Fixing What Aint Broken

SOCIAL SECURITY, MEDICARE, AND MEDICAID are three foundational components of the American economic system, for two reasons.They have existed over a long period of time,and they have all proven to be marvelously efective in attaining their stated purpose. They have withstood the test of time. All three were and are intended to alleviate the financial burdens of post employment senior citizenship, by providing, as Roosevelt said; "some measure of security" to elderly and retired workers,and by guaranteeing medical health insurance to the same demographic. FDR gave us Social Seurity, LBJ completed the New Deal by signinginto law the other two. The premise is simple; people work their entire lives and contribute to the system,and when they need to use the system, their money is there, waiting for them. Savings accounts, in effect. All three programs have greatly improved the quality of life for tens of millions of Americans. Social Security has virtually eliminated desperate poverty among the elderly,Medicare has provided medical health security for the same demographic, and Medicaid has given America's many poor people basic medical care. One might almost think it impossible to favor financial cuts to any of the three, or to advocate their total elimination. And yet, many Republican political leaders do just that. Whether most of their constituents feel similarly remains uncertain. Certainly people who depend on these programs,and that includes a large percentage of Americans, do not. You would almost think that advocating against these programs would be political suicide.It should be, and indeed may well prove to be. Conservative Republicans have for years been saying that we the Amerian people want to be less rather than more like Europe. Surveys consistantly indicate that quite the opposite is true. As flim maker MIchael Moore points out, the Amerian people are basically, majority progressive. A majority of the American people are favorably inclined to socialism, as long as it isn't called "socialism". Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid,for those unconversant with the definition of "socialism", are socialism. I recall once,in a conversation with a conservative Republican, informing him of this obvious fact. He angrily recoiled at the very thought, and replied: "No, that's not socialism, that's just progress". Obviously he was quite happy with his monthly Social Security check,as well he should have been, for without it he would have probably been homeless. But so great was his contempt for the word "socialism", probably because of decades of corporate indoctrination, that he refused to call it what it is: "socialism". I can only presume that in his creative imagination, all public streets,bridges, highways,public schools,police and fire departments,and the military are all privately owned non governmental profit seeking businesses operating in the free market. Alarmingly, humorously, this lover and denier of soialism is typical of contemporary American conservative attitudes. The solution is simple. If enough people are willing to praise the virtues of our glorious free market capitalitic Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid programs, the Republicans will mmediatly on board,,and not only strongly support them, but propose legslation increasing government subsidies for them. Everyone knows how those Repubicans love socialism for the corporate wealthy, and neoliberal capitalism for everyone else.

Retiring

WE"VE SEEN IT BEFORE, recently. Mitch McConnell standing motionless in front of a group of journalists, holding a press conference, frozen, not moving, not speaking. Both times, the same scenario played out. McConnell standing frozen, speechless immediately after a question has been asked of him. The moment of his seeming inability to speak or move, lasts for nearly a half minute, the situation becoming more awkward by the second, the audience quiet, his assistants with facial expressions cannoting embarressment and impending panic, until finally one of them steps forward, and asks him whether he is alright, whether he heard the question. Finally regaing his presence and returning to awareness, he says that he is fine. Of course. What else could he say, what else would we expect him to say? A proud man, Mitch is by nature inclined to conceal his illnesses like a cat. Politicians,like musicians, never seem to retire. Like General MacArthur, they just fade away. Musicians die onstage, politicians die in office. In most professions most people either can barely wait to retire, or are forced to retire at a certain age prescribed by the rules of their profession. Poltiicians can get elected from the assistant living facility or from the grave,it seems. The same applies to Supreme Court justices, who cling to their power as long as possible, unconcstrained by any limits to their time of service. Sometimes, their judicial renderings show their encroaching cognitive and physical impairment.Sometimes,indeed often, politicians reveal their infirmities of advanced age in tragic fashion, by becoming inadequate representatives of their constituents. It is a law eternal that psople in positions of power almost never voluntarily relenquish their power. Power is among the most addictive of drugs. Musicians we appropriately give a pass to. No matter how old they become, their music seems to either get better, or to remain good. Then too, not only do they do no damage to anyone or to society in their dotage, they in fact continue to provide society the benefits of their art and entertainment. Mitch McConnell is the same age as Mick Jagger. Their pictures side by side, Mick looks infinitely younger, healthier, more vital and vigorous than Mitch. To prove it, he still cavorts around the stage, expending energy few people have, and still gives an incredibly good performance, as tens of thousnads of rock n roll fans worldwide can attest. Mick Jagger has had very much more of three staples of life than Mitch; sex, drugs, and exercise. It is evident that all three have not only not impeded his ability to withstand and measure up to the rigors of advancing age, but have contributed to his seemingly unending youth. In a democracy, political power should be widely distributed. Nobody should remain in office decade after decade, holding power despite diminishing abilities. We all deserve a chance to serve and to help govern. Mitch McConnell has had his, and then some. Now, its somebody else's turn. For the sake of American society and civilization, we must hope that Mick Jagger keeps rocking out as long as possible,and that Mitch McConnell leaves the political stage as soon as possible, which is now.

Batting A Plastic Ball Around

LIKE NEARLY EVERYONE ELSE, I wondered where the goofy sounding name "pickleball" originated. One might think,considering the youth of the sport, that its history and naming would be rock soild certan, without controversy or disagreement. It would be, but for the inconvenient fact that it was invented by humans beings, that history, the history of anything, including recent history, is always and inevitably subject to various versions and inerpretations, and, well, everyone knows what happens when a single sentence is repeated repeatedy by people sitting in a circle, drunk or sober. Thus we have inherited the "dog named 'Pickles'" version,and the pickle boat in crew racing" version, the term "pickle boat" meaning, the worst performing crew team. One solution to the goofiness of the name might be to convene an international conference of pickelball, and rename the sport by debate and vote,the way the Bible and the Christian religion was concocted in the year 325 A.D. That would of course be a mess, but, what the heck, it would be fun, and, isn't that, after all, what sports are all about? Pickleball was invented in 1965 on an island in Washington State. Of that we are certain. And we know the small group of people who invented it. whether they have been for decades and remain engaged ina swirling litigation fraight controversy concerning the precise identity of the inventor, who should get credit and royalties,is not known, but beear in mind, we are dealing with human beings. My friends and I, the neighborhood gang, invented a pickleballish sport in either 1966 or 1967. We draw a line across the front porch, cut some wooden paddles using a jig saw, burned the names of our two favorite major league baseball temas, one per paddle side,into our paddles, and used,if memory serves, a small rubber ball. On one side of my personal paddle I burned the "Detroit Tigers",on the pther, the "Pittsburgh Pirates". Not my two favorite teams, but I got last choice. We played for hours. Using a line on the concrete rather than a net made our little paddle sport all the more exciting. The points tended to be short,except for the fact that we tended to play cooperatively, trying to keep the ball moving as long as possible. In theory, there are at least one trillion to the upteenth power possible racket sports. Paddles,balls, courts, rules, of nearly but not quite infinite variety. A pickleball court is the size of a badminton court, and is sort of a cross between ping pong and tennis. Ah, how poignantly I remember the great tennis craze of 1975, my fourth year of playing. You couldn't get a court. People wer lined up, their rackets lodged in the chain link fence to signify order of play, restless folks waiting their turn. A few years later the courts were much quieter; the craze had abated. The current pickleball craze will suffer a similar fate, as all crazes, and all things pertainiing to humn beings, inevitably do. But pickleball, whatever named, will remain forever, as has tennis. When it finally slows down a bit, people will look back on all the fuss we now make about the noise of the game and how it drives suburbanites to distraction, the long lines for court time, and the crazy name of the game which amazingly somehow stuck. And, if our descendants have a good attitude, they'll have a chuckle.

Influencing

THERE ARE FEW IF ANY FORMS OF HUMAN BEHVIOR more reprehensible to me than proselytizing. Violence, for instance, thouhg worthy of condemnation under nearly all circumstances, nonetheless can, upon rare occasion, be justified. I can think of no circumstanes, no situation in which trying to influence another person to change religious beliefs is beneficial to the person being influenced, or to society, or to the advancement of human civilization. When people knock on my door who seem to be and indeed are standing there for that purpose, I usually don't answer the door. Why waste their time or mine? Sometimes i answer the door,and within minutes after the missionary announces his intention of "leading me to Christ", or whatever, I suggest that he might benefit more from being influneced by me than I by him. They deserve the opportunity to learn as much as I. They never seem to be interested. Sometimes I inform the seemingly well intentioned prostelyzer that my relationshp with God, with Jesus, with Buddha, and with everyone generally is quite satisfactory for me, and if they need to find out whether it is sacisfactory with the other party, they'll simply have to ask the other party. I've told evangelicals this before; that no matter whose religion you are trying to change, no matter who you are trying to lead to Christ, or to whomever, the person you are trying to lead is probably as intelligent and as well educated as you, and, in fact, may be more qualified to influence you than you are to influence them. To anyone who finds this insulting, reconsider. Reconsider your auttides about yourself, and others. It seems likely that you would do well to become more humble,less arrogant, less presumtuous, less convinced of your own intellectual, educational, spiritual, or religious superiority. The percentage of people who are confused or undecided about their own religiosity is, perhaps surpriingly, quite small. Most people have by the time they reach adulthood become firmly ensconced in and satisfied with their religious beliefs. Influencers should probably spend more time questioning their own religious beliefs than trying to change those of other people. Shame on anyone who is unwilling to listen to the opinions and beliefs of other people, unwilling to be educated by other people. But people must decide for themselves when and where, and under what circumstances they will receive their education, and who their influencers will be. Of particular concern for me are people who seek to indoctrinate their own children in the religion they themselves embrace. Children, as they age, grow, and learn, will seek out their own influencers, and will, sooner or later, determine what religios beliefs best suit them. All parents need to do is to provide their children with an opportunity to experience this vital process. Such opportunities are ubiquitous. In nearly all countries and all places, intelligent people are availalbe to provide guidance. Teachers and schools are available, as are books and libraries and various forms of media. The same is true of churches. In our modern world there are thousands of organized religions, plenty to choose from, and most of them are acessable to nearly everyone. Even in locales in which some or most of these benefits are not available, chances are than some still are, enough to provide children with the religious instruction and guidance they might need or seek. The crucial fact is that they must be allwoed to choose their own sources of influence, and their own religion. Strict, rigid religious indoctrination of children by anyone, including parents, is child abuse of the most serious and worst sort. Everyone has the fundamental, unalienable right to choose his or her own religious, spiritual path. The ultimate reality is, as Goethe said: "When I realized that everyone invents his own religion, I decided to invent mine." most serious and worst sort.

Seeking Basic Respect, Irreligiously

THE LADY plays the piano for our gospel singing group at the senior center. She does a good job, and without her the group would be all the poorer, musically. She is, not surprisingly, a very devout Christian. I, on ther other hand, am not. I am merely an ignornant man asking questions,as Socrates is reputed to have said, and my preferred religiosity is pantheism, the "religion" of Spinoza. I sing with the gospel group because, despite my general dislike of gospel music an religion, I consider the group a worthwhile community activity, I like to sing, and I consider it important to do more than merely profess to myself my openminded attitude; I consider it important to actually be openminded in deeds, as well as thoughts and words. I don't try ot persuade anybody to embrace my religiosity, and I never disparage anyone else's. I want to be honest with eeryone, however, to the best of my ability, and wheneer religious topics are broahced, I make sure to indicate to others that I am in fact not religious.I am content to leave it at that. When folks express their devotion to their lord Jesus christ, and I sense that they assume that I share their devotion,I inform them that I in fact do not. I don't want to take the risk of being misunderstood by the people with whom I associate. The piano lady knows I am not a Christian, and she worries my eternal soul. I frankly find her attitude insulting and condescending. I got into a converation with her recently. My purpose was to thank her for playing the piano,and to tell her that, despite my lack of religious devotion, my enjoyment of the singing group has steadily increased over the two years I've been pertiicipating. I'm glad she knows about my lack of religious faith. I don't want anyone to think that I am participating under false preenses. Heaven forbid that I should sing for ten years, my fellow singers all the while assuming my religious devotion.Religious people tend to assume religious devotion in others. True,what people assume about me is not my problem, but if I can help clarify, I will. The conversation took a dangerous turn when the lady told me he was worried about me, and told me that there is only one way to approach God; through Jesus Christ. That angered me. Disregarding the validity and the merit of other religions is a common characteristic of devotees of most religions, and I find it repellant. Of the thousnds of recognized religions in the world, all, in my strong opinion, deserve equal respect, including mine. When I told her that the only way to approah God is through Jeus christ for her, and that everyone has their own way to appraoch God, it got worse.I was quick to remind her that if and when she tries to influence the religious views of other people,including me,the person she is trying to influence is probably as intelligent and well educated as she. She seemed insulted by that. Anyone insulted by bieng told that otehr people are equally intellient to them needs, it seems to me,to learn a lttle humility, a trait that seems all too often to be lacking among the extremely religious zalous. What do I think of this lady? That she is arrogant, narrow minded,condescending, and,assuming she believes that non Christian believers go to hell,cruel. But she deserves my respect, if for nothing else than for the sincerity of and comittment to her beliefs, and probably for having been a good citizen for many years, and perhaps, for raising a family. I unabashedly accord her that respect. What do I want from her? Only the decent and basice respect to which I am entitled.

Nailing It To the Church Door

THERE ARE TWO FUNDAMENTAL PILLARS of the Christian faith which I cannot accept, and which therefore prevent me from ever being a Christian. The first is the most fundamental tenet of all; that Christ died on the cross to atone for my sins, and that by accepting him as my lord and savior my atonement, my salvation is complete. I will not worship, much less admire, a god who would permit and sanction such a cruel, brutal, purely theatrical ritual.The second is that the Bible, errant,symbolic literal, or otherwise, is the Word of God. Plainly, without these two bedrock beliefs, it is impossible to be a Christian. The sacrificial lamb theology I see as having been inherited from a long lineage of primitive forms of religion; sacrifce the virgin to an angry, meat eating God, receive the blessings of good weather, good crops, good fortune, in return. To rejoice at this arrangmet seems to me cowardly; by paying for our own sins, we can,if nothing else, retain our dignity and pride. We can always find more rassonable ways to be humble and grateful. I have long observed that every mistake I make I pay for, in some form or other, in this lifetime, without having to wait for death for the scales of justice to balance. Washng away my sins in the blood of Christ is a notion I cannot abide. Its too bloody, barbaric, and primitive. About the Bible, I refer to Goethe, who said: "It is beyond me how anyone can believe that God speaks to us in books and stories. If the world does not directly reveal itself to us, and if our hearts do not tell us what we owe ourselves and others, then we most certainly won't learn it from books, which at best are designed only to give names to our mistakes." The very notion that God speaks to us in book has ong seemed ridiculous to me. As a child, I tried to accept it, but at length could not; I began asking questions early. Just as the image of Christ nailed to a cross, suffering in agony, a crown of thorns on is head and blood dripping from is body appalled and disgusted me from an early age, and still does. To use a tortore device as a religious holy symbol to me is no less barbaric. The idea that God himself wrote or even inspired people to write a sacred manuscrpt, more autoritative than all other books, raised a red flag in me early in life. I began, thanks to my parents, reading books at an early age and to thus acquire a basic understanding of books and science. I actually tried to embrace the holy scripture as valid, divienly ordained fact when I was quite young, but it didn't hold up, didn't pass the test of my own reason. And now, as we plunge headlong into the heart of the twenty first century, and the wonders and tangible results and benefits of science become ever more apparant, and science become ever more deeply embedded in human civilization and culture, religion is observably beginning at long last to fade away, as it inevitably should and indeed must. Mark Twain said that when the first con man met the first sucker, religion was born. I take a somewhat more generou, inteellectual view. To me it seems evident that all over the world humans invented religion for inspiration and emotional comfort, and as a ameans by which to esplain a complicated, mysterious world. Religion served as pre science, and led directly to science. Nw that we have science firmly established and progressing rapidly, we are given teh great gift intnded to us by religion; the abilty to love, admire, and understand the world in which we live, but, without the encumbrances of false beliefs and cruel dogma.

Connecting Causal Racist Connections

ON AUGUST 28, 1963, Martin Luther King gave his immortal speeh in front of a quarter million people, and my mother turned 43. My mother was a late bloomer;I was in third grade. A fewhours before the speeck, King visited JFK at the White House, and promised to keep it non violent. Three months later, Kennedy was killed and we were sent home from school shorly after noon. I didn't pay any attention to the speech, knew nothing about racism,( I wowuld learn a great deal about it soon enough), and am fortunate to this day that I was raised by a mother who passionately hated racism. Funny family. My mother, who would have been one hundred and three today, was four years older than my Uncle bob, whom I am partially named after. She hated racism; he was as racist as they come, although he learned to hide it from mom and me, and to proudly display it in front of his own nuclear family, the considrate coward. I recall that he sometimes slipped up. My sister reported that once, in a converation with him, he inadvertantly used the phrase "Matin Luther coon Day". Clever guy, that Uncle Bob. I learned about the MLK speech, and I learned about slavery, the Civil War, segregation, and all the rest. I learned aobut the murder by bomb of those four little transescant black girls in Birmingham, Alabama,on September 15,1963. What I didn't learn until just the other day was to connect the dots. I had always regarded the four girl murders as merely another racist hate crime in a racist America in which racist hate crimes are a dime a dozen, par for he course, and always ave been. Check the dates. This particualr racist hate crime was not random at at all, but a diret reaction to, a "pushback" as we like to say today, to the King march and speech. How dare that uppity N word stand in front of the Lincoln Memorial, in front of te damned Yankes who freed the N words, and have the audacity to even suggest, much less scream, that the N words needed to be treated better, like actual human beings, instead of being content to stay in their rightful low lying place, and be happy about it and grateful for it. Oh, how my Uncle Bob must have hated that fateful day! I still wonder whether he even bothered to send my mother is sister a brith ay card, or spring for wat was then a very expensive long distance happy birthday phone call. Now I'll never know; somehow, I doubt it. If he did, I'll bet he didn't say a word about that damned Martin Luther coon. I'm quite sure that, raised differently, under different circumstances, I was at one point perfectly capable of becoming and being a racist. Who, in all honesty, isn't, at least in theory? Hell, I enjoy feeling superior as much as the next man or woman. But to me it simply isn't worth it. Isn't worth the cognitive dissonance, the internal moral conflict, the energy drain of unrequieted, unreasoning, hatred. Its only one small step from racism to outright misanthropy, and I come too close to covering this dubious distance in any event. Like Bertolt Brecth wrote: "I make friendds with people. And I wear a derby on my head as others do. I say "they are strangely stinking animals". And I say, "no matter, I am too". Maybe I could be a racist if it made any sense to me. I would just as soon be bigoted against blondes, or tall people. (I'm short and dark haired, at least I was before I turned gray). I am no better than your garden variety racist, and don't claim to be. But at least, if nothing else, I reserve my unreasoning hatred for people and situations which are arguably worthy of it.

Loving Jesus, Each In Her Own way

I CANNOT RECALL having ever met anyone who does not profess love and admiration for Jesus. Atheists, for example, tend to be contemptuous of organized religion, and to reject the concept of a suprme being God, but, even among those who know little or nothing about the Bible or the life of Christ as told in the gospels will generally agree that, from what they've heard, they like him. The overarching fact is that nobody knows much about Joshua ben Joseph, because, all told, the four gospels do not tell us much, and, as is well known, were written by unknown authors decades after Jesus died, by people who never met him. There has been and still is some debate as to whether he actually existed, or is merely a compilation of fragments of other lives, some fictitious. For the most part, however, scholars of early Christian history are in agreement that he most likely did indeed exist. In theory Jesus himself could have ended the controversy before it began, by writing about himself, with witnesses. Why didn't he? Why didn't any of his immediate disciples? The highly probable answer is that they all, including Jesus, were illiterate. Once again, there is widespread agreement on this among historians and scholars. Then too, Jesus, arguably, dd not live his life on Earth for the purpose of writing books, about himsslf nor anything else. And so ultimately everyone's image of Jesus is conceptual. Everyone who loves and admires Jesus loves and admires an idealized person rather than a substantiated historical human being. In the gospels, Jesus is portrayed as an apcoylptic preacher and teacher. His most repeated message is that major changes are coming soon, so get ready. Jesus has a somewhat different personality in all four gospels, ranging from very talkative to rather taxiturn. In the ancient world authors who wanted their work to be accepted and widely read tended to ascribe authorhsip to somebody better known and respected than the actual authors themselves; ancient literature is full of forgeries and wrongly attributed works. Such is the case with the four gospels of the Bible. Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John were named after Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John, who are the names given to four of the Jewish disiples of Christ through many translations, but were most definitely not written by those people. They were probably written by educated people in some Greek city, probably Corinth, by authors fluent in literary ancient Greek, the original language in which they appeared. The most refreshing, liberating aspect of Jesus, amid all the uncertainties and conroversies, is that, ultimately it might not really matter whether he actually existed, nor who the authors of the gospels actually were. What matters, in the final analysis, might well be only that we are able to conceive of a person of surpassingly beautiful wisdom, and that we are capable of loving,admiring, and pechance, even reomtely emulating him.

Mixing With People of Dubious Piety

FIVE DAYS A WEEK, give or take, I go to the senior center for lunch. The kitchen crew is extraordinary, the food, delicious.You can't beat the price. A coupla bucks stuffed into the donation box, you're in line. I have a good singing voice, I enjoy singing, and I like to take part in worthwhile community activities, and therefore I sing in the gospel group. Been doing it about two years. Although I do not like gospeel music, and am tired of singing gosple songs, I enjoy the activity more each Monday morning, and I try to never miss. The songs have a comfortable familiarity now; when I began I could hardly tell one gospel song from another. My favorite, since childhood, is "How Great Thou Art." When its my turn, I select it. I have a reputation for selecting it, the "How Great Thou Art" guy. What i do not like is singing about, or talking about, washing away my sins in the cleansing blood of Christ. I'm not religious,other than being a pantheist, and most ancient religions,and the Christian religion in particular,seems primitive, barbaric, cruel, and bloody to me. I do not cherish and relish the thought of a better person than I being tortured to death to atone to a vengeful God for my sins. That nearly two billion people seemingly do, and zealously so,has always amazed me. Coward though I often am, let me pay for my own mistakes, by either correcting them, or experiencing their consequences. Another difference between me and the other old people, other than my tendency to be young for my age, and very pshyically fit and well educated, is my hatred of Donald Trump. Most of my fellow small town seniors love Jesus, (many are Pentacostals), and support Donald Trump. Make America great again with Jesus and Donald Trump. No matter where you live, how old you are, or your religious beliefs, if you support Donald Trump you are, in my strong opinion, a traitor, morally and intellectually bankrupt. I don't give free passes to those who attend the same senior center that I do. Jesus was a socialist, not a billionaire. Donald Trump,rather obviously, is the antithesis of every utterance, every act, every teaching of Joshua ben Joseph. People who support Trump,as well as most conservative evangelical Christians, are not well educated formally, and it shows. They condemn something they call "socialism" without having the faintest idea what socialism actually is. They think America is a "christian country", which,as John Adams and the other founders cleary said, it most certainly is not. They fail to see the dramatic contradiction between capitalism and Christianity as taught by Jesus Christ. And they, almost to a person, beleive that if your religion is not the same as theirs, you will spend an eternity in hell. Anyone who beleives that is, in my view, vicious and hateful to the point of being mentally ill. I pride myself on my open mindedness, and I consider it among the most important attributes a person can possess. Some of my best friends are Trump people; we get along well as long as we do not discuss Trump. Anyone who cannot understand, or refuses to understand that christians do not have a monopoly on admiration of Jesus, but only on worshiping him, need not bother engaging in a philosophical discussion with me. That's why when I go to the senior center, I have lunch, do a little singing, and call it a day.

Adding Up Senseless Death

THERE WAS A TIME, long since pssed, when it as still possible to enumerate America's mass murders individually, whether by name of city, precise date and time, number of victims, weapon used, whatever. Now they occur with such frequency that they blend together,and we count them by the week or weekend. This weekend there have been, if my calculations are corrrect, no fewer than three, and the weekend isn't even over. What they seem to have in common is that the weapon of choice is the venerable AR15, which at least one far right wing congressperson -it might have been Marjorie or Boebert - proposed be formally designated "America's gun". America's gun it already is. America, the land of serial mass shootings, with her own special mass murdering weapon of choice. And to think, our national past time used to be baseball. In 2021, the most recent year for which reords are available,approximately forty seven hundred children were killed by firearms in these United States, which was either more or less than the previous year, and the following year, but not by much, the difference being less significant than the staggering raw numbers. That's nearly a suffiient number of dead children to make it worthwhile to do something about it, but not quite, evidently. What would be a number that would "trigger" legislative action to at least ban assalt weapons? Ten thousand? One hundred thousand? One million? Take your pick. Between 1994 and 2004 assault rifles were indeed banned in America, and guess what? Deaths by assault weapons dropped precipitously. Then, Republicas, the party of Guns Over People (G.O.P.) reared its ugly head, the ban expired, and it was back to the shooting gallery all across the fruited plains. So a twenty one year old with no criminal record, nary a blemish to his name but an unrelenting hatred of African-Americans, purchased an AR15 perfectly legally in April, gave it some thought, and, this weekend walked into a Dollar General store and killed three black people. Our consolation? It could have been worse. There is no background check nor gun safety course which could have or would have prevented it, as is customary. People standing around in circles, holding hands,lighting candles, thoughts, prayers, the usual purely symbolic forms of self congratulatory, sour comfort for desperate people in a hapless culture of death. The far right wing lunatic mainstream would handout AR15s to all the "good people",and proclaim the problem solved.The ensuing national blood bath the right wing Christian community would attribute to poor gun safety by liberals, Joe Biden, the deep state,or whatever suits them for the time being. The gun saturated culture would not be mentioned. Guns do not kill people, people kill people. The people who kill people just happen to have guns while killing people. Otherwise, they would use ball bats, pen knives,or salad forks. The second amendment remains sacred. The well regulated militia has morphed into an angry, unregulated mob of good, armed o the teeth citizens. Thank God and the Republican party that we the American people are a well armed citizenry. Can you imagine how awful the carnage would be if only the "bad people" carried weapons?

Calling out the Heretics

OF THE MORE THAN FIVE THOUSABD ESSAYS and counting thus far published on this website, it sometimes seems as if a full half of them have been concerned with either Donald Trump,or the evangelical conservtive Christian community, which forms the base of Donald Trump's support. Se be it. The world determines essay content more often than essay content determines the world. Every esaay shus published has been highly, negatively critical of both Trump and the politically conservative evangelical community which largely supports him. In this essay, that will not change. The thrust of the criticism has been political; that political conservatism is antithetical to the actdual message of Jesus Christ,and that true Chritians should be politically liberal. That belief also remains intact. What is new here is the contribution of journalist Chris Hedges. Hedges is a prominant journalist with many books to his credit. He is far left leaning, or if not "far left" then certainly progressive, and he has a doctorate in divintiy from the Harvard school of divinity, which is the oldest and most prestigious theological seminary in the United States. What Hedges recently said is that conservative, Trump supporting evangelical Christians are heretics, plain and simple. After taking about a nano second to think about it, I fully agree. Heretofore I have unreservedly, unpleasantly regarded them as traitors, and worse,(if there is worse), for their post insurrection support of Trump. I have cacepted their claims to be "Christians" without objection, never questioning their devotion to or zealotry for their chosen faith. Dogmatic,unflappable Christians, yes, actual followers of the actual message ofJesus of Nazareth, not so much. But, above all else, political reprobates, Christian or not, being far right followers of Donald Trump, a demonstrable political and personal reprobate of the first order. Hedges, you'll have to acknowledge even if you don't want to, knows a thing or three about the Bible, having graduated with a doctorate from harvard divinity. Actually, he knows it cover to cover in several languages, including the original, and can prove it. If you don't, you don't graduate. Hedges, flinging the "H" word at Christian Trumpers! Although I, unlike Chris Hedges, am hardly qualified to say who is and who isn't a heretic, I sure as hell know the difference between "render unto Caesar" and the TEA party, and the difference between "give unto the poor" and the gospel of wealth, circa Joel Osteen. To me these folks have always seemed like religious hypocrites and political reprobates, traitors, but I have left it at that. But, heretics? Wow. My nano second of quiet deep reflection was enough to persuade me; Hedges is on to something; and I'm good to go. Heretics they are, on good authority! Hedges still ministers, to prison inmates and the homeless, if memory serves; just the sort of people Jesus himself went among...correct? The conservative Trump-loving evangelcial Christian community is decidely white, middle to upper middle class, firmly convinced of their own virtue. They don't need more Jesus;they already have him; just ask them. But Chris Hedges tends to hang out with and minister unto precisely the sort of people with whom we are told in the gospels that Jesus walked with and talked to, and as far as references go, one could certainly do worse.

Choosing Violence

AMERIAN CULTURE, from the beginning nurtured in violence, long since decided that violence provides the best entertainment.That decision gains reinforcement more as we the American people make our choices, and we choose violence. We choose football over all other sports. Geroge Carlin's hilarious stand up comdey routine about the diffrence between the relatively gentle sport of baseball an the brutally rough sopot of footabll is among his many inconic philosophical dissertations couched in comedy. How true it is.Old folks can remember when football involved the skills of blocking and taclking. Now,the one overarching skill is what we call "hitting", colliding with other players with the maximum force possible, rather than with the minimum force necessary. We love it, so we watch it more enthusiastically every year, sending football rankings, pro, college, and high school, to saoring heights of popularity.There is a direct correlation between the rise of the NFL to the status of supreme American sport, and its steady increase in violent content. We notice all this, we express concern, and we do little or nothing to change it. Meanwhile, assisted living facilities fill up with former players, still young, with serious, debilitaing brain damage,unable to function independently. Repeatedly heading a soccer ball causes damage; helmet to helmet contact, now illegal but still frequent, does exponentially greater harm. Our remedies are bandaids covering gushing wounds, cosmetic adjustemts to rules and equipment, mainly. In college and profreesionl football, the most damaging play of the game, the kick off and kick off return, have nearly been legislated by new rules entirely out of the game. An actual kickoff return is now a rarity. There are two problems with this.The most exciting play of the game has been vrtually eliminated, and, the change does nothing to improve safety in the other ninety nine percent of the game. Drastic solutions are possible, in theory, but would never pass American muster. One would be to remove helmets from the game, and "rugbyfy" American football. No go on that, in all likelihood. Then to, there is a penalty called "unnecessary roughness", seldom used. OK,start using it.Technically, in today's game, there are few if any plays from srimmage in which there is not unnecessary roughness of some kind, somewhere on the field. OK, fine. Simply start throwing a few yellow flags, and calling the penalty so as to protect all players, not merely the quarterbak,and maybe, jsut maybe, we might begin to see some old fashioned blocking and tackling, and a bit less hitting. What about reinstating the good old fashinoed kickoff, but with one basic rule change:making it illegal for anyone without the football to make physical ontact with any othr player. No blocking, no tackling, no hitting, other than the desired tackling of the return man. Sure, it sounds wild, crazy, and silly, because its so much different than what we're accustomed to seeing. But a few moment's thought helps. Under the revised system, a kickoff becomes a positional game of strategy and chess. Players on the kickoff return team impede other player's progress merely by positioning themselves between the ball carrier and the would be tackler. Players on the kicking team try to get around the interceding players to get to the return man. Depending on the relative effectiveness of the respective players, a kickoff could either be a short lived failure for the offense, or a huge run back, resulting in a touchdown, just like in the old days. The problem with permanent, debilitating injuries in football has become extreme, more extreme each season. Drastic problems call for drastic, innovative solutions.

Sitting Down With Trump, Without Touching

THE LADY ON FACEBOOK posited a hypothetical, an arguably interesting one, but one which in my opinion was meaningless, silly, and certainly of no practival value. Arguably, in fact, pointless. To wit: "What if you had five minutes to sit down with Trump, no touching, and to tell him whatever you wanted to tell him? What would you say?" She then said what she woud say, and ended by making sure we understood that after her say, whe would stand up, storm out of the reoom, vowing to never think about nor speak of Trump again. I say that's a promise she could never keep. Her mind, her memmory wouldn't let her. Trump will lurk within her, and within us all, until death do us part. A sour, Pyrrhic victory for him, who would rather be remembered in ignomonious disdain than not remembered at all... She told Trump the predictable things; that he never should have been president, that he is a rapist, a criminal, a horrible person, that he was responsible for countless deaths by Covid 19, and more. Its hard to imagine anybody getting in that many words in five minutes; I suspect that she went into overtime. What she would have accomplished, in real life, was a purely theatrical display of temper, a display just as well relegated to one's second cup of coffee on the quiet of one's patio. I'm quite sure the lady understands that Trump doesn't give a fig what she, nor anyone else, thinks about him, and given a chance to respond, would only resort to his usual name calling. Anyone who wishes to be invigorated by being called "a deranged maniac" by Donald Trump need only express he slightet disapproval of any of his utterances or works. Can anyone even remotely imagine Donald Trump sitting quietly, listening to every word, while somebody harrangues him with an avalanhe of criticism, valid or otherwise? One cannot. In a five minute interview with donald Trump, Donald Trump, and nobody else, is going to be doing the talking, the interrupting. Trump we pretty much have figured out. And if we haven't by now, as they say, we never will. What anyone thinks of Trump is to him beyond irrelevant; he has already suffered the slings and arrows of disapproval and contempt, and has dismissed them all the way Jefferson dismissed the Book of Revelation, as "The Ravings of a lunatic". He has nothng more to say to us, nor we to him. Now, mind you, nobody despises Trump more than I. I remind myself of Bobby Kennedy, about whom his father said: "When Bobby hates you, you stay hated". I stipulate that I despise Trump, and, thus stipulated, I seek to do something else, to "move on", as everybody likes to say, and, if possible, to do something better, something different. I long ago wearied of talking about, or hearing other people talk about, Trump's hair, Trump's weight and height,Trump's.....whatever. I'm nearly done emunerating his words and deeds, which by now have been more than adequately documented by - me - and by millions of other people, by cameras, and by audio recording devices. To Trump lovers I now offer only: "I need offer no more criticisms of Donald Trump. His failings and sortcomings he himself is exposing far better than I ever could". What would I say if I had five minutes with Trump? Why, I'd talk about something far more interesting than he - me. I'd quickly mention that I have donated blood five hundred times over a fifty year period (I like to brag about that), that despite my seriously limited athletic ability I had an amazingly successful career as a tennis player and long distance runner, merely by pratice and perserverence, that I "rescue", adopt, and care for stray cats, and that, although it took me twice as long as it should have, I managed to complete my doctoral studies and pursue a passibly successful career as a teacher and lecturer. Yep, I'd tell Trump all about me, which I think I could do in five minutes. He already knows about himself, and it wouldn't hurt him to learn about somebody else. I already know enough about him, and neither he nor anybody else cares a rat's ass about how I feel about him, nor much else. Folks these days seem to be interested in two things: Trump, and themselves. Like most folks, I believe that I am not only a much better person than donald J., but a much more interesting one as well.

Mugging

OF THE TWO OR THREE VERSIONS of the Trump mugshot, I preferred the one with the multicolored necktie,which was the "fake" one. In the "authentic" version, the red tie, for my taste, was less attractive, more prosaic,and the scowl much deeper, much more intense, which, considering the circumstances, is arguably more dramatic,more appropriate. Solid red or blue ties, symbolic of political party affiliation, have served their purpose and perhaps worn out their welcome. Let a rich profusion of diverse color freely flow! I half expected Trump to defiantly flaunt his poto op with a braod grin or dismissive, smirky smile, but deep and genuine emotion interceded; the swowl, the anger, fear, and humiliation clearly manifested on the orange framed face. It seems fair: four indictments, four televised arrests, only one mugshot. Trump is getting a break. The difference between the fake internet mugshot versions and the real mccoy was minimal; for me the "bottom line" is that any of them would have done nicely. Somebody pointed out that all this attention is exactly what Don the Con craves and thrives on. I pointed out that this is attention of a very particular sort, and that he undoubtedly thrives on it much less than usual. Word is that he is already turning the photo into T shirts, and that they are selling, at thirty five a copy, like hot cakes. He and his gang members, who still number in the tens of millions, can wear them like badges of honor; the "honor" will be as phony as the alleged ability of their cult icon to lead the country to greatness, as phony as their own stated reasons for their support of him. Unwilling to confess their shame, they try to turn it into pride. The hollowness of their pathatic attempt is evident to all with a modicum of perception, perception they themselves lack.I have never met a Trump supporter who expresses an honest, honorable reason for continuing to support him post election denial, post insurrection. Their stated "facts" are invariably alternateive facts, gleaned from an alternative,imaginary world, a world in which they have integrity, and a purpose other than regressive, racist, hateful anger. Their doomed political movement will fade far more rapidly than their mugshot T shirts, which will be worn less and less as the years pass, until they are consigned first to the bottom of the drawer, then, turned into claning rags before being consigned to the nearest dumpster, and the dust bin of ignominious history, with Trump himself.

Withholding Credit Where Credit Is Due Part II

THE GENTLEMAN FROM INDIA, using bad grammar and broken English, usually posts something inane about religion.Things like: Prove me that there is no God"...Or "Why atheists deny God"? Inane. But this time he posted a picture of three or four Indian astronauts, and included something about India's successful landing of a probe on the surface o of the moon. This inspired and uplifted me for two reasons. First, finally,something from him other than some angry, clumsily stated religious spew. Secondly, the inspiring and hopeful realization that India has entered full steam ahead the noble human quest to explore and understand the universe. I posted a broad smile. The vacation from spew didn't last long. He typed in: "Why do you laugh, bro? All nations have to begin somewhere, in order to make themselves into a super power". Aside from how and whether India is intent on becoming a superpwoer with lunar landings, his obvious misinterpretation of my beaming smile for laughter I found alarming, as if he might be deliberately misinterpreting me for the sake of conflict, which he seems to relish. Thus I responded: "I am smiling with happiness at the intrepid entry of the great and beautiful naton of India into the quest for understanding of the universe. Furthermore, I have great respect and admiration for India, a great nation which has contributed more culture and history to the world than my young country which, sadly, is often tragically flawed." I meant every word of it. India is indeed a great nation, with a great and beauiful curtural heritage, beautiful people, and beautiful geographic characteristices,including vast mountain ranges, magnificent rivers, and much more. India's enduring poverty derives directly from nearly two hundred years of European conquest and imperialism, with primarily Great Britain but also France, among others, having combined to thwart and strangle India's economic development, which before the mid eigtheenth century was among the most advanced industrial powers on Earth. Before the Europeans ransacked and stole Inia's wealth, for instance, India had the most thriving locomotive manufacturing industry in the world, far surpassing anything in Europe, where the industrial revolution supposedly began. Whether my critical friend knew this I have not a clue; I would be happy to educate him if need be. I awaited his response to my sincere praise of his country. None came. Losing patience, I typed in: "In my country, and perhpas in yours, when one mistakenly impugns the motives or actions of another, one offers an apology." None was forthcoming. Mildly disappointed but unsurprised, I left the room. Giving it one more chance, I returned a bit later to take a sneak peak,and, wonder of wonders, there it was, a "thumbs up" from India. No, not exactly a heartfelt apology, but, as they say, better than nothing; we must take what we can get. And, at least, if nothing else, the faint hint of acknowledgement was, mercifully, unaccompanied by any hysterical religious prolamations.

Withholding Credit Where Credit Is Due Part I

THE INTERNET is not known as a bastian of magnanimity. Quite the opposite. Half of it is pornography, the other half, seemingly, misinformation, conspiracy theories, insults and slanders. On Facebook I tend to hang out with cat lovers, Trump haters,and sports fans. My beloved Yankees, my beloved Razorbacks. So, in walks a bunch of Boston Red Sox fans,poclaiming their hatred of the Yankees, long the arch rivals of the Red Sox. I hate the Yankees, the Yankees suck,seemed to be the extent of their baseball knowledge and vocabulary. I wanted something a bit more intelletually ambitious, and although I was skeptical about my chances of getting it, nevertheless thought I would try anyway. I offered as how since I love baseball it seems senseless to me to hate baseball teams,even teams that are my opponents. Without opponents there are no games. Wanting to win needn't involve hatred of any sort, I offered to the Boston smear merchants.Yankees still sucked. So, I typed in that I have been a Yankees fan for sixty years, and have admired and respected the Red Sox the entire time, and respect their organization, their tough competition, and their fine tradition. The posts about the Yenkees and their sucking only got louder and more colorful, so I pointed out that yes, the Yankees suck this year, but have had a winning record for thirty years in a row, the only team in baseball that can make that claim. Also, I mentioned,over the past thirty years the Yankees ahve won five world championships, more than any otehr team,and that, throughout the entire history of baseball, they have won twenty seven world championships, far more than any other team. That, I said,certainly does not suck. Their response? "just a lot of money". True enough, I said,but there are thirty major league baseball teams,owned by thirty billionaires. The Yankees don't even have the highest payroll in baseball anymore. Other teams have caught up,, and joined the spending spree party. No response, I was beginning ot figure out these people had no interest in hearing the truth, nor in responding to it, nor in enjoying a pleasant, intelligent conversation with a fellow baseball fan. The Yankees suck,seemed to be their only rejoinder. I was tempted to hand them a dictionary, but refrained, thinking it would likely do no good. I again congratuated the intellectually limited folks on their fine basball team, but heard noting further, which I now see as a blessing A salient fact about human nature is that when people are determined to incite conflict with insults, any show of kindness and generosity of spirit is intolerable, becuase it prevents them from achieving their objective, which is conflict. My pride is inact, knowing that I defeated them in their petty pursuit of reaching the bottom of their very shallow,least magnanimous selves.

Being In Love With A Criminal

BONNIE AND CLYDE were very deeply in love. Their crime spree was their honey moon.It was their wasy of showing their love and loyalty to each other. Them against te world. It was their adrenalin rush in a world with no excitement, but only the endless boredom of an environment of economic collapse and prolonged depression which gave them nothing to do for fun. It was their way of getting revenge on a world they believed had turned its back on them, betrayed them by stripping away all hope of conventional success, of any alternative to failure. So they succeeded and loved each other and proved themselves to each other in the only way they thought they could. It is easy to fall in love with criminals, for criminals seem exciting. Violent criminals invariably have lovers. And, as everyone knows, love cannot be stopped with inellect once its fuse has been lighted. Those of us who feel anger and frustration at the enduring popularity of Donald Trump must somehow grasp and accept and understand this feature of human nature, to understand the Trump movement. For angry, frustrated people, in a world of colored people, gay people,climate change fanatics, a world of constant, uninvited change, Donald trump is the hero of, the defender of, a world his supporters so desperately want to preserve but cannot. To Jesse James, to Bonnie and Cyde, to Pretty Boy Floyd, society was the villain, and they, the valiant fighters for the little man. To validate and vindicate their hopeless crusade againt a corrupt world of bankers and powerful wealthy overlords, they willingly shared their ill gotten spoils with others.To themselves and to millions of Americans who rooted them on, they were the good guys, heroes fighting a noble if hopeless war against a corrupt, all powerful, unfair establishment. That is the circumstance into which Donald Trump has managed to cleverly insinuate himself, the heroic crusader for the forgotten, the dispossed, crusading against the elite, arrogant, liberal progressives who are taking control of and changing their world beyond recognition. Donald Trump and his followers, irreversibly ensconced in a siege mentality. And Donald Trump needn't even bother to share his wealth. He need only talk and rail agsinst his chosen enemies.That is why it is folly to expect Trump and his movement to quietly go away. They will go away, but only with a bang, not a whimper, as all criminals feel they must. They must gain self respect by gaining the attention of others. They will never surrender.Their enemies, mainstream progressive culture, is simply too evil to cooperate with. White Christians, fighting nobly against a rising tide of cultural diversity. Deep down they must know they cannot win; religious, sexual, and ethnic diversity are here to stay, but that is not the important thing. What is imporant is that they carry their noble fight to the bitter end,and go down in a blaze of glory.

Defending the Indefensible, Supporting the Unsupportable

THE MORE INDEFENSIBLE IT BECOMES to defend and support Donald Trump, the more his supporters defend and support him. Nobody should be surprised by this; everybody should be shocked and amazed. In the possible event that Trump gets elected, becomes a dictator with Republican congressional approval, then ends up destroying his administration amid an avalanche of dictatorial crime,national economic collapse,and destructive foreign wars, ends up barricaded in the White House and ultimately commits suicide while the house burns down, it is easy to imagine his adoring supporters all across the fruited plain, blaming Democrats, the news media,and roaming the streets of America in well armed violent mobs, seeking retribution, waving flags which proudly proclaim "MAGA forever". There will instead likely come a time when current Trump supporters will, for the sake of their personal integrity and self esteem, have to come to terms with their inexplicably prolonged support of an indisputable criminal. Their only alternative is to broaden and deepen their delusional alternative versions of reality, and take them with them to their graves. They are in a trap,and they alone must decide how to escape it. Their choice may well be to escape it only when they die, by dieing. This they may indeed be quite willing to do. There are rumors circulating that the so called "freedom caucus",an organization of the farthest of the far right in Congress, is planning to refuse to govern unless all charges against Trump, all four indictments, all ninety one felony charges, are dropped. They are willing to descend the nation into anarchical chaos in defense of their beloved leader. Pure political blackmail, fascism in its most despicible form. People are saying that it is impossible to reason with Trump supporters. It is, but it is not impossible to make very brief, brutally honest, impossible to refute and damning remarks to them, and to leave them alone to do with them whatever they choose. They will hear the remarks,and will think about them, if nothing else, even if they pretend otherwise. Examples:Nobody in Congress has the power to force a grand jury to rescind an indictment,or a prosecutor to drop charges. All wtnesses who have testified against Trump to the various grand juries are Republicans, Trump supporters. Many of Trump's crimes, and the crimes of his co defendants, are recorded on audio and video, and have been heard and seen by thousands, indeed millions of people. Simply state any of these facts, whether or not you state them in context with what the Trump lover is raving about. Do not respond to any hollow,angry protestations or nonsense. Show no anger or emotion. And, as that horrible cliche goes, let these facts sink in, for they inevitably will, even if the person who hears them tries hard to ignore them, or to pretend that the facts are not facts, or were not stated. You will never know that you have won the argument, because there will be no argument, and because no Trump supporter will acknowledge defeat while you are in the room. But that isn't what is important.

Florida Flipping Out, Part II

IF OVERT RACISM, thinly disguised as education, were the only malady currently afflicting the potentially great state of Florida, some semblance of hope would remain and be apparent. Tragically, such is not the case. Several diseases, among them malaria and leprosy, are spreading through the state, largely because of irrational, superstitious attitudes about the efficacy of vaccinations and modern medicine. But even that is not the total extent of Florida's stately bennightedness. As tends to be the case among political conservatives and evangelical Christians, who are generally the same people, hatred of homosexuality and all other forms of sexual non conformity runs rampant in the "sunshune state", over which a dark cloud of benightedness currently looms and malingers. As tends to be the case wherever political conservatives ana evangelical Christians, who, as now stipulated, are usually the same people, gather together, hatred of homosexuality and all other forms of sexual non conformity prevails. Hence, "don't say gay", as detractors properly term it, is the law of the land, by the disgrace of God fearing Republican reprobates. The upshot is that in Florida's public schools students are not allowed to be informed that any form of sexual behavior other than straight heterosexuality exists or should exist. Whether teachers are allowed to reference the fact that sometimes people have sexual intercourse without being married in a Christian church remains unclear; probably not. Either way, why take chances? Teachrs like to keep their jobs,but when pushed beyond the limits of reasonable tolerance often cannot; many are leaving the profession and even fleeing the the state in search of sanity and safe employment. Since teachers are required by law to be at least minimally educated in order to hold forth in the classrooms of most public schools, most teachers, graes K through grauate school,tend to be progressive politically and socially. This fact is yet another thorn in the brain of conservative America, which unsurprisingly distributes the false conspiratorial nonsense that a vast left wing conspiracy has taken over education in America, K through PhD, and must be opposed,by force of violence if necessary. When in doubt, start an insurrection, goes the far right wing reasoning. Recent historical reality amply bears out the stark reaility of this nefarious ideological lunacy. (see: "Capitol Insurrrection: 1.6.21). What we call "red states" tend not only ot be washed in the blood of Jesus, their resultant lack of oxygen supplied to the brain precipitates more forms of derangeement than are dreampt of in your philosophy, to paraphrase Skakespeare, who is also being censored among the bloodwashed throngs. Like all untreated diseases, far right insanity will get worse before it gets better.The time might well come when nobody in Florida who graduates high school has ever heard of, much less read Shakespeare, Faulkner, or Carl Sagan. Why is Carl Sagan among those in jeopardy of censorship? Why, because Florida bans book, and because he (Carl Sagan)e espoused the virtues of something intolerable to tyrants and philistines only; something mistrustful of arbitrary authority and blind faith based ignorance,something called "science".

Florida, Flipping Out, Part I

THE FORMERLY GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA has either totally fipped out and lost its collective mind, or has been taken over by normal, mainstream Republicans, take your pick. It says here that the latter is the truth. In an attempt to brainwash its children into believing that the peculiar institution of slavery wasn't all that bad after all, students grades K through 12 must by law be taught that between the years 1619 and 1865, slaves in these United States weregiven skills that contributed to their betterment,improved their lives by teaching them a marketable skill. Whether said skills were actually utilized in a post slavery life for the forcibly liberated African-Americans remains unclear. History says that they, for the most part, were not. Historical reality says that after a brief period of time (Reconstruction) when freed slaves were treated remotely like human beings only because the victorious Union Army made the defeated Confederacy so treat them, that black people essentially were returned, nationwide, to a condition so resembling actual enslavement, mainly sharecropping and brute labor for slave wages, that the difference was mininal, their pseudo slavery freedom laregly indistinguishable from the real thing, actual enslavement. Why this bizarre, distorted requirement imposed by the Florida state Board of Education? The best guess is that Republicans,inherenty unable to conceal their racism despite their best efforts,are merely showing their true colors,namely,white. Note that the state does not require teachers to tell students that slavery was wrong, oppressive, or even mildly unpleasant from the point of view of the enslaved, but only that it embodied positive atributes. This is comparable to saying that being burned at the stake has positive benefits; protection from cold weather. The marketable kills meme actually has a kernel of truth, but only a kernel. Thomas Jefferson, for example, a reluctant slaveowner who hated slavery but was trapped into practicing it by virtue of having inherited slaves from his father and by his realization that there was no better opportunity for them other than to be freed and therefore either shot or reenslaved by somebody else, had a nail factory at Monticello, and actually paid his slaves to produce nails. But the important point is that they were still slaves, one of them becoming his lifelong girlfriend. But, so what? Jefferson was the exception that proves the rule, the rule being that slvery was miserable and brutal and unrelentingly evil. To deliberately give our children even the most remote impression that there was anything even remotely acceptable about slavery is to commit a breach of historical reality and moral decency which makes their (Republican) denial of Trump's election defeat pale, in terms of dishonesty and moral infamy,almost, by comparison. It almost reaches the depth of moral depravity embodied in the majority Republican conviction that Trump's Capitol insurrection was a noble enterprise, or a tourist activity gone awry. Well, maybe not quite. But either way, we must remember that we are, after all, dealing with mainstream evangelical Christian Repblians here, and that therefor, sadly,there is no low point to which they cannot and will not descend to justify their twisted, evil ideology.

Presenting Published Prognostications

APPROPRIATELY, publications presentng facts about climate change proliferate, prognostications proceeding apace. Aside from whether humanity will do enough soon enough to avert our impending disaster, by the time we are ravaged by it, we will, if nothing else, have had the opportunity to become aware of it, and educated about it. Everyone seems to becoming to the party. Books and articles are being published by all manner of scientists, historians, sociologists, and journalists. Among the most dramatic consequences of onrushing climate change is now well underway and will escalate dramatically very soon; mass human migration. Already millions of desperate people are on the move and have relocated, escaping collapsing economies precipitated by extreme weather patterns, mostly extensive flooding and prolonged drought. The trend will intensify. During the rest of the twenty first century billions of people will be forced to relocate farther away from rising ocean levels.In some areas, persistent heat and drought will require the same response. In a passionately and compassionately written new monograph: "The Great Displacement: Climate Change and the Next American Migration", journalist Jake Bittle lays out the problem, by focusing on specific places and people in the United States, what has already happened to them, and what will inevitably continue to happen to them and to millions of other people. Bittle discusses the Florida Keys, which have already been decimated by powerful hurricanes, driving residents to the mainland. By the year 2100 all the keys will be underwater, all the people living and visiting there will have fled north. Among the more poignant personal anecdotes elucidated by Mr. Bittle concern California residents who have alternately suffered the ravages of Earthquakes, drought, wildfires, an unaffordable housing and insurance prices. Home insurers are beginning to abandon areas where climate change is and will inevitably make insurang homes and property an automatically losing proposition, such as chronically drought stricken areas, and coastal regions. True, as migrants leave reviously densely populated places like California and America's coastlines, property values and housing prices should decline, becoming more affordable,but insuring them will become a near impossibility, with no corporations of sufficient size and liquidity seeing any way to do so reasonably profitably. The great migration from California to Montana has already begun,and will continue. Mass migrations punctuate world and American history. Most of them have probably not been studied with sufficient detail, because humans are funadmentally nomadic creatures, who only very recently traded their nomadic lifestyle for neolithic civilization in cities, with the invention of agriulture and animal husbandry,We built our big cities and established our international borders of fear and defense,but even those artificial constructions could not stop us from moving around in groups. As we move into our unknown future, one thing we know for sure; we'll keep right on moving, even when we're never quite sure why or whereto.

Sticking With Trump, All Crimes Aside

AS LABOR DAY NEARS, Donald Trump, who never met an undocumented laborer he would neither employ nor refuse to pay, enjoys a commanding lead in the Republican race forthe presidential nomination. He stands or sits as just over fifty percent, with the other thirteen candidates arrayed modestly far behind. Florida book banning racism denying governor DeSantis is a distant second at fourteen percent, the rest spread out along the trail far to the rear. The more crimes Trump is formally accused of committing - ninety one so far - the greater his popularity among conservative evangelical Christians. The defiant, recalcitrant demographcic and voting block is solidly in his corner,harboring the strange misapperhension that Trump is somehow a valiant oppoent of the "etablishment", a man of the little man, rather than what he truly is; a fringe establishment member whose rejecion by America's wealthy elite establishment inspired him to pursue a political career as an angry, mud slinging, pseudo populist, mistrustful of and hateful towards all established sources of expertise and authority. Anger is what binds Trump to his political support base, anger at the encroaching community of color. We witness the slow, painful death of white male heterosexual Christian male privilege, and its angry backlash, personified by Trump, empowered by tens of millions ofoutraged barely closeted white supremacists. Mobs of dark skinned foreigners, gay people, and liberal women are storming the gates, demanding the unthinkable; access to power, legal and social equality. The great wall of Trump is only imaginary, but is intended to keep out more than merely Mexicans. Shock and disgust at the support within the Republican party for Trump need be no greater than for the facts that a majority of registered Republicans still insist that the election was stolen,a nd that the insurrection of 1-6-21 was justified, and would have succeeded in a more perfect world. The party of attempted presidential theft and insurrection against the United States governmentremainsa mojor forece in American politics, incredibly. They would burn down the country to rule over the ashes, as the proverb goes. His (Trump's) evangelical Christian base firmly believes that Trump was sent by Almighty God to right all wrongs, by which they mean to eliminate any and all veestiges of cooperative,compassionate economics in America, (socialism) for the elevation of neoliberal capitalism to the status of the divinely ordained, the restoration of the white male patriarchy, and to win for Christ the imaginary war against Christianity. They would be humorous were they not in such deadly earnest, instead they are evil in a pathetic sort of way, and though they may sanctimoniously believe that theirs is a crusade of righteous heavenly godly virtue with Trump their leader in Christ, they are in fact influenced by an entity widely believed to reside in an altogether different realm. ,

Burning Down the House

IT IS NOW CANADA'S TURN to burn. At the moment more than one thousand out of control wildfires are ravaging our neighbors to the north,a paricularly large one requiring an evacuation order for more than thirty thousand people way up north, with thousands of acres already up in smoke, and many more to inevitably follow. Billions of dollars of damage and property destruction, international assstance, the usual scenario. And of course there is the tragedy on Maui, which has dominated the news for the past week, keeping the Canadian nightmare somewhat in the background by its sheer apocolyptic horror. This has become a global phenomenon. The United States is having a relatively fire free summer compared to recent ones, largely due to a wetter than normal winter in the American west,but surely nobody is sufficiently foolish not to believe that all too soon the lower forty eight will once again ignite,and burn with a vengenace, almost as if straight out of hell itself. How much longer before the fires spread to the east, and consume the Ozarks and Appalachians? There is a vast abundance of flammable forested land east of the Mississippi,certainly more fuel for fire than to the west; only one prolonged drought, which also seems ultimately inevitable,is needed to set off blazes of unimaginable proportions, especially considering the much greater population density east of the mighty Mississippi.The fires have consumed large parts of Italy, Greece, and other European countries, and just a few short years ago much of the continent of Australia went up in smoke. Climate change, a global disaster now no longer a future threat, but rather, a clear and present danger. All the predictions scientists have been warning us about for decades are finally coming home to roost,but far sooner and far more severely than they ever thought possible; they are shocked and horrified at how rapidly climate change is advancing, as each year becomes hotter than the last, and temperatures around the world soar to triple digits. On Facebook some non profit organization posted an advertisement, telling us what we already know or should know, that climate change is now a dire threat, and urging people to get involved. Some of the responses were insanely sickening. The problem, as always, is the insane stubborn denial of reality by the Conservative Christian community. For example, one post read: "God will take care of everything, despite what the scientists and so called environmentalists say". Maybe this nonsensical statement actually contains a glimmer of hidden hope; the idiot seems to be acknowledging that there is a problem. But here we go again, with the same old anthropomorphic supreme being in the sky tripe. Our imaginary benefactor in the heavens. Almighty God will cure Covid, put an end to gun violence, end all wars, and reverse climate change. We don't even have bother to do anything. Its out of our hands. And not just any old god either. The Christian, conservative, biblical one. Isn't there some Bible prophecy that God destroyed the world by water the first time, and will destroy it by fire the second time? Maybe humanity is merely fulfilling biblical prpphecy. Religious fanatics are known for their willingness to bend over backwards to fulfill biblical prophecy. A perfect excuse for inaction, to ignore our problems instead of address them. God will take care of everything. What,me worry?

Bringing The Nuclear Football Along

AMONG THE MOST BIZARRE AND FRIGHTENUNG circumstances of American political and military policy is the fact that the predisent of the United States,and only the president ofthe united States,has complete,absolute contril of the entire national nuclear arsenal. Whether the U.S.drops an atom bomb from a plane,or fires one from a submarine or surface naval vessel, or delivers one on an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile is entirely and only the decision of the chief executive. No congressional approval is needed, no ruling by any court of law, no checks and balances of any sort. The reason is that in any conceivable situation in which the U.S. deploys a nuke against a foreign enemy, the decision would, under all possible circumstances, have to be made at a moment's notice,and deliberation, planning, and consultation simply would not be possible, for lack of time. Hence, for more than half a century, the president, no matter who he or she is, is constantly accompanied,followed around, by a duly authorized military person who carries the so called "nuclear football", a briefcase in which the nuclear code is kept, available only to the president. The president knows the sequence of numbers needed to unleash hell on Earth, and, should he or she so decide, recites them to the football carrier, and the rest, as we say, is history. Nuclear war ensues, the particulars, such as upon whom to drop a bomb and how many bombs to drop and the means of delivering them also being the exclusive perogative of the president. Experts and analysts are quite well aware of the utter insanity of this situation. But what situation can you imagine pertaining to a nation's nuclear arsenal is not insane, in an insane world with insanely powerful weapons? Much of the bizarre and frightening nature of this circumstance derives directly from the people who have thus far been presidents of the United States. Ronald Reagan,in his senile second term,football in hand. Donald Trump. Nothing more need be said, other than "Trump and control of the nuclear arsenal". If that thought doesn't frighten you, nothing can or will. How this lunacy came ino being begins with Oppenheier, Groves,and the Manhatten project,and Harry Truman, who allowed the military to decide how many bombs to drop on Japan and when, and where, without truly understanding the destructive power of twenty thousand tons of dynamite. True, Truman made the decision to use the bomb,but left the particulars to his generals,assuming that they would choose military targets.Indeed they chose military targets,with large cities surrounding them. At frst Harry S. was giddy with glee at the successfull targeting of Japan, and said so to the American people. But when he found out the details; that two large cities, full of hundreds of thousands of civilian women and children had been vaporied, and that yet another bomb, a third one, was being prepared, he screamed, in horror: "for God's sake STOP! No more!" Give 'em hell, Harry. So horrified was he that he said, for now on don't even think about using the damned thing again without my expressed approval, and exclusive presidential control of atom bombs was firmly installed as American policy. Truamn lived another twenty five years, and he couldn't stop talking about it. He repeatedly said that he never lost a minute's sleep about it, and that if he had to do it all over again, he would. The words of a man horrified and shocked by events while he was at the controls, trying to assauge his guilt and horror. A quarter of a million women and children murdered. Military targets. Truman is lucky he didn't end up in a psych ward, undergoing intensive therapy. Maybe he should have.

Figuring Jesus Out

THE BIBLICAL JUDEO-CHRISTIAN GOD, in both the Old and New Testaments,is, to sy the least, harsh. More so in the Old Testament,but still harsh in the new covenent. To say the most, the Judeo-Christian biblical god is a psychotic demonic mass murderous creature,as Thomas Paine elucidates in his seminal essay of 1794 "The Age of Reason". In the Old Testament, there is a long list of transgressions against the laws of Moses,who himself is arguably quite a harsh human being, which are explicitly described as punishable by death. These include such seemingly minor offenses as working on the Sabbath, to more serious misbehaviors as committing adultry and disrespecting one's parents. It is easly to conclude, using our modern sensitivities, that none of the transgressins of the law listed as punishable by death in the Bible should be listed, and of course are not,in our contemporary secular world. Likewise Josua ben Joseph, whose name became translated into "Jesus" by the Latin language, is somewhat complicated. So complicaed, with teachings subject to such a wide variety of possible interpretations that the modern Christian church is hopelessly divided into hundreds,indeed thousands of sects, each with its own view of Jesus Christ, his message, and the proper way of worship and conducting dogmatic rituals. The Christian world seemingly cannot even decide whether the New Testament message of Jesus Christ was and is intended to supplant and replace the Mosaic law ofthe Old, or to merely augment it. The consensus view seems to be what is called "supercessionism",meaning that the law of the New Testament supplants the law of the Old Testament, even to the extent that Christians who have achieved salvation through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ are, and became upon the advent of Christ, the new "chosen people of God", replacing the Hebrew people in that capacity. This, despite the fact that Jesus clearly stated that he camne ot to abolish the Mosaic law of the prophets, but to fulfill them. Soome smartass Cristian scholar wannabe said that all the harsh death penalty transgressions listed under ancient Judaic law were invalidated, superceded when Christ brought his new covenant to the Earth. The message of forgivenesss preached by Christ gave humanity a new, updated version of religious principles. I respondedmerely by naming a scriptural passage:mathew 15:4. In this passage Jesus says "honor thy mmother and thy father", and he quotes the ancient law, saying" God commands that whosoever curses the mother and the father shall be given the death." It seems eivdent here that Christ is in fact upholding the ancient law, rather than superceding it. This is where the alleged biblical scholar became a smartass. He accused me of taking the Mathew 15;4 "out of context", that Jesus was making a point that his detractors were being hypocrites by chastising him and his desciples for not washing their hands before eating, thereby breaking the ancient law, when they themselves were twisting scriputure in order to allow themsleves to disobey much more important law. He then verbally jabbed at me with "is that the best you can do"? I answered that I could probably do better, but didn'tthink of it as a competition. He responed by saying "you could have fooled me", and I rejoined "that isn't difficult". (He wasn't the only smartass in the fray). I left the room,feeling a sense of futility. I still say: what does "context" have to do with it? When Jesus is directly quoting a commandment of God, what does "context" matter?

Forgivng A Repentant Trump

SOMEONE INTRIGUINGLY POSTED: If Donald Trump went on national television and admitted to committing all the crimes and telling all the lies of which he is and has long been acused, would you forgive him? What I cannot remember is whether the post included the stipulation that Trump asks to be forgiven. It was a rather short post; I am inclined to rememberthat it indeed did not. Obviously, this hypothetical scenario is among the most wildly unlikely hypothetical senarios with which neolithic humanity has ever been presented; one may as well inquire what one's reaction would be if alien beings landed in front of he United Nations seeking membership, or if Jesus Christ came flying down from heaven in a fiery chariot bearing a terrible swift sword, not an olive branch. But its fascinating nonetheless, nearly as fascinating and revealing as the responses to it. The unanimous response was, essentially, "hell no", not in a million years. When I posted an emoticon indicating that I was tinking about it,I was met with an outpouring of shock and indignation which would have frightened a charging rhino back into the tall grasses of the African plains in timid acquiescence,which is essentiallly what I did. I am well known among my friends on social media as a staunh Trump hater; maybe they felt betrayed. Then too, just as Trump supporters are known for their unqualified devotion to their cult leader, and for their unrelenting willingness to defend him, completely overlooking is obvious moral andintellectual deficiencies,those who despise Trump and his supporters do so with with no less passion and ardor. I should know; I am one of them. So I thought about it awhile and reached the following conclusion, which I am certain I will never share among my friends on social media, because I can see no purpose or benefit in arousing the antipathy of my supposed "friends"; I have enemies enough already. In short, I would forgive him, especially if he asked for forgiveness, and indicated a willingness and intention to change his behavior and to atone for his past transgressions. But whether he asked for forgiveness or not, I would forgive him, knowing full well that my forgiveness has little or no meaning to anyone except me. And then I would go on to say that my forgiveness does not preclude the neessity,for the sake of justice,of his being processed through the criminal justice system,and being given whatever appropriate punishment deemed just by a duly authorized judge and jury. My reasons should be obvious to any person with a reasonably compassionate spirit. The criminal justice system is predicated on the sacred priniple that when a convicted riminal has servedhis or her sentence,the slate has been wiped claen, and the former culprit is entitled to a new beginning. Then too there is the Christian angle,the teachings of Jesus Christ. Although I am not relgious, like most people, I recognize the sublime nobility and beauty of the teachings of the Christian Christ, and for the most part, agree wholeheartedly with his message of love,compassion, and forgiveness. But forgiveness must be sought,and must be accompanied by repentance and atonement. My experience with life has taught me, however, that although most people, whether religious or not, espoue these virtues, few actually practice them. I like to consider myslef among the few who do, and I can only hope I amd not deceiving myself. Goethe said: "We are never deceived, we only deceive ourselves." As for me, I am guilty as Goethe charged.

Going After Me, Coming After You

ABC TV, with its flair for the melodramatic, briefly mentioned on its hantional news broadcast that members of the grand jury in Grorgia who colletively voted to issue anoteher thirteen felony charges against Mr. Trump, were possibly receiving threatening mesages of some sort, and that their home addresses were being published on social media of some sort. The report was rather vague and murcky, with little in the way of specific information,such as the exact nature of the threats or from whom they came, although the implications were and are obvious. Before you, dear reader, castigate the unreliable news media for spewing lies and conspiracy theories or for being too damned liberal, biased, and unscrupulous, bear in mind that, in reality,the major media sources in the United States tend to be reliable, if only because if they weren't they would be eventually driven out of business by those that are., and by the sort of lawausits with which FOX news is intimately familiar. Most are reliable, if not FOX News, which can prove it with massive lawsuit settlements. The seriousness of the ABC News report is substantiated by the fact that the Fulton County Sheriff's Department and the FBI are investigating the allegations. Donald J. Trump woulnd't by chance be involved, would he? He wouldn't be that stupid, would he? Why would even an alleged idiot like Mr. Trump be stupid enough to threaten members of a grand jury who have already done their damage, voted for the indictments,done their work, and gone home? They certainly cannot at this point recant their indictment against Trump, apologize, and say that it was all an unfortunate misunderstanding. Trump's recent impersonation of Al Capone, however, the one paraphrased in this essay's title, does still have an ominous sound to it. The investigation should be simple, straightforward, and fast. Just interview the jury members, and scan social media. We already smell a rat, and suspect that the report is true. But the rat smell doesn't seem to be coming direct from Trump. As the crime boss of a substantial multi million member gang, consisting of both an inncer circle of co sonspirators and a vast, amorphous mob of enablers throughout American bad citizenry, he, the man, has all the pieces in place to get results merely by uttering a single threatening sentence. It kinda reminds you of the mob duly assembled near the White House on January 6, 2021, the one which proceeded on orders from the then President to the Capital building, and the rest, as we say, is history. Trump is verifiably an experienced assembler and dispenser of violent mobs, as current litigation against him clearly attests. And, he has accomplices in all his many forms of criminal activity. But when a cult icon has tens of millions of cult members slavishly granting him his every wish, anything seems possible. Already one crazy lady, spewing racial insults at one of the jugjes before whom Trump is required by law to appear, has beem apprehended, taken into custody, finger printed, and mug shotted. More will likely follow, maybe including the boss himself. As they say in the braodcast news industry, stay tuned for further developments.

Speaking To the World

WITH TYPICAL RELIGIOUS FERVOR, the brightly colored Faebook post,in ominously large looming letters, exhalted: Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again.He is the King of Kngs,the savior of the world. As might be expeced,this elicited a variety of responses, ranging from unqualifie endorement to sorn ans ridicule, to well stated, reasonable quetsions and objections. i coount myself in the third category, raising what seem to be reasonbalb questions. I begin with a bit of poetry from Goethe: "Pure was Jesus in his passion, in his heat but one God serving. Who of him a god would fashion, from his sacred will is swerving." Goethe was pointing out that nowhere in the gospels did Jesus ever claim to be a god,or anything resembling one, nor desired to be considered such. What his words seemed to indicate is that he, as well as all human beings, are children of the one God, creatures of divine creation, whose reverence for and obedience to god was merely reasonable and appropriate reponse to the parent child relationship, a matter of obedience and love of children for their parents. In one particularly hard core scriptural passage, Mathew chapter 15 verse 4, Jesus, who often indicated that his purpose was not to contradict but rather to amplify and augment Old Testament law, said, or seemed to say, that death is the proper punishment for anyone who curses the father and the mother, presumably referring to the strict obedience and respect with which all children are expected to treat their parents, just as all people are expected to similarly love and obey God. This habit of referring to Jesus as a "king" has always troubled me, and still does. His behavior towards people wasmuch more akin to a servant than a king, and, again, there is nowhere in scripture in which Jesus refers to himself as a "king". True, otehr people,including those unknown authors of the four gospels canonical gospels, referred to him as a king and a savior, evern before and immediately after he was born. The same scriptural accounts lso refer to him as a sacrificial lamb, the lamb of God, whose blood was shed for the atonement of the sins of all mankind, Christ teh savior by virtue of washing al the redeemed in his sacred blood. This theology I have always found primitive, barbaric, arvitrary, capricious, and cruel, all too remindful of the bloody sacrficial rituals which manifested in primitve stone age cultures all over the world; the propitiation of an angry, blood thirsty, flesh eating god, for the purpose of getting more favorable treatment from said god. Sometims the sarifice of an ainmal was sufficient, sometimes a human sacrifice was required, and sometimes, the human being had to be a virgin, usually a female virgin. The rains will come and the crops will grow and the disease will stop spreading and the enemy at the gate will be vanquished, with sufficient purity of sacrifice. Even in the Old Testament, Isaac the son of Abraham was on the verge of being sacrificed as an arbitrary test of Abraham'slove o fand loyalty to God, when God, satisfied of Abraham's willingness to kill his own child in unqualified obedience, relented at the last moment and expressed his willingness to take the life of a sheep instead. To me, that story has always impressed me with the capricious cruelty of the biblical god. Jesus Christ is at once king of the world, savior of the world -but only for those willing to worship him as a god, the Son of The God. To me,that sounds suspiciously like blackmail. Christ can never be the king and savior of a world in which there are thousands of different religions, religions which for the most part do not share this theology. And so the world in which we live is full of Christian religious devotees (fanatics) bound and deermined to make believers of everyone,and as long as that remains in effect, there will be strife and conflictamong peopel of all religions,almost entirely because religions tend to share the irrational conceit that there is only one true religion, and that all of us should embrace it. This conceit is indisputably the most pernicious gift the religions of the world have bestowed upon us.

Psyching Out Taylor Swift

A MAJOR AMERICAN UNIVERSITY has finally decided that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It is offering a class called "The Psychology of Taylor Swift". For the Sake of Sanity, we may and indeed must assume that the class is not an attempmt to penetrate the depths of the mental and emotional functioning of the young, attractive, super successful superstar singer-songwriter. Rather, it surely is an even more daunting undertaking; an examination of the mental and emotional machinations of the rest of us of the tens of trillions of screeching fawining fans who flock to her sold out concerts and floodthe internet seeking access to her music. The passionately enamored minions would doubtless be flocking to brick and mortar vinyl record stores in doggecdly determined, desperate pursuit of the same,if such enterprises still existed, which in fact they do, if only barely. We the people with what remains of intellectual and academic credibility in these poorly publicly educated United American States make only one demand,or maybe two: that the course be researched and taught with something at least remotely approaching vigorous academic rigor,and,that it be taught as an upper division psychology and simultaneous sociology course,rather than some fluffy, shallow, fun and games elective intended to pad the report cards of football players and assorted non serious students. If those basic requirments are met, then, as we like to say, we're good to go. Students, let us begin with a few fundamental facts. Taylor Swift is currently the hottest thing since sliced bread first emerged freshsly baked from the cliched oven. Gang fights ensue over access to tickets to her leggy performances. Suppliers and distributors of said tickets are hauled into court and threatened with bankruptcy or imprisonment when disputes arise concerning who should and should not have first come first serve. Betting lines of odds for and against are offered, wagering what color Ms. Swift's bangs,hair, and costume will be the coming evening on stage. Will she show thighs all the way up, arms, cleavage, or all of the above and below? Since she's cuter and much more shapely than a bug's ear,you can usually expect the most,or, should we say, the least. the upshot of all this hoopla is that Taylor Swift is abigger sensation than Elvis or the Beatles ever dreamed of being,althoug in all fairness they had neither th einternet, arms and legs, nor a murky swamp of a social context into which to insinuate themselves and from which to derive fame,fortune, and the unmitigated adulation of teenagers and retirees alike, world wide. But much like the former superstars, the following profound truth adheres about the latter: the phenomenon of Taylor Swift tells us much, much more about ourselves and our society than it ever could or should about her. Precisely whatever that might possibl be should be the overarching concern of Swift One Oh One, for, as Shakespeare cogently articulated several centuries ago: that is the question.

Indicting Trump Yet Again

THE SCENARIO is becoming familiar. Former president Trump indicted, accused of multiple felonies. To date the miscrreant-in-chief has been formally charged in state and federal courts of ninety one crimes,by no fewer than four different grand juries. A pattern has emerged.In a satirical cartoon, Trump stsnds before a judge, who looks down on him from the bench and says: "Court is adjourned. The defendant will please try not to commit any crimes on the way to your car. Trump despisers are celebrating the advent of justice and having indictment parties; his supporters, not surprisingly, are crying foul, using the words "witch hunt" and "politically motivated", and vowing to invogorate their support for him as he attempts to regain the presidency, this time legally, so far. All indications are that support among America's most religious demographic, conservative evangelical Chritians, is on the rise. Their reactions to their idol's legal entanglements vary, but have a religious tone, predictably. From the beginning Amerian eangelical Christiandom has maintained that Donald J. Trump was elevated to the presidency by the will of Almighty God,and the son of God, Jesus Christ. Absurd as this seems to non believers and intelligent people generally, the deeper Trump descends into conspicuous perfidy, the more intently they seem to embrace this apparently delusional nonsense. All across America's fruited plain, revival tents spring up, the faithful to-Trump-and-Jesus flock come flocking, mouths flapping, through the flapping flaps, and thus begins the lambasting of liberal witch hunters, the supposedly liberal news media,the Demoratic party whose fault all this is, and, of course, President Joe Biden,the principle architect amd nail driver of Donald Trump's crucifiction. Donald Trump, the savior of American vittue, representavive of Christ on Earth, crusader against the ravages of windmill cancer. The collection plate is passed during prayer and gospel singing, and the legal defense fund is augmented with nickels,dimes, and one dollar bills. Checks accepted, unless they bounce. Until quite recently I passionately despised Trump and the conservative evangelical Christian community for their avid support of him. Now, I laugh and scoff at them, and strangely pity them for their folly. It is now firmly, irrevocably establised that America's evangelical community has a special fondness for miscreant criminals who have been elevated to positions of great influence and resonsibility by the "good" lord. This begs the questions: what is their ultimate standard of excellence and criminal exhaltation? At what point does Donald Trump transcend the realm of mere mortals, and achieve the lofty status of dieification? How many more crimes must the Don be accused of, and perchance convicted of, before evangelical Christianity, after the fashion of its predecessor, the original Christian denomination, Roman Catholicism, elects to venerate Trump the Magnificent Oft Indicted One is venerate as a saint, the first to ever be so honored and cherished in the long and circuitous history of the faithful Protestant flock of sheep?