Setting It Straight

AMID ALL THE SMUG, arrogant, banal provincialism among America's conservative country Christian senior citizens, there are points of light. There is therefore hope. I have some friends among these folk. The educated, progressive, open minded ones are my friends. Evolution and climate change deniers need not apply. Well, we all have our blind spots. To this very day, I tend to wax a bit recalcitrant about quantum mechanics. But...evolution? Gimme a break! Formally educated, progressive senior citizens are somewhat rare in my neck of the woods. The "informally educated" conservative seniors are the norm. At Harvard, everyone is required to study everything. When we educate ourselves, we tend to select learning which only reinforces what we already know. We learn less when we do not learn from others. A man at the senor center said: "rump's approval rating is down to thirty five percent, but heck, I'll bet ninety five of every hundred people survey were democrats. Roll your ryes. if you had a poll taking business, and your survey and polling company were your business, your livelihood, how likely is it that you would try to distort your own polling merely because you dislike a particular politician? Wouldn't be a very good way to run a business, would it? Guns don't kill people. Neither do any other inanimate objects. And yet, what American is not emotionally moved by the sight of the flag, the sound of the anthem? The Lincoln Memorial always removes a man's hat. We are influenced by inanimate objects, whether we choose to be. Guns don't kill people; they just passively assist. And no, America did not begin to decline when we turned away from God. We have not turned away from God, and America is not declining. At least, nothing so drastic that a little efficient allocation of resources wouldn't fix. Seniors should be old enough to understand all that.

Demanding That We Do Something

AS A TRUE BLUE LEFT WING believer online, I get all kindsa emails from leftie organizations urging me to do this, do that, sign this, sign that, petitions, political campaigns, please donate, etc. I never send money, to anyone, over the internet, no matter how good the cause. I sign petitions until I'm blue in the face. I can only hope they help. Today I got one which said that all over freedom's land, high school students were engaging in, and planning to engage in ever more, various forms of protest activities, walk outs of classes and such, in protest of the incredible amount of gun violence that has afflicted our nation's public schools for the last twenty years or so, or rather, for what seems like forever, demanding an end to it, demanding that our political leaders, great and wise that they are, actually get off their arses and, like, do something about it. The email further indicated that all across freedom's land school boards, school administrations, the various powers that be at the local public school, are planning to threaten students who engage in such activities in protest of gun violence with suspension from school, or other punishments, as deemed fitting and appropriate by the exalted powers that be. The organizers of the online petition wanted me to sign it to prevent students who protest from being punished. Exactly how an online petition could possible prevent any local school district from suspending students for walking out of class I did not discover, but, its a good cause, the protesting and this petition, so I signed it. A high school senior told me that on March 17, high school students all across freedom's land are going to have a national walk out, protesting gun violence, demanding action. Shouldn't the rest of us join and support them? All they want is sensible gun control, assault weapons ban, background checks, and so forth. Should we not all join hands with our brave and brilliant high schoolers, all ten or twenty million of them or however many their are, and put a stop to the madness? When I was in high school, nearly fifty years ago, we walked out in protest of the Viet Nam War. to this day I am proud of that protest. We need protest more than ever now. Long live the high school students anti-gun protest!

Disarming, Or Arming, For Peace

EINSTEIN SAID "You cannot simultaneously prepare for war and preserve peace". Or maybe the part about preserving peace came before the war prep part. Maybe the comment was "you cannot simultaneously preserve peace and prepare for war." (Age does terrible things to one's memory). But either way, its the same statement, a statement of a negative, mathematical, mutually exclusive pair of circumstances. And, at first glance, it seems like a true statement, a statement which makes good sense. How does war prep make peace more likely than war? Good question, one might think. But alas, its quite the opposite of what we often hear about "peace through strength", the philosophy that a nation like the United States, say, better insures peace by being and remaining militarily as well as economically strong. Mutual Assured Destruction, and all that. Being militarily mighty deters potential enemies from attacking, and so forth. But what about military might as a force which might tempt the militarily mighty into making war? Is there any truth to that notion? The frequency with which the united States has become involved in wars has, in fact, greatly increased since Pearl harbor,the attack on Pearl Harbor being the event after which the U.S. decided to remain on a permanent war time military and economic mode. Before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. tended to disarm when there was no war, and to rapidly become armed when a war occurred. But the big war put the fear of God, or war, or whatever into us, and to this very day, we are always prepared for war, but also always at war, and always have been, since World War Two. The same sort of thinking seems to be the basis for people who advocate that the best way to reduce or end mass murder in America is to arm as many good citizens as possible, including teachers in the classroom. if the United States becomes an increasing well armed society, will it become less, or more violent? A highly relevant questions, one might think. The mental health, psychological, and sociological community, the people who determine who is mentally healthy and who isn't, and who determine who and who isn't "qualified" to carry weapons; those folks appear to be leaning towards disarming for less violence, rather than arming for less violence. It is to be hoped that our lawmakers pay as much attention to mental health professionals as they do to billionaires who like guns.

Finding A Way

PRESIDENT TRUMP speaks before the Conservative PAC convention today, and will be well received, it is assumed, like he was last year, when he was newly president. he will name his conservative accomplishments, and will receive approval. For most of his well publicized and documented life, Donald Trump has not seemed like or been widely seen as a 'conservative"; he espoused pro choice, socialized health care values, and so forth. Somehow, his recent and current political orientation seems businesslike, as if he has adopted the proper position to gain the support of conservative America, including conservative Christian America. Conservatives, after all, are mostly Christians, and Christians are mostly conservative. The evangelical Christian community has cast its lot with Trump, and the longer he remains president, four years, eight years, or a few more days, the more entangled evangelicism will remain tied to Trumpism. Whether this is the best strategy will, in the fullness of time, be revealed. Much might depend on how the remainder of the Trump administration plays out. Suppose, for instance, that the Donald convinces North Korea to disarm, that the economy booms and the corporate tax cut stimulates a huge expansion of production and job creation, that Trump reaches stable arrangements in Iraq and Afghanistan and removes all American troops at long last from those perpetual war zones, and that all the various investigations into Trump's alleged misbehavior come to nothing. Then, likely, our conservative Christian brothers and sisters will be proud of their support of Trump. If, on the other hand, Trump's approval ratings remain in the dumpster, and or he is indicted, tried, and convicted of treason and obstruction of justice among other crimes, then..what? How will our conservative Christians, known for their shrewd calculating strategizing, cope with Trump, and separate from him without damage to their reputation? One thing we know for sure; they'll find a way.

Doing It Right, For A Change

THE GREAT STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA has eighteen congressional districts, and the number of democrats and republicans is very nearly equal, a true "purple" state. And yet, there are currently thirteen republicans and only five democrats in the Pennsylvania congressional delegation. this is no accident. After the 2010 census, when every state makes whatever adjustments to its districting map dictated by demographic changes, the republicans were in control of Pennsylvania, and deliberately redrew the map so as to elect as many republicans and as few democrats as possible. This is done by squeezing democrats into districts which might enhance their chances of winning a single election, while losing all the others. The congressional districting map of Pennsylvania was redrawn to look like a pile of entangled snakes, or Bullwinkle the Moose, rather than nice, neat, straight edged squares, which is normal and sensible. The tactic is called "Gerrymandering", named after a Revolutionary War era politician who elevated the trick to a fine art. Its been used ever since, by all political parties in power, by today's G.O.P. has done Mr. Gerrymander proud with their creative designs. finally, at long last, the federal court system is putting an end to the corrupt practice. Pennsylvania now has a newly redrawn map, with nice, neat, sand rectangular districts replacing the squiggly snakes. It is believed that the new, court ordered arrangement will help the democrats win back as many as five or six seats later this year, which would be a more accurate reflection of the state's actual make up. The Pennsylvania state republican party is all in a tizzy, not surprisingly, and is filing legal appeals left and right, which will probably come to nothing. Politically ambitious people hate having their corruption exposed and brought to an end. Power, as they say, corrupts. The same scenario is likely to happen all across the great American fruited plain, which, along with the Trump presidency and the republican congress, their extreme lack of popularity, might contribute to some much anticipated democratic success. If this country wants to be governed by a bunch of right wing zealots, fine. But if so, surely it can be allowed to happen fairly, honorably, without the right wingers having to cheat to gain power. 'their cheating seems to be coming to an end.

Dealing With Guns

THE BRILLIANT RIGHT WING REDNECK on the radio actually said: "if the liberals want to live in a country where the government doesn't let people own guns, they can go to north Korea or China. I'll even pay for their ticket". I thought well. OK, fine. I get to choose which gun free country to move to, and the generous rightwing redneck pays for my one way ticket. Its a deal! Right now, I'm leaning towards England or Australia, but am still considering a Scandinavian county or perhaps somewhere on the European continent. All of these are countries in which the government, with much popular support, decided that the answer to gun violence is not more gun ownership, but less. And maybe they have a point, whether or not they are entirely correct in their strategy, or whether that strategy is applicable to America. In the United States, it may well be that the amount of gun violence would drastically decrease if all good American citizens, or most of them, were armed and ready to stop would be mass murders dead in their tracks before they ever got started. There is, however, something vaguely dubious about this idea. So, the FBI received a warning in advance about our latest mass murderer, just like they receive thousands of such warnings every day. almost all of these warnings are needless; almost all weird people who utter or write violence thoughts never act on them. So, how is the FBI to know, in advance, who will shoot whom, when, and where? If they start locking up everyone about whom they receive a warning, just listen to the uproar over civil rights and the police state. Well, as they say, whatever works. Maybe America should try both approaches, and then compare results. first, arm as many good people as possible, and over a period of a few years, count the bodies. If we're happy with the number, keep everyone armed. if the bodies begin to pile up, than, by majority rule, disarm. Unless all available information and statistics are fake news, a fabrication of a vast anti-gun liberal conspiracy, England and Australia are far less violent and far happier without guns than they were with them.

Identifying Stereotyping

BACK WHEN TRUMP was focusing on finding a way to get and keep all Muslims out of the country, I remember having a conversation with someone, presumably a christian conservative, concerning not only the advisability of the idea of keeping all Muslims out of America, turning them away at the borders, but the practical aspects of it, and I decided to argue against it not on any moral, religious, or legal and constitutional grounds, but rather, on the basis of practicality, on the basis of determining how enforceable it would be. I painted a picture of Islamic people, very badly wanting to enter the U.S., and declaring at the border their strict allegiance to the Christian faith, only to resume their Islamic religiosity once safely inside the country and free as a bird. What, after all, could or would prevent someone, anyone, from doing exactly that? Religion, I tried to point out, is entirely inside the head, entirely within the person, and is not a skin color, a clothing style, nor does it have anything to do with general personal appearance. Quite, simply , you cannot tell a person's religion by looking at him or her any more than you can tell a person's attitude about politics and economics by looking at them. A shocking number of Americans seem to think that you can tell a Muslim by "just looking at them".. which, upon a moment's thought, makes absolutely no sense at all. An excellent new study titled "Islamophobia and Racism in America" by Erik Love points out that Americans everywhere conflate terrorism with Islamic religion, although there is no evidence that this is a true reflection of reality, and also categorize Muslims racially as a racial group, which, obviously, they are not That makes even less sense, since the world's nearly two billion Muslims come in all nationalities, skin colors dress styles, and cultural features. Stereotyping is a lazy intellectual way to cope with the world's infinite variety. The real world is far more complicated and confusing than our prejudicial stereotypes, but, overall, far more interesting and worthy of admiration.

Getting Hillary, As Usual

HILLARY CLINTON was right; there really and truly is a vast right wing conspiracy, as she famously put it. Other names for it are: The heritage Foundation, the Koch Brothers, or the billionaires Club. Take your pick. If all that isn't right wing and vast, then nothing is. If you happen to currently be a member of congress, and you are a very conservative republican, chances are you owe your election to the vast right wing conspiracy, which does more than merely spend hundreds of millions of dollars on suitable candidates. it also tries to destroy careers. Journalist David Brock was recruited by the Heritage Foundation in 1992 to dig up or fabricate dirt on the Clintons, in order to destroy their political careers. When Bill was elected president, there came to be an urgent necessity to destroy Hillary, which continues to this day, and has yet to prove anything against her. She's never even had a parking ticket, public records reveal. David Brock. the more he researched the Clintons looking for dirt, the more he came to admire them. Eventually he became their friend and supporter. His book "Blinded By the Right" details his personal journey from ultra right wing hit man, to progressive thinker. The far right is still at it. There latest fabrication concerns something called "the deep state", which is a vast left wing conspiracy to bring down Trump, a conspiracy of current government employees, liberal, democrats, and the mainstream left wing media. Quite obviously no such thing as the "deep state" actually exists, but, that what right wing fanatic ever let a few facts get in the way of their extremist agenda?

Defending Freedom From Religion

FERVENTLY I HAD HOPE IT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN, but, alas, it has. Some Christian conservative with the prescription for giving unto America just what the doctor ordered asserted, in my presence, that America started going downhill the very moment that prayer was removed from public schools. That would have been...what...1962? It was not, if memory serves, a particularly close or hotly debated topic. there seems to have been at the time a fairly widespread consensus among American intellectuals that the separation of church and state was worth defending. The word "God" does not appear in the constitution - for a reason, a very good reason. Every American is and must forever remain free to practice any religion, or no religion, and for that reason alone, all government structures must be free from all religion, including religious activities and rituals. We must all have the freedom to be free from religion. government must remain secular, as it has always been, and was carefully designed to be by the founders. Arguably, America started going downhill when a group of greedy get rich quick schemers arrived in Virginia in 1607, and when they introduced slavery into their community in 1619. Or when, in 1620, a group of intolerant religious fanatics arrived in Massachusetts. One can use any date or event one chooses to describe the alleged beginning of America's deterioration, or, it is also possible to argue that America never has "gone downhill", and isn't about to begin doing so now, or ever. America's problems might have more to do with a loss of manufacturing or economic inequality or perhaps environmental damagey rather than public prayer, or its absence.

Stacking The Courts, Losing Reality

AT FIRST I THOUGHT the "Judicial Watch" publication/organization, as the name implies, existed for the purpose of monitoring and scrutinizing America's judicial system, presumably as a citizen safeguard against corruption, and in defense of the sacred concept of equal justice under law. Aa contraire. Belatedly, it dawned on me that this noble and lofty purpose had nothing at all to do with Judicial Watch. The actual purpose, I finally discerned, is to help facilitate the appointment and election of conservative magistrates, at all levels. By what set of criteria is conservatism a requisite for appointment to a judgeship? Should it even matter whether a potential judicial nominee or candidate is conservative or liberal in his or her personal ideology? No, it shouldn't. What should matter, the only thing that should matter, is whether a person is qualified, competent to render equal justice under law. Judicial Watch has spent far more time and money trying to incriminate Hillary Clinton than in monitoring and encouraging the practice of justice in America, sadly. Now, the group is engaged in the dubious endeavor of warning the country that a "deep state", consisting of federal employees, democrats, the left wing news media, and perhaps others hidden parties is organized and dedicated to bringing down the Trump presidency. As proof, they cite the very existence of the Muller investigations as a sort of secret coup. Alas, Judicial Watch is nothing but another is a growing tiresome list of right wing groups which, having lost all hold on reality, are desperately trying to protect the country from the forces of progressive change. A challenge to Judicial Watch: find and identify for us all one person, a single member of the "Deep State". Anyone, anywhere. It'll never happen.

Paying For "National Defense", in the Era of Empire

IN OUR NEW NATIONAL BUDGET, the one we as well as our children's children will pay for, like it or not, conservative republicans, who proudly proclaim their devotion to fiscal responsibility during the Obama administration, voted for a set pf expenditures which will explodes this year's deficit, and increase the national debt by trillions, well beyond the current twenty tril now owed by the U.S. government, and therefore, by us. A large part of this is for the military, what many, especially conservatives, blithely and laughably refer to as "national defense" National defense it aint. We had that covered long ago. What increased military expenditures mean now is "national offense". A one point five million member military, fourteen aircraft carriers, thousands of nuclear bombs loaded onto planes and submarines, and missile, all ready to launch at a moment's notice - it would appear that America is quite well 'defended", and has been for a very long time, since at least World War Two, if not before. American military might is intended, now, and has been for a long time, to be able to project, exert, utilize, and exploit military might to coerce, conquer and occupy, in pursuit of America's "national security interests", as it is blithely called. America's national security interests include, first and foremost, making the world safe for American corporate expansion and control, and making the world into a place wherein American will an be imposed, at will. Welcome to the American empire, which came into being either in 1776, a846, 1898, or 1950, take your pick, depending on your particularly interpretation of events and their meaning. The last time American military spending was increased for "defensive" reasons was shortly after December 7, 1941. Since then, its all been about empire.

Coming to Terms With Reality

CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS have, in the past, tried to maintain that the whole idea of man made climate change is a hoax, an invention of the liberal mainstream media, an invention of the Chinese to undermine American greatness, a vast left wing conspiracy, presumably with tens of thousands of scientists in on the conspiracy. Needless to say, all these wacko theories are bit even believed by their proponents, which invariably consist of members of the conservative Republican American Christian community (CRACC). These are the kind of people who willingly accept and embrace myth at truth, the ones who insist that the believe is literally true, though, again, they undoubtedly know better, deep down. They've had basic science most of them. I've gotten tired of trying to persuade Cracc people to understand that they can accept the reality of human made climate change without compromising their conservative values one iota, because, to date, I've had no luck. People will do anything to cling to their sacred beliefs, including self deception. Conservatives believe in tradition, which, in this case, is the use of fossil fuels with impunity, with no perceived damage to the environment. Acknowledging climate change means admitting the need for fundamental change, which to conservatives is taboo. Better to herd them all into a classroom for a god, solid, one hour course of basic chemistry. Get some really convincing, charismatic scholar from, say, Harvard to go through it with them. The one great truth that climate change deniers need to understand is that the climate change scientists of the world, all of them, are constantly and forever trying to disprove the truth of climate change. That's the way science works. whatever reality seems to be, keep investigating, and keep trying to improve our knowledge of it. Particularly, scientists are always trying to finds flaws in, to disprove their own work, so they can come up with something better. So far, they've had no luck. Trying to disprove man made climate change is like trying to disprove evolution by natural selection, relativity, and quantum mechanics; it just ainta gonna happen. Fossil fuels can be replace through capitalistic economic activity, and nobody has to give up his or her religion, guns, or money. that by itself should comfort and reassure conservative Republican American Christians.

Inventing Racism

RACISM plays such an important role in our American society today, and has been so prominent throughout American history, it is tempting, even natural, for Americans to assume that "racism" per se, the notion that the human species can be and is divided into several different races - the exact number varies widely - is widely assumed to be older than dirt, older than the stars, having been around forever. however, actually, racism is a rather modern invention. The fourteenth century is a good estimate. Before then, all the way back to Greek and ancient oriental cultures, groups of people were singled out as enemies, inferior, or whatever. But these inferiors were always described in terms of where they lived, how they dressed, how they lived, what they did, and so forth. Actual skin pigmentation was secondary, if mentioned at all. When people like Christopher Columbus began imposing the European will upon people in various part of the world, including the Caribbean and Africa, most particularly enslaving them, race was cited as justification. Portuguese travel diaries started making mention of skin color, and associating it with qualities which they thought rendered certain groups inferior, deserving of enslavement. There is a fascinating Podcast, "The Invention of Race", which details the process. The British colonies in America, all through the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, perfected racism, elevating the idea to never seen prominence. The United States became the most racist culture in human history, and, arguably, still is. the rest of the world, however, has caught on quickly, and contributed to the questionable concept of "race" by embracing it. Perhaps the next step in human cultural evolutional will be to allow racism to fade out of existence, as a bad idea, an invention whose time has come to cease to exist.

Building The Wall, Or Not

PRESIDENT TRUMP, the self proclaimed "stable genius" assures ua that the fifty billion dollar trade deficit the U.S> has with Mexico proves that not only can Mexico pay for the wall, but that they shall. Where he gets this, nobody seems to know. In the first place, the trade deficit has to do entirely with money that corporations and individuals owe each other across borders, and has nothing to do with government money. The Mexican government can't afford tp pave roads, pay for health insurance, or education and medical care, much less a wall it doesn't want and isn't going to build. There has so far been no congressional action on the wall, nor on any aspect of immigration, which was cowardly-ly left out of the much celebrated but greatly bloated budget that passed in the wee hours last night Not building the great wall of Trump is a no brainer, as they say. Border patrol will tell you that if you build an eighteen foot wall, folks'll bring a nineteen foot ladder. Then too, much of the two thousand mile long border is too rugged for wall building, and much of the land on the American side is privately owned. Can we say "imminent domain mess"? A wall along the entire Rio Grande would disrupt numerous species of animals which need to migrate back and forth from Mexico to the U.S. on a regular basis, for survival. Were I in congress, if and when the bill for the wall comes up, you could count on me to rise and proclaim: "no problem! The president promises that Mexico will pay for it, so , let's just sit back and watch Mr. Trump work is business acumen deal making magic!" How long do you suppose we'd be waiting?

Tipping The Wealthy

TIPPING has always seemed like a strange custom to me, for some reason. I'm not sure why. On the surface, its harmless enough, and has advantages. I've always vaguely wondered whether business owners and servers ever fight over tips, or if employees often do. Turns out, they do, as I could have guessed. In general, restaurant owners have always felt that they should get all the tips; servers, people we used to call "waiters" and 'waitresses" have always believed that they should be the beneficiary of the large largesse. All across the fruited plain, billions of businesses work out their own system. The general public tends to support the worker, and, traditionally, so has the fed gov, in the form of Department of labor "suggestions". Now, all that's set to change, as the Trump administration Labor Department is wanting to issue a reg requiring al tips be declared the property of business ownership, right from the start Corporate America, once again, rearing its ugly head, acting through its puppets, Trump and the conservative capitalistic republicans, so friendly to big business and big wealth, from whom republicans get their money, and oh so unfriendly to America's huge an struggling poor working class. There ahs already been expressed opposition to this idea, so, it may never become reality. let's hope not. if it does, my tipping days, such as they are, are over. business owners like to claim that it they could control the tips, they could redistribute them more fairly, and appropriately, If you believe that, I've a parcel of land in central Florida I'll sell you. Business owners can predictably be counted on to distribute their money straight into their own accounts. that's what makes them good business people.

Eliminating Power

LORD ACTON was quite right. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. This is scientific truth, not homespun wisdom. It has been verified by hard scientific research. Power brings out human evil. History proves it, over and over again, including current history. The world is a miserable madhouse because enough people have enough power, and are thus sufficiently corrupt, to make it so, a madhouse full of violence, disease, poverty, and all the rest. One solution, a step in the right direction, would be to remove the excessive power of the excessively powerful, and redistribute it among the masses, thus rendering everyone equally, modestly, harmlessly powerful. When people have power over other people, bad things happen. Humans abuse power automatically, by trying to use it for personal advantage. Conflict results. there are better ways to organized society and human activities than coercion. The answer is actual democracy, everywhere, including and particularly in the workplace. Many social scientists, including the great Noam Chomsky, advocate for the elimination of all forms of authority and coercive power. Chomsky likes his job at M.I.T>, because the faculty, himself included, runs the various departments, largely without close administrative oversight. As he says, the inmates run the asylum. He should know, he's been at M.I.T. sixty two years. Not bad for a socialist anarchist.

Trump, Acting Like A Guilty Man

PRESIDENT TRUMMP IS BEHAVING, and has been behaving for a very long time, like a man who is very, very afraid. and it may well eventuate that he has good reason for it. Muller's investigation is still ongoing after, what, a year? That alone tells you that something is up, something is worth investigating. All the charges and bargains being worked out against and with Trump's campaign people are also alarming, Trumpestically speaking. Muller already has a big haul of criminals, or, shall we say, indicted people, and the criminals are getting closer to the president, and include some of his top advisors and campaign people, under indictment. Trump knows, or at least has some vague idea, of whether or not he worked with the Russians to help his campaign. He knows whether he's guilty, even if he is in denial. So, let's ask this: If the investigation truly is a "witch hunt", as Trump claims, why is he trying to get it stopped? Why do we not hear our president saying things like: "I want the investigation to continue, to be thorough, and complete, and when it reveals no wrongdoing on my part, then, I can show everyone how stupid the whole thing was, and that it was in fact a witch hunt, like I always said". Why do we not hear this? If he were innocent, he would want Muller to find out, and confirm it. Then, Trump would be on top. Why, then, is the President trying to interfere with Muller's work, as much as he can? For that, dear reader, is exactly what he is doing, and the only possible motivation is that: the president is guilty as hell.

Paying Up

IF, and its a big "if", G.E. ACTUALLY ENDS UP PAYING twenty one percent of its gross revenues income in income tax under the new system, it will be a considerable improvement over the old system, under which it often paid nothing, due to endless deductions. Have the deductions been eliminated, or merely hidden? Anyone? Will General electric finally pay something, share the wealth, give something back to America, even if its not much, not enough? Stay tuned. Wy we don't simply pass a law making it illegal for American corporations to send money, business, and labor out of the country without permission is nearly, but not entirely, incomprehensible. Freedom, and all that. Freedom to get government out of our economic lives so we can seriously compete, attack and destroy each other, and have a truly Darwinistic economy of big winners and many, many poor losers? Hell, we already have that. Living in a country governed by an elite corporate oligarchy, in which all political leaders are chosen by billionaires, has its benefits, maybe, but definitely it has its downside. Maybe we need a law requiring all business which now pay less than thirty five percent in income tax to subtract their tax bill from thirty five percent, and pay the difference to low wage workers. One suspects that this so called two percent wage increase we at hearing about due to the recent tax law is benefitting people who don't need it, and not benefitting low wage people who truly do need it. The new tax law redistributes money from the poor to the wealthy. what we need is the opposite effect. A close monitoring of future corporate activity should reveal what is actually happening to the money saved in corporate tax payments.

Facing Reality

NOW KNOW, for a fact, beyond all doubt or argument, that the Russian government tried to influence Trump's presidential election, tried to further divide us the American people, as if we weren't already sufficiently divided, did so successfully, perfectly legally, on Facebook. Agreed? Agreed. Any American who denies any of this at this point is head in sand ostrich, and therefore a coward, if not a traitor. The Russian government, the owners of Facebook, Trump, and Trump's supporters are all to blame, and why not throw in the rest of us, we the American people, for good measure. All the above should and shall be held responsible, especially if the three ongoing investigations discover corroboration between Russian operatives and Trump's campaign, as Muller and company would appear, upon cursory examination, appear to be in the process of doing. Thorough research clearly reveals the activity on Facebook over the past three years; more is being learned daily, as long as Muller has a job. If Trump fires him at this late date, all hell'll break loose, trust me. The administration will doubtless continue to fight the process tooth and nail, but at the end of the proverbial day will not escape the consequences of exposure of bad behavior, and soon too. If completed before November, the results could have a significant impact on the elections. Obviously, Trump Jr. met with Russian operatives during the campaign for a reason. What, possibly, could it have been? A god question is, hoe much did Facebook people know, if anything, about Russian involvement, and when did they know it? Just asking...Much to the consternation of anybody who voted for Trump and still supports him, who are morally culpable at facing moral hazard, verily, the truth shall emerge. However, people like that are accomplished at ignoring truth, replacing it with fake news, and dodging responsibility.

Watching, and Being

IN 1980, when the Cassini space probe flew past Saturn and sent back pictures, a friend and I sat in front of a grainy, boxy TV, staring......at....Saturn, for hours. Nothing ever happened, on the planet or in my house. Just Saturn, hanging out. I don't remember how many joints we smoked. Enough, probably, to be very content with the entertainment, just the two of us, and Saturn. She was beautiful, both my friend, and the planet. Nothing needed to happen for us to be quite content. There sat Saturn, changeless. Nothing slammed into it.I vaguely recall a human voice providing occasional commentary. My parents told me that when they got their first television set in the mid nineteen fifties, they watched it, even when no programs were on. The test pattern, and the snowy static were quite enough. Entertainment, it seems, is a state of mind, and a relative one. The venerable tradition of slow motion TV continues unabated and unmoving today in Norway, which has an entire channel devoted exclusively to it. Its surprisingly popular, as if the Norwegians are hungry for a breather. A camera, mounted to a freight train, shows scenery slowly changing for seven hours all across the country. At various times you can watch fish swim, for hours on end, or people quilting, or you can keep an eye on a bird's nest, where eagle's eggs await the next maternal visit. The bird's nest concept is also popular in the United States, and in Europe. for real fast paced action, you can watch a quilting circle making progress. Gripping. The message is; slow down, live in the moment, and appreciate doing it. the world will be in a hurry again soon enough. Studies clearly reveal the benefits of going slow, far beyond the usual reduction of mistakes and reduction of blood pressure. among the slow moving there manifests a state of mind conducive to enhanced imagination, and thus, higher creativity. Its worth a try.

Releasing the Memo In Desperation

EACH DAY ONE SHOULD seek, said Goethe, to read some good poetry, hear some good music, and, if at all possible, speak a few sensible words. In contemporary America, all three requirements are problematical, especially the third. We are exposed to bad examples. Consider President Trump. During the campaign, he incessantly accused Hillary Clinton of being "crooked", notwithstanding her lack of convictions. When the FBI announced two weeks before the election that it intended to reopen the investigation into Clinton, Trump approved, applauding the FBI. Later, when president Trump fired the FBI director, he named as his reason that the bureau had treated Hillary unfairly. The actual reason The real reason, obviously, was FBI director Comey's investigation of Trump's cooperation with a foreign power to try to win election. Trump tried to get Comey to stop the investigation, Comey did not comply, and was fired. Now, the infamous memo, put together by a Trump supporter in Congress, is another attempt to stop the FBI investigation by discrediting the agency, a desperate attempt which will not work, and may get the republicans in congress in trouble, along with Trump, for obstruction of justice. the desperate urgency with which Trump and his supporters are trying to derail the FI clearly demonstrates that they are extremely worried, and that worry can only be about the likely outcome of the investigation, which will likely occur soon. The memo accuses the FBI with improper, illegal behavior, allegations which must be proved to be accepted, but thus far, are from it. Indeed, supporters of the memo's alleged truth are trying to tell us that those who disagree with the memo must prove it is wrong, but no, the burden of proof always rests with the accuser, as we all know. Amid the desperate, last ditch attempts to spare Trump the results and consequences of the investigation, of Muller's independent investigation and the others, the Trump team is trying to avoid due process, but, ultimately, will not be able to.

Putting One's Bumper At Risk

WHEN MY "Unfit To Serve:Impeach Trump" bumper sticker arrived in the snail mail, my reluctance to duly affix it stemmed from my fear that the impeachment might occur before said affixation, rendering it instantly obsolete. I decided to take a chance, and affix. That was several months ago. Got it on just in time. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but, at length, they turn. To date, my car has not been vandalized, nor my property destroy, by any of the ultra conservative christian supporters of Trump who live in the small town where I precariously perch. I decided to park my car near the front entrance of my place of employment, as an experiment. The only effect I noticed was the emergence of a pattern wherein the evangelical conservatives, and the apocalyptic Pentecostals, began consistently rendering unto me contemptuous sideways glances. The Christian community overwhelmingly supports Trump. there is no reason for them to worry about climate change; by the time the planet becomes uninhabitable, they have long since been raptured into heaven, or wherever. A few prayers and a simple act of forgiveness and all moral considerations are reconciled, allowing a self proclaimed sexual predator to become president. The Republican party is the white christian party. the democratic party is the party of educated white people, and minorities. To the democrats, poor policy and a persistent pattern of highly questionable behavior trumps redemption. Redeem, but don't elect. Thirty percent of evangelical Christians believed in giving forgiveness to the president for his sins when Obama was in office. With Trump, the number is seventy two percent. The evangelical community is either becoming much more forgiving, or the president is becoming more conservative, and less African-American.

Protecting Principles, Losing Friends

PRINCIPLE, at least in principle, is more important then friendship. Friendship, like marriage, is of best dissolved. One's principles endure, if they have merit. In most instances its best to nurture a friendship than to be right, but not on matters of principle, what is now called "core values". I would rather risk losing a friend arguing with a climate change denier than avoid addressing the issue, but only if the climate change denier broaches topic. I never start a conversation about climate change, but I'll finish one, whether or not it finishes a friendship. First, I try to explain that man made climate change is neither a Chinese hoax nor a liberal conspiracy. If my friend-in-denial fails to accede in this, which portends trouble, I politely point out that any and all conspiracy theories require evidence, if not proof, to achieve credibility. Nor, I try to explain, was the term "climate change" invented to disguise the term "global warming", as conservatives often claim. it was invented to clarify, not conceal. Furthermore, the reason we now speak of carbon rather carbon dioxide is that the extra oxygen injected into the atmosphere is harmless, and needs no mention. The carbon is the culprit. Again, clarification, not concealment. Inevitably the denier claims that there exists no consensus on climate change, that opinions vary widely, and that, in any event science, science is wrong much of the time. None of this is true. there is indeed a universal consensus among scientists, the only dissenters being people paid by corporations and right wing Christians. One of my friends reminded me that scientists sometimes disagreed, as if that fact renders science invalid, as if he had exposed a fatal flaw in the scientific method. Scientists, I responded, do not disagree sometimes. they disagree constantly, trillions of times, which is why science works. Science constantly improves and corrects itself through self criticism, ultimately yielding truth. When a climate change denier reminds me that the climate is constantly changing naturally, and always has, without any human involvement, as if this fact is a law of nature which prevents all human causation, we have arrived at the summit. Thirty billion tons of carbon annually added to the atmosphere, for an aggregate of seven hundred and fifty billion tons, has an impact by remaining there always and absorbing heat, as clearly revealed by the laws of physics and chemistry. The heat absorption and retention properties of carbon is considerably greater than those of nitrogen and oxygen, whether the climate changes all by its lonesome or not. The science is simple, available to anyone, and has been for two hundred years. Scientists have talked about it for two centuries. The twisted reasoning of denying reality to defend conservative ideology is less simple, but understandable. We dislike having our cherished beliefs challenged, beliefs such as the conservative mantra that the status quo must be defended at all costs, or, better yet, we must return to the ways of bygone days. The arguing is worthwhile. It is possible to find new friends, but not a new ecosystem.

Releasing the Memo

THERE EXISTS, WE ARE TOLD, a top secret four page memo, drafted by a republican congressperson, outlining alleged inappropriate behavior by, among others, the FBI, pertaining to the various investigations into Donald trump's behavior. Several republicans assure us that upon the memo's release, which might be today, wondrous events will transpire/ Among these, perhaps, will be the exoneration of Donald J. Trump from even the mere appearance of any wrongdoing, the incarceration of Hillary Clinton, and, one might hope, the fulfillment of a long standing pledge to "make America great again", if that hasn't already happened. When America was most recently great, and precisely when it stopped being so, has never been articulated, and quite likely won't be. The democrats have their own memo waiting in the wings, with corrections and amendments to the republican version. The republican version is accused of cherry picking and distorting facts so as to make the FBI look guilty of misbehavior, and the FBI insists that the memo's release engenders the ability of the agency to function at full effectiveness. Nonetheless, the president, ever critical of the agency, desires transparency, at the risk of damaging the FBI's reputation. A few folks who have been given an inside look at the document have mentioned that it politicizes an investigative process which should not be in any way politicized, and should instead be conducted with impartiality and objectivity. The cherry picking, it is asserted, has led to faulty conclusions. We shall soon see. And why is this thing being called a "memo"? isn't a memo a note written on a small piece of sticky yellow paper which says something like: "meet Fran 4 lunch", stuck to a computer screen o r refrigerator? This thing is a four page essay, likely full of fabricated nonsense trying to convince a country which largely despises its president that the FBI can't do it job, and that therefore if it finds anything incriminating about the president, its invalid. Out your money of the FBI, not the G.O.P.