A MARVELOUS SCIENCE. So precise, so exact, like physics and mathematics, so clean and elegant compared to those messy social sciences like history and sociology and political science, with all their uncertainty and speculation. That elegant periodic table of the elements, ninety two beautiful atoms of matter, all lined up in neat rows from upper left to lower right, from light to heavy, from common to rare. So beautifully simple and logically ordered. Given a little study time, you would think that anyone and everyone can understand basic chemistry, and derive from it knowledge of the world around us. And so it is, with the exception of members of the Republican party, and the American conservative community. They don't seem to understand basic chemistry. Either that, or they're pretending to not understand, perhaps believing that it looks cool to be ignorant. You start with hydrogen in the extreme upper left of the chart, nothing but a proton and an electron, lighter than air and oh so common, comprising ninety percent of all matter in the universe. Then, you move to the right, up there on the very top row, into helium, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, light gasses all, but heavier and less common than good ole H. The problem with understanding among conservatives begins with carbon, as you move a tad farther away from hydrogen. Two electrons in the first shell, isn't it, then six in the second one, which in any element can admit eight, and there you have it: an element, Carbon, to which oxygen, either one or two atoms at a time, can and does cling. Carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide, abundant and easily manufactured by man and nature. Nitrogen and oxygen, which together make up ninety eight percent of "our" atmosphere, simply cannot absorb and hold as much heat as carbon. Pump a few billion tons of carbon into the air, leave it there twenty four seven, decade after decade, and you have enhanced atmospheric heat absorption, twenty four seven. Most, or at least some conseravtives can comprehend hydrogen, and maybe a little helium, but by the time they arrive at carbon, they become utterly lost. Maybe that explains why most high school chemistry teachers are liberals, and all of them understand and own up to the fact of climate change. If only they could explain it a bit better to our conservative American colleagues.

Stereotyping

WHEN DOPNALD TRUMP MADE HIS infamous suggestion, (the most recent one, the one about keeping Islamic folk out of the country) all the other Republican presidentail candidates ran like hell, away from Trump, in righteous indignation. How could anyone suggest such a thing! Why, its positively un-American, and no, we certainly don't want to seem like bigots, we right wingers. Maybe they shouldn't have been so quick to dissavow the Donald. Polls indicate that a sizeable percentage of the zenophobic American electorate agrees with Trump, supports the idea of islamic exclusion. After all, some point out; its happened before: Chinese exclusion, Irish exclusion, eastern European exclusion. The United States of Exclusion. It may well be that the G.O.P. contenders misread the mood, and took the wrong stand. If so, we should see them offering corrections soon enough, just as soon as their sharp eyed political advisors get hold of them, and talk sense. Our worst fears are confirmed: the American right wing is as crazy as Donald Trump. Surely someone will eventually point out that any Moslem wanting to immigrate to America need only check the "non Moslem" box to get admitted. Surveys indicate that your avreage right winger in the U.S. believes that you can tell a Moslem from a normal good Christian person merely by looking at the person. Don't they all look the same, all billion and a half of them, with a sort of "Islamic" look to them? Dark complexion, beard or burka, and wala! You have a Moslem, and thus, a potential terrorist. It would be as if any appearance of the Ku Klux Klan indicates that any and all Christians are potential terrorists. Beware of anyone claiming to be a "christian"! Why, before you know it, they'll be swarming all over the land of liberty, wearing white masks, lynching dark skinned people, and setting fire to abortion clinics. They're all like that, aren't they?

Building A Better Religious Future

ON THE PLANET EARTH, in the city of Omaha, Nebraska, a miracle is taking place. It is called the Tri Faith Initiative, and may the dear lord help it to grow, and to sweep across the whole world. A thirty eight acre plot of land, with a stream running through it, has been purchased by a consortium, and the plan is to erect three houses of worship upon it: a Christian church, an Islamic mosque, and a jewish synagogue. The proximity will, it is believed, foster communication and healthy exchange, at least in Omaha. Perhaps members of all three congregations will feel at home in any of the three buildings. Representatives of all three faiths are convinced they are being called by God to achieve this, and they may be right. Is there room for the Buddhists and the Hindus to set up shop? What about the other religions in the world, which number over five thousand? Well, fkrst things first. One at a time. First, let's get the three "Abrahamic" religions on the right rack, getting along with each other, then, who knows? These three have been the troubled ones of the bunch, immersed in constant conflict and controversy with each other, century after long century. Perhaps this Tri Faith Initiative signals a change, although we must be careful not to be too optimistic. Perhaps there will come a time when there is but one world religion, a comprehensive faith unfettered by narrow dogma, sufficiently expansive in its theology to include us all. Or, for all we know, religion may be evolving its way out fo human culture, as we enter into a future in which the truth of science is as undeniable as religion has historically claimed to be. Either way, the future must surely be better than the benighted past, or the strife torn religious present. We can only hope, and try.

Calling Spades Spades

WHEN ONE VISITS CHRISTIAN CHURCHES in the American south, and pays attention to the congregants, one comes to realize that most congregations are dominated numerically by politically and economically conservative folks who strongly favor carrying guns, the freedom to make large amounts of money, more republicans than democrats. The only exception is the southern African-American Christian community, for verily, in America, even our churches are racially segregated, and whites, not blacks, see to it. We just can't seem to totally readicate racism, no matter how hard we try, but we can sure as hell ignore it or call it by another name, or claim that it simply does not any longer exist! Therefore it becomes tempting to refer to conservative Chrstians as the "Jesus, Guns, and Money" crowd, as the late great liberal author Gore Vidal did. The incongruity is readily apparent, don't you think? And the term isn't unfair: they sincerely, simultaneously embrace jesus, capitalism, and carrying guns. In many if not most of these churches in the American south the minister will, sooner or later, start dogging the Moslems, the gays, and the liberals. One might think that greater social harmony could be achieved by simply refraining from such bahavior, but hell, who knows? For all one knows, greater social harmony isn't even a priority with most American Christian ministers. Our best chance of defeating terrorism is uniting, in as many ways as possible, the United States, all other countries, the Christian faith, and the Islamic faith in a rock solid force for decency and justice. But don't hold your breath; when is the last time you heard an American Christian conservative utter a kind remark about lbierals, gays, Moslems, or non Christians, or other countries?

Evolving Religions

TEH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that cradle of cultural creativity, has been, and continues to be, a great spawing ground for new religions. Christian Science, Scientology, Pentecostalism, Mormonism are among the most prominent, but there are thousands more, with varying degrees of popularty. Most of them tend to be slight variations of established faiths, particularly Christianity. In a land of such diverse cultural influences, and such enormous creativity, that new forms of religion would be invented in America is perfectly predictable. And let's make no mistake about it; these easily traceable modern American religions were invented by mere mortal people, and serve as proof that all religions are man made, exclusively. Hell, Scientology, which has thousands of adherents, including Tom Cruz, was invented by a science fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard. If Scientology is sent by God, it is the god of science fiction. Give credit for Mormonisn to Joseph Smith's digs, and so on, some weird God of gold tablets, and so forth. Even as we seek truth through ancient religions and their modern versions, the religiosity of the future is being forged, and make no mistake, tomorrow's religions will bear little if any semblance to today's, which are really yesterday's, religions. who knows, perhpas the religions of tomorrow will actually embody a bit of common sense, and do away with all the craziness and superstition which infects our thiking, and has for thousands of years. perhpas we shall venerate teh periodic table, and raise the value of pi to a sacredmant, and celebrate the four forces of nature! A religion of science, replacing superstition. The Christian faith is twenty centuries old; every century teh Christian religion has been different, distinguishable from the rest, ask any theology scholar, any Historian of religion. The Christian faith continues to evolve, just like always. Yes, evolution is a fact, even in religion itself, ironically.

Waiting, and Hoping, For Truth, From Rubio and Cruz

ITS HARD TO KNOW WHERE TO BEGIN, sorting through the lies and stupid statements emerging from conservative republican presidential campaign circles, right wing radio talk shows, and the right wing of the American general public. Marco Rubio, for instance, piped up the other day with the incredible statment that of all the republicans running for president, nary a single one of them is a socialist. This remark is dead wrong, stupid, dishonest, or a lie, take your pick. Or perhaps El Marco del Rubio plain don't know what in the ever lovin' hell "socialism" is. Most likely not, since he's a conservative. Would Marco Rubio want America's police departments to be owned and operated by private business? What about fire departmensts? Streets and highways? Public libraries? Does he want to end medicare, medacaid, and social security? Let him say so, and see what happens to his career! Can we say: "owned and operated by the public = socialism"? Marco is a socialist, pure and simple, even though he lacks either the education or the honesty to say so. Probably both, since he is a right wing nut case. All of us are socialists, my American brothers and sisters, to one degree or another. Ted Cruz, another young punk running for president, wants to make the sand in Iraq and Syria glow with American heat. Isn't he aware of the fact that Russia, Great Britian, France, and the United States, among others, are already doing precisely that? They're lightin' it up, baby. Candidate Cruz wants to pretend that Obama is doing nothing, when in fact the Big "O" is making Syrian sand glow; it makes Teddy look tough to talk tough. Obama wants to downplay the threat posed by the Islamic State, to reduce its cridibility, and to emphasize our alliance with the Islamic faith in defeating terrorism, and folks like Rubio and Cruz, with their histrionic, fatuous rhetoric, aren't helping. If only these people would start throwing in a little truth now and then, just a little bit, to augment their freak show with a sprinkling of integrity. We can only wait, and hope.

Beating Liberalism With A Book

"CONSERVATIVE COMEBACKS TO LIBERAL LIES" is a book which gives conservatives what they evidently so desperately need: a guidebook on how to respond to liberals, and sound reasonably intelligent, while defending, at all costs, the sacred cow of conservatism. This is a must read for conservatives wanting to at least sound intelligent. which includes them all. The book lists, one by one, often articulated liberal attitudes, most of which would seem to be simple, unassailable facts, and for each one provides a typical American consrvative a suggested response. Some of these alleged liberal beliefs are fabricated for purposes of deception. Liberals emphasize that the U.S.A. was stolen from native Americans and Mexicans. Conservatives should respond by reminding us that this is normal human behavior. America's imperialism is now justified! A conservative registered Republican who claimes to be independent, Bill O'Reilly, points out that you can't justify a wrong by pointing to another wrong. Liberals like to point out that America is a pluralistic, diversified society, culturally, ethnically, and religiously. Conservatives, according to the manual, should respond by agreeing that, yes, America is diversified and pluralistic, but still, most Amricans are Christians, by God! Never stop calling America a "Christian" country, no matter what the facts are. Conservatives feel an incredible urge to argue even when they agree with liberals. Liberals are fond of saying that African-Americans, women, and homosexualss have historically been given second class status in America. A good conservative must point out that these minorities are treated better in America than anywhere else. How this disproves that they are treated poorly, or proves that America treats them well enough, is never mentioned. Please notice that the suggested conservative response in all three of these examples does nothing to belie the liberal statement, and in fact, in all three cases, concedes the liberal point, while trying to oppose or mitigate it. Oh well. As long as an average American conservative can thumb through "Conservative Comebacks" and find a response, even a weak one, there is no need to wonder why the book isn't entitled "Proofs that Liberal Lies Are Lies".

Betting On American Hypocrisy

OUR FRIENDS (if we have any) around the world must be astounded and mortified by the extent of American hypocrisy. Damned near everybody in America is addicted to some sort of drug, whether its coffee, sugar, flat screen high definition television, electronic devices, text messaging, social media, alcohol, heroine, or what not. And yet, oh how we love to punish drug users, and sinners. Lock up the pot smokers! Lock up the pimps! One of the greatest players in the history of baseball, Pete Rose, by being denied membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame, serves as a fine example of American hypocrisy. Rose is excluded for gambling, another one of our favorite American drugs. Casinos are sprouting up all over the country, even as we speak, as our gambling addiction intensifies and hardens. Yet, Pete Pose must be punished. What rot. Throughout the long history of baseball in America, participants of all types, fans, players, team owners, have gambled, drunk, whored, smoked, done every sin under the sun. Rose's gambling is perhaps unwise, but its his right; it not illegal. Also, it has nothing to do with baseball. Unless you accept the insane idea that Rose bet against his own team, and pesronally tried to lose baseball games, which is physically impossible. For him to have done such a thing would be a violation of the fundamental laws of nature, worse than exceeding the speed of light. And my, my ,my, haven't we become all righteously indignant about steroids, after having ignored their use for decades, while they made money for baseball's wealthy owners, adding muscles to arms and legs, sending baseballs further and further into the bright blue American sky, for everyone's joy...

Turning Away From Dogma, Towards Science

ON THE SURFACE OF MARS, a gold cart from earth kkeps rollin' right along, setting records daily, proof that science works. Proof that science works is everywhere. Every day Earthlike planets are being discovered orbiting far away stars. There is an astronomer who has an app on her cell phone that sings a happy little tune each time a new planet is verified; she says it never stops singing these days. Science gives us smart phones, big screen TVs, computer driven cars. The proof is in the pudding. Science is all about results. Pseudo science, on the other hand, sucks. It dwells in fantasy and rejects truth. Where is the proof of anything the paranormal crowds tells us? Next time some coworker invites you to read a blog about the Galactic Federation, or crop circles, or some other of the infinite varieties of deception available to us, invite a representative of the galactic federation over for dinner. Neither does religion work. What are its results, other than fear and hatred? All the inspiration, wisdom, and truth we get from religion, whatever religion, we get from science, without sacrificing reality, without sacrificing truth. If we wish to worship something, let's call it "the infinitely superior spirit", or "the old eternal genius who built the world", or "the ancient one"...as Einstein did. Let's not force all these primitive, harmful, dogmatic religions out of existence, let's let them die of natural causes, as people turn away from them in a more secular, sane world.

All On Board In Paris, Except Republicans

JUST THE OTHER DAY the air pollution in Beijing got worse than ever before, the alert at its highest level, twenty million people unable to go outside without gas masks. This was not a hoax being perpetrated by American liberals, it was the real thing, real bad air pollution, of the sort China is experiencing in cascadingly increasing amounts. But the good news is: the Chinese believe in global warming, as does everyone with a brain, and they are plunging headlong into solar energy, which can save us all, and just recently, into electric cars. Meanwhile, they are going full ahead with fossil fuels, because economic growth to the Chinese is a religion, like it is in the United States. Even the growth happy Chinese understand that humanity must transition away from fossil fuels, must leave most of the rest of it in the ground... ...therefore, if we the sane can find some way to talk American conservative Republicans into accepting reality, then everyone in the world will be on board, and we can all proceed together into a brighter, cleaner future for our descendants. it looks like Hillary Clinton will be America's next president, and she believes in climate change, aka global warming. The republicans will evidently nominate someone who does not believe in climate change, since none of them do, and the American electorate probably will not be willing to put up with that. Most Americans accept the reality of climate change, although nearly a third do not. It may be necessary to let all American conservatives wear guns and dig up some more fossil fuel to lure them into helping the rest of us save the planet. Its worth a try.

Starting The Next Revolution

WE AMERICANS ARE FOND of calling the United States the "greatest country in the world", as if we have the slightest idea what we're talking about. As if we have any idea whatsoever whether other countries might be great, and how great they might be, or what greatness even is. How we love to praise ourselves. I tell people that the U.S. is my favorite country, because I was born and raised here, and I live here, never having been outside the country, to be honest. I claim to be ignorant of which country is "the greatest", and that I consider it arrogant to call yourself "great". Nobody ever agrees, nobody even seems to have any idea what I'm talking about, which seems amazing to me. My favorite country should actually be Russia, perhaps, because more Russians than Americans visit this website. What better reason is there? Its all about me! We Americans are out for number one, always! Maybe the Russians outnumber the Americans because this site is highly critical of the United States; Russians like that, and Americans don't. However, Americans are also very good at criticizing America; they do it constantly. And that may be partly what makes America great, to the extent that it is great, in any way, shape, or form other than the use of military power to invade, conquer, occupy, and kill people in other countries. In America, we are blessed with the freedom of popular dissent, and even though we use this great tool, we use it too sparingly. In Russia, there is too little freedom of expression, with too many difficulties in it, and too many harsh consequences for popular dissent. Popular dissent, mass protest, is almost always for the right reasons, whenever and whenever it occurs. Revolutions, no matter where, when, or for what cause, are almost always necessary and good. The next revolution will be global, not national, it will be on the internet as much as in person, it will involve the world's working poor, rising up against the world's wealthy powerful elite, it will be lead by a union of Russian, Chinese, and American working poor, and it will succeed.

Going Rogue

CALL ME CRAZY (some do) but I am a fool for verbal attacks on mainstream American culture. Give me a radical revolutionary intellectual book, speech, or TV show anytime! And, you might admit, the pickings are so very easy. So much to attack, in mainstream American culture, and so little time in which to do it all. The wealthiest nation in the world, with one fifth of its children hungry. A litany of foreign policy disasters, the U.S. of A. Oh yes, a veritable litany, from Viet Nam to Iraq, and back again. Liberals are complainers, by nature. They don't like the world as they see it, or as it is, so they bitch about it, and they want to change it. Conservatives are a more contented lot, and this makes them smug, and arrogant. They have a happier attitude than liberals about the status quo. But, in all truth, when you come right down to it, isn't there a great deal to complain about, to worry about, to try to change? If you deny global warming, or that other problems and catastrophes exist, you don't have to do anything about it, or complain about it. Its fun and easy to be conservative! Suppose you conservatively embrace the traditional religion of your people. All the questions are answered, no uncertainty, life is clear and stable and absolute! The opiate of the masses, and the salve of the individual soul, is religion. Its humorous listening to conservative religious non scientific non intellectuals talk about science, about how limited and horrible it is. Why, science, you would think by listening to right wingers, is nothing but a scam! Science is always changing its mind, disagreeing with itself, and that proves it doesn't work! say our conservative people of piety. Good luck trying to convince them that all the arguing, uncertainty, disagreement and change in science is not only a good thing, its the only thing, the only thing that works, its why science works, and religion doesn't, for gaining new knowledge and using it to improve life. Science has given us medicine, technology, and comfort. Religion has given us...what? Dogma and circumscribed human creativity and behavioral freedom? Liberalism is change, conservatism is tradition. Science and climate change are for liberals, religion and denial of climate change are for conservatives. How appropriate.

Texting, But Not Talking

THERE IS AN EPIDEMIC of people getting swindled online. Much of this involves older ladies, meeting men online, and getting taken to the cleaners, so to speak. A shockingly high proportion of widows looking to meet someone on the internet, and meeting the wrong person. This is shocking because you tend to associate older people with...well, wisdom and good decision making. But au contraire mon ami. The internet is such a great place to meet people that people are tempted to throw themselves into it, even though its dangerous. The fact that we now have the internet and all this high tech must be seen as a positive development, a wondrous advance. But one must use it with caution and wisdom. Human interaction on the internet woks best when it is used to supplement one's social life, rather than used to provide one's entire social life. Nothing can ever replace direct face to face contact. The fact that there is a trend in America to replace fact to face interaction with text messaging is a somewhat ominous sign that we place too little value on direct contact, and are too willing to hide behind indirect contact. An ominous sign of a lonely culture. People in America, many of them, seem to prefer texting to voice to voice or even face to face communication. Go figure. every month I get fewer and fewer phone calls, because I don't text, and have no real desire to. Its too expensive for me, and I am happy with a very cheap land phone alone. But everybody else texts, almost exclusively, and if you don't, you're left out of electronic society. People say to me: "I tried to text you!"...assuming that since they use it, so must everyone, so must I. I reply: "well, you just keep right on trying.."

Sizing Up Trump and His Ilk, Fearfully

THE HATE MONGERS on right wing American radio, angry, hateful screamers like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage, Chris Plante, et al, are trying to brainwash their followers into accepting the notion that all acts of terrorism committed by Moslems from the middle east are representative of the entire Islamic faith, and an alarming number of mind numbed American right wing moronic sycophants appear to be buying into it. This could lead to trouble, if enough Americans accept this insanity. As usual, the American conservative movement is embracing an idea that is the exact opposite of the truth, of reality, of reason. They deny global warming, and claim to follow Jesus, who was a social yet, they embrace free market cutthroat economics .There was never an economic or environmental issue on which our extreme right wing wasn't wrong. But the entire Christian religion cannot be held responsible for its fringe lunatics, and neither can the entire Islamic faith be blamed for terrorism. Consider the American Ku Klux Klan, a true American icon of an institution, good Christian folk, representative of a large part of American culture and the American Christian community. Al Qaeda, the Taliban,the Islamic State, are all fringe organizations, operating on the fringe of a great religion, not at all a part of it, just like the KKK is not representative of American in general, but only of a certain segment of American society. Read "Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West", by Benazir Bhutto, the former president of Pakistan, and a truly great lady who explains Islam and terrorism clearly. Donald Trump and his anti-Islamic followers are a potential Hitler and the NAZIs, born again. McCarthy-ites. thugs, mongering hatred and fear. First, keep out the Moslem immigrants to America, and what next? The expulsion of those already here? Make the desert glow, says Senator Ted "the nuke" Cruz! Trump is attractive to many, myself included, because of his simple, straight talk, but the political pundits have him sized up well: he is a fear monger, politically profiting from our epidemic of fear and anger and ignorance in America. Trump is a business man, and knows what will sell. He is selling fear.

Going To Church, by Invitation

THE INVITATIONS TO CHURCH keeping coming in over at the senior center, where I, aged sixty, am the newbie, the baby. Its great to be young again. Over at the university, where I'm taking classes for free, I'm too old: life has a way of balancing. Seven invitations to church, and counting. Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, and a church of Christ or two. Seven, in all, and this in a very small southern American town from a few dozen senior center members. How many churches are there around here, anyway, I ask? Many, is always the answer. How large are the various congregations, I wonder. Small groups, I am told. Makes you wonder why they don't all just get together, and go to the same church, and do away with the fragmentation. Or perhaps maybe we should all realize that we all have different religious views, and worship at home, alone, but in comfort. Admit that we all have a unique religiosity, and all go home, and worship alone. Perhaps they enjoy the small fragmented groups, with their slightly different ways of doing things. But why all the invitations for me? Its as if they take one look at me, decide I must be a heathen, and need saving. Either that, or they invite everybody, trying to bolster their membership in the face of fierce competition. Have any of them ever considered the possibility that a man, at the age of sixty, probably already has his personal religious house in order, to his satisfaction? Probably not. Maybe they don't expect me to join or convert, but only to visit, and give it some thought. They always tempt me with food. I never mention that food seems a bit beside the. I'm easy. See you Sunday!

Getting Obamacare, Or Trying To

YESTERDAY I MADE A PHONE CALL, and applied for Obamacare. They said at first that I would be on hold, waiting, for twenty minutes, and it turned out to be forty. No problem; one must be tolerant of small inefficiencies in a new program. All big new programs stumble at first; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid all stumbled at first, then turned out to be shining examples of the effectiveness of socialism. After a long interview, they told me that within a few weeks, I would be notified, one way or the other, whether I had been accepted. Until that moment, I really didn't know that an Obamacare applicant could either be accepted or rejected. Hell, I just figured that anyone who applied would at least be offered a plan, automatically, and would be free to accept or reject it. Shows what I know. So, I'll wait and see, and hope to be accepted into the great socialistic train wreck that is the Affordable Care Act. At least, I've been told, time and again, by conservatives, that Obamacare is a complete train wreck, a hopeless failure, which is running up health insurance costs for everyone, ruining the American health care system, which used to be the very best in the world, and in general ruining the United States of America. According to conservatives, Obama has already destroyed America, and the only solution is to elect a right winger in sixteen, and start over. Like, Trump? Yeah, I am soooo sure.. For actual evidence of all this calamity they offer nothing, unsurprisingly. The very moment I see even a trace of evidence for Obama's having destroyed America, I'll start paying more attention, and open my mind to the possibility that American conservatives are something other than unhinged. Don't hold your breath. The lady asked me an infinite number of questions, including, my income. She seemed utterly aghast when I told her, truthfully, that I had none. Thank God for retirement savings! But its good to know that there is somebody who is aghast at the thought of somebody having no income. There are millions of folks, worldwide, who have little or none, and we need to all be aghast. Meanwhile, I await the word on my Obamacare, hoping.

Let The Revolution Begin!

IF DOW AND DUPONT MERGE, let's hope the new company keeps both names, because they've both been around forever, and are American icons. They want to merge, according to the word on the street. A few board members perhaps flew to a plush Caribbean resort, sipped cocktails, and came up with a trillion dollar plan. It would be the largest corporate merger in the history of the solar system, and though it is strictly illegal, the United States government will undoubtedly lift not a finger to prevent it. This is because the America government is owned and controlled, lock, stock and barrel, by, you guessed it, the American corporate community. What the American corporate community wants, the American corporate community gets. Got it? Only now, however, is the American corporate community becoming the international American corporate community, as the American corporate community reaches out, in war and free trade, unto the world, seeking to own and control same. Dowdupont is merely another step towards our inevitable fate; ownership of everything in the world, including us, by one person, incorporated. Unless we the American people, or we the workers and poor of the world, unite and get out in the streets, have a big revolution, and change the world, the concentration of wealth will have us all impoverished, and one lucky person will be a multi trillionaire. Its just a matter of when and whom. The Occupy Wall Street movement was our most recent attempt at revolution, and although it was anemic, it was the right idea. All it lacked was a leader, some organization, and an international orientation. Let's get Occupy Wall Street going again! This time, let's start out as a union of American and Russian working poor, with the intention of redistributing wealth and power equally, and averting global self destruction. We'll see you in the streets, Comrads!

Going To Church In Small Town America, and Surviving

BACK AT THE SENIOR CENTER, onward goes the saga, the daily saga of my having retired too young from teaching, sixty, and joined the senior center. There is an epidemic of aging globally, although American conservative republicans might deny it. Aging in America and around the world might be in the same category as global warming, the holocaust, and the moon landings: factual, but denied by American conservative Republicans. We're going to have to learn to take care of each other, pure and simple. At the senior center in a town of two thousand, I have received seven (7) invitations to church, all Christian churches, presumably. I intend to accept them all, but just haven't started yet. What's delaying me, I'm not sure. I am a natural procrastinator. Also, reluctant. Every Christian church I've been in in the American south in the past few years dogs he Moslems, the gays, and the liberals, and I don't like that. It aint Christian, to dog folks. And I hope none of the big seven, my inviters, does it this time. My God, I wonder, exactly how fragmented is American Christianity? How many churches in such a small town, with how many members? I have told a senior or two that this proves my point: we all have our own individual religions. Not a popular notion at the conservative Christian small town American senior center. Most of my notions are not popular, and its a wonder I haven't been kicked out> But its still early. Hell, I'm actually rather popular. Must be that glowing smile, warm personality, and incessant smartassiness. These people have a sense of humor, which is why I love them. That, plus, after thirty five years with children, and I'm ready for a change. What a change. but I cannot be honest with them and conceal that fact that I have a religiosity similar to that of Thomas Jefferson and Albert Einstein, which is decidedly non-Christian, but, to my way of thinking, utterly sublime, sensible, and logical. I'll go to these tiny country churches, with an open mind. Nonetheless, I am not likely to emerge therefrom believing that God speaks to us in books and stories, or any such nonsense.

Cruzing With Ted Cruz Into Lunacy

DEMOCRATS ARE LICKING their chops because Donald Trump might well be on the verge of destroying the Republican party. But then again, Trump might not be the party's, and the nation's destruction. We can hope. Hell, maybe he's the answer! Seems unlikely, but who knows? For all we know, were the Moslems excluded from America, all would be well, unlikely though that seems. Maybe Donald Trump isn't crazy, but he sure sounds like he is. The destruction of the Republican party, or a nation unfortunate enough to be governed by it, would come from within. Consider Ted Cruz, the best educated Republican presidential candidate, yet, utterly nutty. Ted Cruz , like most conservatives, claims that global warming is a liberal hoax and power grab. He ignores his high school chemistry education by so doing, as do all deniers of carbon based truth. Ted Cruz claims that when liberals use the term "climate change denier", they are expressing a religious, not a scientific viewpoint, because of their use of the word "denier". Um..Oooo-kay...slick Teddy claims that replacing the phrase "global warming' with the phrase "climate change" is obvious proof of a global liberal socialist pseudo scientific conspiracy. Yeah, right Ted. Oh, that religion were science, and science, religion! Enough Ted Cruzing, with a brain full of education and yet, utterly nuts. He ignores his education and his true mind, does Senator Cruz, and allows his emotional attachment to his rock solid conservative ideology have free reign. The frightening thing about Cruz is that he seems perfectly intelligent.

Keeping America Clean

RONALD REAGAN MIGHT SAY: "There you go again." Trump, being Trump. Reagan, come to think of it, might actually agree with Trump, about incoming Muslims. Donald wants to keep incoming Muslims out of the country (America), as you know by now. The Trump insane idea of the day. Next thing you know, he'll want to kick out those already here. What, ten million? Don't put it past him. The Donald, utterly heedless of public opinion, he just plain don't care. Think its hard to get guns away from Americans? Its harder to vett Muslims. They can just check the "non Islamic" blank on the questionnaire. You have to hope that this guy stays in the race until the very end because he's so very entertaining, crazy, and damaging to the republican party and the conservative movement. Trump'll get kicked out of the G.O.P. run by himself, split the right, and elect Hillary. Actually, maybe Trump has a point about keeping Muslims out of the U.S., but why leave anyone out of the plan? Hell, let's keep everybody out! Then maybe we could start kicking out the Muslims already here, then, one by one, slowly, steadily, but surely, all other ethnic groups. Why hold back? Thus we return freedom's land to the lesser, but less violent animals, America the emptied out. The current American mindset is cognitively impaired, and the American right is leading the way into ever deepening lunacy. Before you know it America will be a nation sans Muslims, with the rest of us carrying handguns in public, ready to defend freedom. Can't wait. So if the choice is between continuing to go in the same insane direction we for some reason are taking ourselves, or just all leaving ,and maybe starting over again later, maybe it would be best to reboot.

Packing Heat, and Posting Up

SUPPOSE FOR A MOMENT THAT American conservatives have a valid point, if that's even possible, and that it would be a peachy idea for all good Americans to go out into the public arena packing heat, aka handguns, carried, concealed...or not. (they can't seem to decide which is best, which in itself is alarming). We are told that so doing would bring comfort to us all, and absolute deterrence to the bad guys, the would be mass shooters. But one quick question: in order to benefit from this anti-Earpian (Wyatt never cottoned to non professionals goin' heals (carrying a gun on one's hip)) arrangement, wouldn't it help, indeed, wouldn't it be necessary, for all the good people gathering together to know whether, and if so, which other ones..in any given public venue....were actually carrying? Remember, its all about feeling safe. And then too, if Joe mass murdered happens to stroll in, looking to spray lead, don't we need to deter him right off the bat, before he even gets started, by letting him or he know, in no uncertain terms, that the room is full of uninfringed gun slingers, ready to kill? Therefore I propose a new American institution, the, let us say, "gun list", to be stationed at the front door of every public place, from library, to restaurant, to football stadium, to church - which those enter may state their status by signature: a checkmark in the "carrying" column if it applies, and one in the "unarmed and therefore soon to be dead" (acceding to conservative thinking) column. Completely voluntary of course. not required. Just an opportunity to "show 'em what's what. Just a checkmark, and we all know where we and the rest of stand. If you think that's crazy, think again. It aint no crazier than one hundred American arrogant angry fruitcakes constantly packing, tailgaiting, being tailgated, and packing heat..... it aint no crazier than thinking the super well armed public solution is going to actually work, and it might just be the antidote that we most need to all this sudden craziness in mainstream American discourse.

Withholding Sex, and Saving the World

LONG ABOUT FOUR HUNDRED YEARS AGO, in the middle of one of those never ending wars for which we humans are known and loved, Aristophenes got impatient, and wrote a very funny play, called "Lysistrata", because of it. IN the play, you all know, lady organizes all the babes to withhold all sex from all men till such time as hostilities cease, and swords are beaten in plowshares. The play has been read, enjoyed, and enacted millions of times down through the millennia, except by conservative Christians, who prefer to ignore sex, or any and all references thereto. Even now, unless I'm, dreaming, there's another version sprouting up along Broadway. My suggestion is this: let's do it again! for real. Ladies of the world unite! You have only your lover's wrath to dodge. Aint a few billion frustrated, horny men worth the elimination of all violence, war, and climate change on Earth? Oh yes, dear ladies, let's up the ante. Let's bargain hard, in earnest. No more fun stuff till the swords are plowshares, and the air clear and pristine. the only problem is, it would have no impact on conservative Christians and Muslims, who rarely have sex anyway. But we could "work around" that. You think this sounds crazy, try listening to everyone's else's solutions. Ted Cruz wants to bomb Iraq until the sands glow. He and others like him, conservative idiots, want to ignore global warming, because they don't like it. Now, against that backdrop of sheer lunacy, enter the Truthless Reconciler, citing Aristophanes, and taking a cue from it. think about it. It makes more sense than you might think. think of the power you rally have, ladies of the world! think how you could use this power, with the mere crossing of the legs, to make the world a much, much better place.

A Compelling Liberal Hoax

EXXON, NEE STANDARD OIL, was aware of climate change in the nineteen seventies, just as modern scientists were aware of it in the nineteen sixties, just as chemists were aware of the potential for it in the early nineteenth century. Exxon did detailed analyses of the problem, and concluded they had better get their money while the getting was good. This has been revealed by the Journalism Department of Columbia University, which now faces the enmity of Exxon. Conservatives say that gathering together in Paris to discuss the problem and draw up documents outlining solutions is unnecessary, while liberals allege that no matter what is decided in France, it won't be enough. Conservatives further claim that there is no agreement among scientists that humans are raising any temperatures other than those of millions of liberal hoaxers and conspirators, hoping to foment unrest for the purpose of insinuating socialism into western culture. What they forget is that socialism is already well insinuated; there are no privately owned fire or police departments in America, and few roads, highways or bridges are privately owned for profit, and the Social Security system is accessed by conservatives as well as liberals. When challenged to reveal the names of scientists who don't believe in global warming, conservatives trot out a long list of far tight wing pseudo scientists and corporate employees. Of all the republicans running for President in America, none of them believe in climate change, although most of them have had at least one high school chemistry class. The heavier the chemical element, the greater its capacity for heat absorption. Carbon is heavier than nitrogen and oxygen. Carbon, for millions of years, has been a trace element in earth's atmosphere. Now, its growing, rapidly, in atmospheric abundance, and temperature measurements are right on schedule. This liberal hoax, to give credit where credit is due, is most compelling.

Turning American Football Back Into Rugby, For Safety

SO FAR THIS FOOTBALL SEASON nineteen players have died while playing, and although the season isn't quite over, fortunately, its close. All of the deaths were at the high school level or younger. Causes range from extreme dehydration to brain trauma to sudden cardiac arrest, presumably resulting from extreme over exertion. Two hundred thousand concussions a year occur at the high school level of below, but we love our football. We used to call it "ringing the bell", and urge victims to shake it off. Actually, excessively hard hitting American football is not new. It was recently revealed that Frank Gifford, who played in the late fifties and early sixties, had indeed suffered from brain trauma, like so many others who have recently retired. Gifford, who carried the football and therefore got tackled often and hard, was apparently subjected to a large number of particularly hard hits, perhaps because he was targeted for being a pretty boy. but its gotten worse, much worse, in this modern era of rock hard football helmets which are being used as offensive weapons rather than protection. Consider rugby, football's ancestor. Ever popular around the world, rugby is not lacking in solid body contact, but the injuries are much milder, usually a broken tooth or a bruise here and there, even though ruggers don't wear pads and helmets. maybe because they don't wear protection, rugby players make contact with each other for a good reason, within the desired results of competition. American footballs no longer are content to block and tackle; now, they must hit, and hit hard. Coaches and parents, belatedly and reluctantly, are starting to respond to this tragic circumstance, and there is talk of "rugby-fying" the sport. A simpler solution is right at our fingertips: its called the "unnecessary roughness" penalty. We use this only to protect quarterbacks; it could and probably should be used to protect all other players as well. a few more yellow flags could well result in fewer premature deaths. the only problem is; where oh where would the American people, hungry for vicarious violence, ever get their fix?

Distinguishing Good People From Bad People

YESTERDAY'S EPISODE of the great American slaughter saga was perpetrated by good people, not bad people. There are, according to conservative pseudo intellectuals, two kinds of people: good, and bad. Give handguns to all the good people, and keep guns away from all the bad people, problem solved. Anyone who goes astray in public, and waxes violent, and starts to spray bullets randomly, will instantly be gunned down by a good Samaritan - gun toting - good person before he or she bad person can reload. The fact that we are all both good and bad, and can turn the switch on and off in a heartbeat never crosses the minds of conservative intellectuals; its one, or the other, period. But again, the married couple with good records, good jobs, and a six month old daughter obtained their weapons legally, because they were good people, good people who mysteriously turned bad. Oh, but they were Muslims! Hint: that does not make them bad people, any more than being christian makes someone a good person. Again, they had perfect records, good jobs, were lawfully married, had started a family - and then blew away fourteen people and wounded seventeen others without the slightest trace of warning. Sometimes bad people are well disguised as good people, and nobody but nobody can tell the difference. Otherwise, the married couple would never have been issued firearm licenses. So much for the theories of conservative intellectuals. There are more guns than people in the United states of Ammunition. Thousands of people die each year from gun violence in America, half of them are suicides. Whether they are good people or bad people becomes moot. If the federal government decided to take away all civilian guns, all the gun toting christian conservatives would doubtless die defending their right to defend themselves, as they claim they would. and the ATF would perhaps be happy to assist. Jesus, guns, and money, defended unto death, in the cold dead hands of america's most righteous.

Purchasing Political Power

U.S. SENATE MAJORITY LEADER John McConnell has more letters in his last name than he needs, and less sense in his political ideology. He wants to take a bad situation, and make it worse. He wants to eliminate limits on campaign contributions made to political parties and political candidates. Since 2010, the year in which the U.S. supreme court decided that money is a form of free speech, Political Action Committees have sprouted all across the fruited plain, accumulating vast treasure troves of money from super rich folks, and using it to buy advertising, and thus elections, for candidates of choice. Politicians are currently owned and controlled by political action committees, and MccConnnell them to be owned and controlled more directly, by the established (republican) party system. People who consider politicians to be all crooks are quite correct; they accept bribes from contributors, and thus become beholden to them, bound to do their bidding. but direct contributions to parties and candidates are still limited by law, and this is what the Kentucky Senator wishes to change. His reasoning is that by so doing, influence of PACs will be equalized by direct party influence, and, after all, its the parties themselves that matter, and its the parties themselves which should have at least as much purchasing power as the outside, unregulated PACs. In other words, since we have a corrupt system, equalize the corruption, and spread the wealth. This is insanity, because the reasonable answer consists in only seven simple words, or, if you prefer, nine: "the sale and purchase) of political advertising is prohibited." The man of many letters is hugely successful at raising campaign funds - why wouldn't he want to play the game at an even higher level? The American political system is utterly corrupt, corrupted by big money. Why wouldn't the rest of us want to do away with it, and establish something more closely resembling a democratic political system in which we the people are actually represented?

Contending In Vain, Against Stupidity

IN THE NEAR FUTURE a solar energy revolution, which has already begun, will sweep around the world, and save us all from the catastrophic effects of climate change. When that happens, all the climate change deniers, aka American conservatives, will shrug and say: " we tried to tell you all along that climate change was only a liberal hoax, and that there was nothing to worry about." And you know what? So what? Let the fools save face! Einstein said: "the difference between genius and stupidity is that genius is somewhat limited". The ancient Greek philosopher Agathon said: "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." Then came P.T. Barnum, with his cogent and prescient observation that "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." The Europeans in general, many of whom have taken a chemistry class, find it amazing that anybody anywhere would doubt the simple, provable, observable science of climate change. They are stunned when they are told that nearly one third of all Americans deny it, merely because they, the conservative fools who deny it, understand that accepting climate change means accepting the need for fundamental change in human civilization, which, as we know, is anathema to those who embrace tradition and shun innovation. We should all be amazed at their stupidity. Or should we? The people who deny the obvious reality of the heat retention property of carbon also tend to embrace a primitive cult of human sacrifice as universal truth, and tend to believe that we would all be better off if we went around carrying guns. American conservatives believe that tens of millions of liberals worldwide, who should know better, are engaged in and duped by a conspiracy to use the "myth" of climate change as an excuse to foster government power and redistribution of wealth. There is no cure for stupidity, and unfortunately, seldom one for insanity.

Achieving Enlightenment Through Tragedy, and Becoming Transcendently Happy

THERE IS A MAN in France who has gotten off the wheel, the ever repeating cycle of birth, life, suffering, and death, and elevated himself to a higher, transcendent level. This he has done through an extraordinary act of self control, a simple act of the will, of restraint. When terrorists killed his wife in Paris, a wife with whom he is and will always be in love, he simply refused to give her killers the gift of his anguish and his hatred. We are born into this world again and again, so says the philosophy of Buddhism, to live, to suffer, and, hopefully, to spiritually grow. With sufficient growth, we remove ourselves from the wheel of eternal struggle, and reach a state of eternal peace. In the Dhammapada, a book of wisdom, it says: "Mind foreruns all conditions. Mind is chief. Of mind are they made. If one speaks or acts with wicked mind, because of this, evil follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draft ox. He beat me, he abused me, he defeated me, he robbed me. The hatred of those who harbor such thoughts is never appeased. If one speaks or acts with pure mind, because of this, happiness follows one, even as the shadow which never leaves. He beat me, he abused me, he defeated me, he robbed me. The hatred of those who do not harbor such thoughts is always appeased. And this is a law eternal." And so it seems, and therefore so it is.According to Buddhist belief, we live many lives in order to ascend, which, with enough growth, we do. Some of us are old souls with many lives behind us, and some of us are young souls, with many lives ahead. This man in France, whoever he is, has done what few can do. He has, it seems, lived enough lives to know wisdom, and because of this, has escaped the cycle of birth and death. Perhaps he beckons the rest of us to join him. He must be very happy. He deserves to be.