Letting The Word "Bullshit" Bear the Burden, but Being Blessed by a Presumptuous Evangelical

FINALLY, ON FACEBOOK, I had a long longed for direct exchange between me, and an evangelist. These are the folks who have aroused my ire by supporting Trump at a rate of eighty percent, despite Trump's demonstrably un-Christian behavior and policies. It began when a post appeared, listing Trump's alleged accomplishments. Among them was his removal of the United States from the Paris climate change agreement, which, I argued, was hardly an accomplishment, being insane by virtue of failing to address climate change. The self described evangelical told me that I need to learn the facts, and that the United States would have been 'screwed' as he indelicately put it, by remaining in the agreement. Instead of explaining that my disagreeing with him was not an indication of my being unaware of the facts, that two people can be aware of the same set of facts and reach different conclusions from them, I used the word "bullshit", and left it at that. Instead of pointing out that the purpose of having the United States in the Paris agreement was not to secure economic advantage for the U.S., or to avoid being "screwed" as he indelicately put it, by being economically disadvantaged, but rather, to begin meaningful worldwide cooperation to fight climate change, and that whatever economic loss accrued to the United sates fighting climate change was of secondary importance, and probably appropriate, since the United States is the leading cause of climate change, I failed to make this point. I failed to point out that if the entire world does not cooperate in fighting climate change, it really won't much matter whether the United States got screwed, or for that matter whether the united States was economically healthy at the precise moment when the world becomes uninhabitable by human beings. Instead, I allowed the word "bullshit" to bear the burden. These days, I have little inclination to say much more to evangelicals other than "bullshit", to put it indelicately, owing to their willful and undoubtedly sincere and well considered support for Donald J. Trump. His response to my indelicate use of the word "bullshit" was "god bless you anyway, you lost soul". I quickly responded: "god bless you too, you sanctimonious, presumptuous soul". He responded with an emoji, one depicting the shedding of a tear. That might be the last communicative exchange between the two of us, an emoji shedding tears. His sanctimony derives, upon further reflection, from his assuming that I am somehow a "lost soul" for using the word "bullshit", for disagreeing with him about the Paris climate change accord, or for whatever reason he assumed, presumptuously, that my soul is "lost'. In all fairness, that aint a whole lotta evidence upon which to assume loss of soul in somebody. God bless me "anyway"? WTF? An evangelical, qualifying a blessing? That's both sanctimonious and presumptuous. As if he can only bestow the lord's blessing upon me with reluctance, as if his so doing is an act of generosity, in spite of my being undeserving of it. Hence, his sanctimony. I hope the tear shedding emoji indicated his regret at being presumptuous and sanctimonious, but I rather doubt it does. Even now, he is probably weeping for my soul, which he sanctimoniously, presumptuously, and mistakenly presumes is lost. I can assure him that is isn't. God knows exactly where it is, even if he doesn't.

Going Ever Lower

DONALD TRUMP is indisputably a criminal, a reprobate, and arguably criminally insane. A cursory examination of his policies and behavior strongly suggests as much; a detailed examination verifies it. The facts are well known, and scarcely bear repeating. Defining a "criminal" as someone who breaks the law, defining a "crime" as both misdemeanors and felonies, Trump's words and actions qualify, clearly. Anyone who either supports this president's policies, fails to condemn his behavior, or both, is either lacking in moral character and decency, or has suspended good judgment and moral character for personal or political expediency. Treason is one of only three crimes mentioned in the constitution. For the president to fail to act or to even acknowledge the reality of the greatest threat to American national security, climate change, is clearly a crime against the United States and humanity. Further examples of his criminal activities are easily available. When Trump exposes his own extreme moral deficiency, he does so so humorously that it makes for good entertainment, which may partly explain why seem to tolerate it. Another partial explanation is that his view coincide with those of a high percentage of the American people, thus revealing their moral deficiency, if not complete moral bankruptcy. It is already being pointed out that the four members of congress singled out for vicious slander by Trump have in common that they are female, are "of color" in the popular parlance, have been highly critical of Trump, and are all citizens of the United States, three of them having been born in the United States. Trump attacked them verbally for being critical of America, and for having immigrant backgrounds. Trump also has an immigrant background, as is well known, although he himself evidently dos not know that it was his grandfather, not his father, whom migrated from Germany, having been kicked out of that country for unethical behavior, which seems to be hereditary. Trump to has been critical of America, the distinction being that his criticism are usually fabrications. He fails to understand that to criticize one's country by using provable fact to indicate areas of potential improvement is the patriotic duty of every good citizen. Throughout his presidency, and since long before hi became president, trump has revealed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, and a pathological liar. To cite these facts is not unfair nor slanderous; they can be proven, easily. Every slanderous remark about minorities and women, every outright lie trump has told, has been irrefutably documented, and is available to anyone to see. The fact that the American people chose a person of such low character as president is shocking. to have voted for Donald Trump may be forgiven as an error in judgment, a understandable human mistake. To support him at this point, or to fail to condemn his behavior and treatment of others is so reprehensible that anyone who does os can only be described a an accomplice to evil, and therefore, deeply immoral.

Passing the Homeless Buck

HALF THE HOMELESS people in California live in Los Angeles, partly because of its warm climate and the fact that the city tolerates them, and even offers some measure of assistance. The number may be more than a quarter million, as many as half a million, or more. More, probably, than in New York City, long known as a homeless hang out. In L.A., the homeless inhabit every neighborhood, sleep on every park bench, and establish tent cities all over the city, in the suburbs and downtown. The quality of the air in the city has improved considerably over the past few decades, while the number of homeless people has skyrocketed. As is always the case in discerning the reasons for a ubiquitous social problem, the reasons are many. There is a sever shortage of affordable housing in California, and nationwide. The average rent in l.A. is around two thousand dollars a month; it is possible for a worker to work full time, or to have several jobs, and yet to be unable to afford to live indoors. Mental illness plays a role> When Ronald Reagan turned tens of thousands of mentally ill people out of asylums in the nineteen eighties, he unleashed a torrent of troubled people onto the streets from which American society has never recovered and to which it has never responded. Reagan's legacy is not one of compassion. The standard American response to homelessness is to ignore it, and to place exclusive blame on the homeless, using the false accusations that they are lazy, irresponsible, and have made poor decisions the result of which is their being without a home. Par of the problem is pervasive poverty south of the Rio Grande. a significant percentage of America's homeless are Hispanic, people who became refugees from violence and poverty in Latin American countries, fled to the United States seeking asylum, or in desperation sneaking into the country, only to be met with the usual pervasive American racism and lack of opportunity. The American have a moral responsibility to help the homeless which we the people are blatantly refusing to act on. The usual means is to deny that any responsibility exist, to blame the homeless for their plight in a society which offers nothing but opportunity, and to excoriate and ridicule those who articulate the problem as liars and troublemakers. In fact, opportunities for people to improve their economic circumstances in the united States fall far short of nearly every European country, and far short of most of the worlds' countries. Despite anecdotal evidence often used as proof to the contrary, the United States is not a society which offers opportunity to the economically disadvantaged. The United States is not a welcoming, inclusive, helpful culture, despite all the anecdotal evidence presented to the contrary, charity in America lags far behind actual need, less fortunate people tend to contribute much more than wealthy Americans, and Americans with means have a tendency, born out by irrefutable statistical facts, to hoard rather than share their wealth. The United States is not the wealthiest nation in the world, despite that fact that many Americans claim that it is. bu tit is certainly wealthy enough to eliminate poverty and homeless within its own borders, merely by giving everyone access to the benefits of both capitalism and socialism. But for this to happen, we Americans must first begin to take the problem seriously, and do more than pay occasional lip service to it.

Going Around, Coming Around

THE UNITED STATES was from its beginning intent on becoming an empire, and an imperial power. Having defied its British overlords by migrating west of the Appalachian mountains, having evicted the British, the French, and the Spanish from their North American possessions, and having successfully exterminated the native inhabitants of the original thirteen colonies, the united States was full of itself, confident of its divinely ordained future. When Most countries in Latin American revolted and gained independence from Spain in the early eighteen twenties, the United States began to see itself as the new colonial power in North and South America, replacing the Europeans. Almost immediately the U.S. issued the "Monroe Doctrine", instructing all foreign powers, mainly the Europeans, that henceforth only the United states would wield power and influence throughout Latin America. The fact that the Doctrine was unenforceable and has never been enforced die nothing to deter american imperialistic aggression in the region. throughout the late nineteenth century, and all the way up to the present, the United States has been intimately involved in the internal affairs, the political and economic life of nearly every Latin American country, removing and installing governments by force and subversion, according to perceived American needs, managing national economies, reaping the benefits of resourced exploitation. All this has enriched America's corporations and their owners, and has impoverished the nations and people of every country upon which the heavy hand of American imperialism has descended. The United States is a nation, in a very real sense, built upon stolen resources, stolen lives, violence, and conquest. Since before World War Two the birds have been coming home to roost, as it were, as millions of Latino refugees from poverty have ascended northward and descended on the United States, many legally according to American immigration, many not, all seeking nothing but a better life of mere survival. they are, and have always been willing to work for their survival. Detailed research clearly shows that these millions of Latin American immigrants, mainly from mexico, have greatly enriched the United States, by providing labor, creating prosperity, and increasing the consumer and tax base in an expanding but not fully developed capitalistic economy bursting with growth potential , but desperately in need of cheap labor for corporate expansion and profit. Like Trump said, they bring crime and rape, but very little compared to the amount engendered internally by native born citizens of European ancestry. Like people from Africa, people from Latin America have truly not made America more culturally vibrant they have made it more prosperous, and indeed, they have made america possible. Mexican immigrants have filled up what Mexicans call the "occupied territories", a huge swath of land in the Southwest which the United States invaded and conquered under false pretenses and turned into states beginning in the eighteen forties. For a nation in which everyone not of Indian/native american ancestry is the ancestor of an arguably illegal foreign immigrant, for Latin American people to be told that they should not be here, illegally or otherwise makes no more sense than to tell African-Americans that they should "go back to Africa". Recent surveys indicate that only twenty five percent of conservative evangelical Christians believe that Latino immigrants should be offered assistance, while seventy five percent of atheists and people unaffiliated with any religion believe that America should "welcome the stranger". This statistic speaks for itself. It says much about the true nature of the American conservative Christian community, ans who actually follow the teachings of Christ, and who does not. It says much about the ignorance Americans have of their own sordid history, and their arrogance of ignorance. Upon reflection, none of it is at all surprising.

Expanding The Canon With Trump

SHELDON AND MIRIAM ADELSON own casinos, and billions of dollars. Their wealth, like that of Donald J. Trump, greatly exceeds any contributions they might have made to society. Like most wealthy people, they are quite conservative, politically, resistant to social change, quite content to retain the status quo, and quite willing to pay to do so. To this end they contribute lavishly to the campaigns of conservative politicians, including Donald Trump, even more than the Koch brothers, who are similarly inclined to contribute to conservative and libertarian politicians, but not to Donald Trump, whom, at last report, both Koch brothers thoroughly despise. The arrangement is lucrative for both the givers and the takers. Conservatives in Congress pass legislation reducing taxes on the wealthy, and people like the Koch brothers and the Adelsons (sons of Adel?)) help ensure the reelection of such politicians. So grateful is Mrs. Adelson, and so taken with Donald Trump, that she proposes adding to the Bible a "book of Trump". This is not fake news. She really means it. She seems to think that the new book would fit best into the old Testament, somewhere near the book of "Esther". The problem with this, of course, is that it would seemingly require the approval of the Judaic religion, as well as Christianity, whereas including the book of Trump in the New Testament would allow for the dispensing of Jewish approval, and would seemingly require only christian consent, which, considering Trump's popularity among American Christians, might fly in America, if nowhere else. Esther, you might recall, entails yet another of the many stories of ancient Hebrew captivity, this time in the hands of the Persians, in modern day Iran. The evil Persian king is bent on complete destruction of the Jewish people, but Esther, the heroine, comes to their rescue. It may be that Trump is widely seen among his supporters as a savior of Israel, he having moved the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, to the great approval of Israel and the American conservative evangelical Trump support base, and the great consternation of most of the rest of the world. Then too, having torn up a peace treaty with Iran, and having turned a peace with that country into a condition of near war, Trump has pleased Irael and his domestic supporters, by demonstrating his ostensible fearlessness towards, contempt for, and willingness to destroy Israels's prime enemy. So, perhaps somewhere near Esther is where Trump properly belongs. Interestingly, although it is not widely known, as the Old testament proceeds, God, who is mentioned quite often in Genesis, is mentioned less and less as the Hebrew bible proceeds, less often in each book, and by the time we arrive at the book of Esther, quite late in the collection of thirty nine books making up the Hebrew bible, God is not mentioned at all - not once - in the entire book of Esther, which deals exclusively with human activity. This fact has been researched and discussed much in academic circles. There are books dealing with this interesting phenomenon. It might be argued that if indeed there is a place for Donald J.Trump in the Bible, it would be a place from which God is absent, and in the Bible, such places are few and far between.

Seeking Something We Call "Truth"

C.C.LEWIS was a passable science fiction writer until he became a fervent Christian relatively late in life. Then, he changed. His writing became more rigid, stilted, dogmatic, serious. Religions does that to many previously, already perfectly good people. It has often been noted that the people who become most intolerantly zealous are the late bloomers in religious belief. Lewis started writing about his new faith, and spewing dubious, often untenable assertions, again, often the product of rigid, dogmatic thinking. People who claim to know nothing are invariably more interesting than those who know the truth. Among his most memorable assertions is that, taking into consideration the totally of the message of Jesus Christ, that he was either a madman, or he was what he seemingly claimed to be; the only begotten son of the living god, come to earth to offer salvation to anyone who follows him, and accepts him as their lord and savior. That's a bluff many are willing to call; in this world, there are many more mentally ill men than saviors. Lewis conspicuously omits mention of many other possibilities. Among those possibilities is that the Bible is simply wrong about Jesus, and about who he was, what he said, and who he claimed to be. In fact, nowhere in the four gospels does Jesus say that he is God, or any part of God. That interpretation of his statements came about much later, mainly as an extension of the gospel most ardently supportive of the idea of Jesus as lord; the gospel of John. A little poem by Goethe accurately describes the situation: "Pure was Jesus in his passion, in his heart but one God serving. Who of him a God would fashion, from his sacred will is swerving". The four gospels all contradict each other at every turn. Each of the four gives Jesus a different personality. Each of the four describes different events, occurring at different times. This is best explained by the fact that none of the four was written by people who knew Jesus, or each other, and all were written decades after the death of Jesus, by unknown authors, using a disparity of sources now lost to us. Every beautiful teaching of Jesus can be found in earlier writings, by Confucius, or in other religious texts in Buddhism, Taoism, or Hinduism. The message Jesus hammered home most urgently was that the world would soon end, and god would soon come to Earth, in the form of the "son of Man" to bring about an entirely new world order, a world in which all the wickedness of this world would be replaced by God's grace and goodness. Jesus, in brief, was an apocalyptic preacher. Most of us are neither madmen nor divine beings. We are somewhere in the middle, suspended, between the sublime and the sordid. We are, in short, a bit of both. As Wallace Stevens said: "A poetic synthesis of hyacinths and biscuits." C.S. Lewis, like the rest of us, sought truth. And like the rest of us, he never found it outside himself, but had to content himself to embrace only what he could discern from within. We live in a universe of relativity, in which the truth is dependent upon point of view. That may have been the only true message Jesus ever taught, handled and handed down to us so very clumsily by people who failed to fully understand him. The truth that Jesus gave us might well have been that the attainment of truth is only a matter of seeking, and the seeking only occurs within each of our very different selves, in our very different universes.

Biden, Backtracking

ALL POLITICIAN, and for that matter all humans, make statements they wish later they had never made. The rule is; think before you speak. Conversely, people seeking and holding elective office often fail to make statements they might rather wish they had made. Joe Biden has had such along career in politics that he has, like his political party, like his country, evolved considerably over the decades. In the nineteen seventies he was opposed to busing during a time when all good liberal democrats were in favor of it, and he worked closely with and compromised with southern conservative democrats when no good northern, eastern, or northeastern liberal democrat deigned to so do. Forty and fifty years ago there were still conservatives in the democratic party, and liberals in the republican party, and it was often difficult to tell the two parties apart, as it had been for much of their existence. Not so anymore, in our era of bipolarized political in which democrats are far to the left, republicans are far to the right, and never the twain shall meet. Now running for president, Biden has some 'splainin' to do. he says that he was always in favor of busing, as a social, educational equalizer, but that he was opposed to it being implemented through the heavy handed of the federal government, preferring a more localized approach. It sounded lame. It sounded remindful of confederate sympathizers and their lame appeals to stats rights. Here's a suggestion for candidate Joe Biden. do not pretend to be enthusiastic about busing, then or now. Say something like: "although I understand that busing is a noble attempt to equalize society, to mitigate the effects of racism, I always considered it, and still consider it, a wholly inadequate means of dealing with a pervasive, deeply rooted american problem, that of racism inequality and prejudice. Busing is a band aid applied to a gaping wound, which will never facilitate real healing. Real healing will occur when the hearts and minds of the American people, as reflected in American social patterns and American institutions, are changed, fundamentally. The answer, of course, is the only answer, the same answer as always, the answer which ultimately solves all problems: education. We must teach ourselves, and our children, and our children's children the sheer stupidity of racism, its history, its scientifically baseless illogic, the shallow, unreasoning impulses behind it, and we must remind ourselves that skin pigmentation is ultimately no more important a factor in human worth than hair color, height, weight, age, or gender." And with regard to his past cooperation with racist, segregationist united Senators within his own party, maybe he should try this: 'I strongly disagreed with them then, just as I strongly disagree with most republicans now, on most issues. That does not, however, mean that I cannot at least try to reach out to them, respect them, and work with them for compromise, in the hope that we as leaders of our nation can produce results through cooperation beneficial to us all and set an example for the american people that merely disagreeing strongly with someone need not prevent nor even impede mutual respect, communication, and the sacred spirit of compromise, which has been a hallmark of American history and progress since our founders molded our nation out of disparate interest, from compromise." It might produce more support for Biden than his chosen tactic of backtracking and showing regret and remorse, the tactic currently in style. then again, maybe not. Americans today seem to prefer a good gut wrenching mea culpa to someone standing behind their actions. Either we shed tears and show remorse, or we dig in and double down. Its a shame. Sometimes its best to merely stand behind what you say and do, without all the drama.

Compromising Our Morals, Ourselves

YOU'LL RECALL, unless you're a Trump supporter and prefer not to, that one month before Trump was elected, he revealed himself to be a serial sexual predator, and proud of it. It suddenly appeared that although Hillary Clinton was only slightly ahead in the polls, that her election was certain. How could Trump possibly win? Millions of Americans would refuse to vote, or switch their vote. In fact the Republican national committee wanted him to withdraw, but he refused. Amazingly, he was elected, largely because of the vicissitudes of the electoral college; Clinton got three million more votes than he. Trump's primary support base consisted, and still consists, of white evangelical Christians, and working class white men with limited educations. These same people would undoubtedly have lambasted a Clinton or an Obama under similar circumstances. A great deal of research has gone into figuring all this out. Angry, alienated people looking for an authority figure, a savior of sorts. The year of the outsider, in which Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump stole the show. America, moving in a progressive direction, with increasing cultural diversity, acceptance of gay and transgender people, and increasingly dissatisfied with corporate economic hegemony and grotesque inequality of wealth and income, spurring conservatives to long for and seek to revive a long gone America with white male patriarchy and Christian dominance. Maybe it all adds up, maybe it all makes sense, and yet, somehow, it doesn't. A man with three divorces, numerous extramarital affairs, and dozens of accusations of sexual misconduct, being elected by the support of the Christian community. It turns out that America's conservative Christian community has more than a selective memory; it has selective morality. Since the late nineteen seventies, when evangelical participation in politics became prominent, the two issues upon which politically active Christians have hung their hats have been abortion, and homosexuality, the twin sins of Christian conservatism. And on those accounts, Trump fills the bill, or at least pays lip service to it. Marital infidelity, divorce, and heterosexual misbehavior have taken a sinful back seat. Our right wing evangelical Christians place great emphasis upon those sins in which they have no personal interest, and show little or no concern for those in which they already have, or might be tempted in the future to indulge in themselves. If only Hillary had been stridently anti-choice. Even that might not have been sufficient to break the magic of Trump. White supremacy has a long history within American conservatism. Racism, after all, is a traditional American value, conservative, not liberal. The Christian American right is strongly pro capitalism; sharing wealth through government action is taboo for those who profess to follow a man who told us to render unto Caesar and give unto the poor. Mega churches and larger than life ministers spewing these values satisfy America's longing for celebrity. Trump, the glitzy celebrity with an angry, reactionary message of a better America lost to progress is the perfect match for religious, money seeking conservatives, what Gore Vidal called the "Jesus, guns, and money" crowd. As the baby boomers age out and the much more progressive millennials take over, this will change, but it hasn't yet, and until it does, we will be stuck with Trump, his followers, and all the unpleasantness inherent therein.

Messing With Iran

THE IRANIANS are deliberately violating the nuclear arms agreement they signed in 2015 with the United States, France, Great Britain, Russia, and China. They are enriching, rendering more potent, radioactive metal, uranium, from its normal five percent, roughly, the process which is necessary to render the metal sufficiently explosive to make weapons out of it. A considerable increase in explosive capacity is necessary, upwards of a ninety percent increase. The Trump administration, which precipitated the problem by removing the U.S. from a perfectly good nuclear arms treaty, and initiating what amounts to economic warfare with Iran, including trade sanctions and embargoes, has already and will doubtless continue to rant, rave, and complain vociferously. Phrases like "playing with fire" are already coming forth from the head of state who was recently confused about the origins of aviation. Most people already know all this. Most people also are aware that building nuclear weapons is a skill any graduate student in physics can explain. All that is necessary is the mechanical and technical infrastructure, which Iran, and many other countries have. What most Americans seem unaware of is the chaotic treatment of Iran by the United States over the past one hundred years. Early in the era of oil the U.S. and Great Britain gained access to Iranian oil fields, then lost access when an election in Iran brought to power a government which nationalized Iran's oil, and left the western powers high and dry. The western powers responded by removing Iran's government, and replacing it with one amenable to western exploitation, a standard mode of operation for the United States. For several decades the United States strongly encouraged Iran to become a nuclear power, welcoming Iranian nuclear physics students to American college campuses. Then, it didn't. When the Iranian revolution of 1979 again brought to power a government resistant to American imperialism, the empire abruptly changed course, and suddenly it became verboten for Persia (Iran) to have nukes. The United States, beginning early in its history, took it upon itself to decide which nations could do what, economically, politically, internationally. It is a heavy burden, that of empire, not without unintended consequences. The United States, in its unquenchable thirst for expanding markets, resources, and wealth, has always messed with other nations. the Monroe Doctrine of 1823, which has always been unenforceable and still is, commanded that no nation other than the United States would be allowed to have influence in the affairs of any Latin American country. American foreign policy and practices can change, and always have changed with dizzying speed, depending on world events and the vicissitudes of American corporate demands and desires. When a world power initiates, engages in, and completes a treaty with several other nations, then abruptly abandons the treaty, the world power loses credibility. Under Trump, the United States has turned peace into approaching war, losing its credibility in so doing, and the most tragic aspect of this is that it isn't even the greatest crime so far committed by the Trump administration, and by the United States under it.

Loving the Yankees, For All the Right Reasons

I BECAME A YANKEE (American baseball team) fan, in 1961, when I was six. My parents hated them, my neighbors hated them, it seemed the whole world hated them, so, being the precocious little social protester do gooder that I was already emerging into, I decided "hey, this is my team". I felt sorry for them; the Yankees were obviously the underdog, and were getting no love. By the time I was old enough to learn the truth, it was too late. I've never been ashamed to be a Yankee fan, and in fact have enjoyed the animosity generated by it and by living in the Midwest. Baseball argument are the best. They're harmless, notwithstanding the occasional barroom brawl and gun fight, since everything is settled on the field, in plain sight. I have never been prouder of them than now. Just recently, in concert with the fiftieth anniversary of the famous "Stonewall" incident, in which a gay bar in New York was attacked by police and the publicity resulting therefrom is widely credited with having engendered the gay right movement, the Yankees, at Yankee stadium, with forty five thousand in attendance, honored the LGBTQ community. It was LGBTG night at the big ball park in the Bronx. I do not know the details. I do know that there were people on the filed before the game, standing in a row at home plate, shaking hands and holding commemorative plaques and trophies. All the talk was about the Stonewall event. The crowd seemed generally amenable to it all. New York, like almost all big American cities, is full of liberals, and one can presume that it was largely a liberal gathering at the stadium. Yankee fans, however, abound all across the fruited plain, and it can be surmised that quite a few sixty year old right wing extreme Trump supporter lifelong Yankee fans turned in their membership cards in disgust that night. fine, Screw them. For that matte, screw everyone who hates the Yankees because they have and spend a lot of money on their baseball team; so do all the other teams, just not quite as much. the Yankees are the third most valuable sports franchise on the free market, behind Manchester United soccer, and Dallas Cowboy football. America loves winners, and the word "Yankee' means "American", so, what's not to love? The ownership of the team, the Steinbrenner family, must have thought long and hard about honoring LGBTQ folks, and the fact that they decided to go ahead with it attests to our changing times, to the Yankees ownership brilliance, and to liberal New York. The event might not have flown in Atlanta. Whether our conservative evangelical Christian Trump people like it or not, and they don't, LGBTQ people are going to gain social equality in America, because they and their millions of friends are insisting on it Gay people, transgender people, and all other kinds of unusual people are not sick, they are not sinners, and they are not criminals, though until recently they were so categorized by the American justice system. But,as Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said, though it does not appear in his writings: "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty". So, as far as justice is concerned, social justice, you right wing evangelical christian Trumper hypocritical moral and intellectual bankrupt reprobates can kiss some gay ass, and some bi-sexual ass to boot, which they would probably enjoy, and watch the Yankees win, while the ball club, with its forty thousand in house spectators per game paying exorbitant ticket prices laughs all the way to the bank, and to Stonewall and back to the Bronx.

Gaffing, Again

APPARENTLY, IT REALLY HAPPENED. Apparently, he really said it. President Trump, in front of God, world, and millions of Americans, celebrated American independence by saying that during the revolutionary war, the continental army seized control of airports, which theretofore had presumably been in British hands. Implied is that by so doing, the British were deprived of refueling stations for their bombers, which saved the towns of colonial America from constant bombardment. It could have been worse. It could always be worse, though often its hard to imagine how. He could have turned the holiday celebration into another one of his tiresome, grotesque campaign style rallies, laden with insult slinging and outlandish distortions of fact, angry chanting faces wearing MAGA ball caps. Instead, yielding to immense public pressure, he kept it patriotic, with the airport remark thrown in for good measure. The president, it seems, is, as usual, quite confused, unaware of basic historical facts. His excuse is that it was raining, and the teleprompter did him an injustice. Trump and his gangsterish minions used to carp at Obama for having the audacity to use a teleprompter at all. At least nobody in his gang has accused the liberal elite, or China, of conspiring to abuse the teleprompter by feeding it misinformation or fake news. Exactly how the rain and the teleprompter prevented the president from knowing what words were coming out of his mouth and effectively aborting their emergence nobody is explaining. Amid speculation that Trump truly believes that aviation science was extant in the eighteenth century, we are reminded that this wasn't the first time. When the president suggested that windmills cause cancer, he offered no retraction later, made no attempt to blame it on the weather, or malfunctioning electronic equipment. Evidently, to this day, he still maintains his belief in the carcinogenic qualities of windmills. then there was the one in which Trump declared that his father, Fred Trump the slum lord, was born in Germany. Either he had his father confused with his grandfather, or just wanted to portray himself as the scion of an immigrant from a country which is not a shit hole, or just doesn't give a shit The total number of outright lies told as president has now nearly reached eleven thousand, all well documented, all widely witnessed. There appears to be no exact accounting of the merely outrageously stupid remarks. Saying things like American revolutionary war forces seized control of airports in the seventeen seventies cannot be counted as "lies", so much as outbursts of latent schizophrenia. The best strategy for Trump supporters will be their usual one; to just ignore the remark, ignore the ridicule engendered by it, and pretend it didn't happen, and go about their merry, angry, racist, misogynistic, self proclaimed Christian devilish ways. And this is exactly what they will do, while the rest of us, the astonished majority, fairly and appropriately incessantly ridicule their seriously mentally ill leader. It must become embarrassing to be a Trump supporter, even if the embarrassment is neatly hidden beneath misinformation, deflected blame, and insults hurled at people whose actions are irrelevant. I've given up travelling abroad; it has long since become embarrassing being an American.

Declaring Independence

JOHN ADAMS, who later became vice president in the Washington administration and then served one term as president, was largely responsible for the fact that Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. He kept hurrying the young thirty three year old Jefferson along, knowing how talented he was, and in late June Adams predicted that the document would be presented, formally adopted the the continental congress, and issued to the world on the first of July, 1776. Adams wrote that for generations co come, July the first would be celebrated as the greatest holiday in the United States. Considering our inability to predict the future, Adams was really not that far off. Jefferson had no interest in writing the later to George III,, and had to be coerced by extreme peer pressure into doing it. he was by far the youngest man in the room, and the committee appointed to draft the document, which included John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston, were not Jefferson's peers they were his social superiors. but they were not his intellectual superiors, or even equals. When young Thomas basically protested 'why me?", he asked Adams; :why don't you write it"? Adams was ready. "Because, young man, you are ten times more intelligent than I, ten times the better writer, and whereas i am abrasive and unpopular, you are pleasant and well liked." Franklin, seventy years old but still six four two forty, loomed over the skinny six foot two Jefferson and glowered at him, Benjamin had run out of patience. he said:"young man, I can assure you that you shall do your duty for your country." Out manned and outvoted, ganged up upon, reluctantly, Jefferson acceded. They gave him paper and pen, locked him in a vacant room, and said 'go get 'em tiger". Franklin was in charge of editing. he worked over Jefferson's work extensively, so much so that Jefferson's work was barely recognizable in language. Franklin knew, however, that the young man had basically produced a masterpiece, and his changes were purely cosmetic, without disturbing the substance of the text. One major change. The document is essentially a long list of complaints against the treatment of the Americans by the British government. It begins by stating our intent to become independent of British rule, lists the reasons why, the many complaints, and concludes by proclaiming "we really mean it". Among the complaints Jefferson, who was a slave owner, lists is that the British allowed the Americans to own slaves, and did nothing to stop slavery. Everyone agreed that this particular complaint must not be included in the final draft, for several reasons, all of them obvious. Here, Jefferson's tendency towards complexity of personality and hypocrisy was "self evident". Jefferson was at first not pleased with Franklin's alternations; writers naturally resist being edited, but Franklin explained them all so well that Thomas came around. Jefferson had written "we hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable". Franklin thought the passages sounded too religious, to much like a preacher, and after all, they wanted a document replete with scientific reason, not religious fervor. So he replaced the term 'sacred and undeniable' with "self evident", after the fashion of a scientific proof. Jefferson was proud enough pf his work that on his tombstone he claims authorship of it, and well as mentioning his service as ambassador to France, and as founder of the University of Virginia. his tombstone does not mention that he served as president of the United States, of which Jefferson was not proud. he thought his two terms in the white house, consumed in political turmoil, were largely a failure, nothing but inefficient political conflict, and described the American presidency as "splendid misery". Everyone should read the Declaration of Independence, for its dramatic, linguistic beauty, and magnanimous, courageous tone. Everyone who had anything to do with its composition and issuance was putting his their in dire peril. They were, after all, traitors.

Disagreeing Fundamentally, Morally

THE WORLD his long since become painfully familiar with the pathological dishonesty, the cruelty, and the twisted reasoning of Donald Trump and the millions of Americans who approve of his behavior by supporting him. More disconcerting than Trump's words and actions is the widespread support they engender among people who would otherwise have been thought to be at least morally decent, if not politically correct. Anyone who dismisses the well documented brutality and cruelty with which people are being treated in what are essentially concentration camps on the American border with mexico by dismissively reminding us that the people being detained are in the country illegally does not have a political policy disagreement with people of good character, but instead has a fundamental moral disagreement. The lame argument that previous administrations, especially the Obama administration, pursued the same policies of family separation and detainment is, quite simply, a lie, and a reprehensible attempt to justify and tacitly support pure evil. Under Obama, there was never a policy of kidnapping children from their parents, and to either lose them, or send them to foster homes, never to see their parents again. Trump supporters act as if by lying about what Obama did, they can justify or excuse what Trump is doing. The obvious antidote to this perverted thinking is that Obama is no longer president, and no matter what he did, Trump is president now, we are dealing with issues in the present, and Trump is under no circumstances constrained to emulate Obama's policies. Obama is irrelevant to the present situation. Even had Obama behaved like trump is behaving now, which he by no means did, one does not justify bad behavior by pointing to someone else's bad behavior, one does not justify cruelty by pointing to past cruelty. Trump's cruelty towards asylum seekers, who are not for the most part entering the country illegally but instead are seeking asylum legally, in accordance with American and international law, is nothing other than a direct manifestation of the racist, xenophobic, anti-immigration attitudes of Trump, his administration, and his conservative, evangelical Christian gangster like supporters.The conservative movement, the Republican party, and the evangelical christian community, by supporting rather than condemning the behavior of the Trump administration and its policies towards not only asylum seekers but human beings and the natural world in general, have clearly revealed their moral bankruptcy, and the fundamental evil of their twisted ideology. Few if anyone favors completely open borders. Even the staunchest pro immigration people - and we are all either immigrants or descendants of immigrants, as has been repeatedly pointed out - are in favor of an organized approach to immigration, and agree that every nation has not only the right but an obligation to its own people to monitor an defend its own national borders. The American border should and must be monitored and defended. the most logical way to do this would be to install a military presence, a massive massive, at all points along all borders. What else is any military designed to do, but to defend a nation's borders? But the military can be a welcoming force, rather than a violent one. The American army and national guard could provide the type of comprehensive, systematic organization required to identify and meet the immediate needs of everyone who approaches the border of the United States. the military is perfectly capable of treating people fairly, humanely, compassionately, while organizing them and preparing them for either entry into the country, or other arrangements. Today the reprobate president tweeted that if the migrants do not like the conditions under which they are living, they should stay home. Problem solved. If the United States under Trump is unable or unwilling to provide decent treatment for people desperate for basic assistance, the best alternative would be to simply close the detention-concentration camps, and to turn them all the asylum seekers loose to enter the country and fend for themselves. That would, if nothing else, exonerate Trump and his supporters of the crime of torture, of which they are currently most assuredly guilty. it would do nothing, however, to improve their moral character.

Admiring and Despising

THOMAS JEFFERSON was born on April 2, 1743, but because the western world switched from the old Julian calendar to the modern Gregorian calendar during his childhood, in 1752, his birth date was changed to April 13, 1743. Different calendars were in use in various places in the world, but in the British empire, 1752 was the year of the great calendar transition. On Jefferson's tombstone, his birth day is listed as April 2, although since the new calendar took effect history books have listed the revised date, and to this day we acknowledge it as the true Jefferson birthday. April 13 in the new system is the same as April 2 in the old system, so, take your pick. We all consider our birthday to be special; it must have seemed strange when suddenly everyone alive in the middle of the eighteenth century had to adjust to having a new and improved date of birth. Many folks simply refused to make the switch; they cooperated with the new calendar - they really had no choice - but stubbornly clung to their original birthdays. The birth and death dates of the dead were left alone, although the dates of historical events were updated, causing confusion which took decades to completely abate. For many, both the old and the new dates were held dear to the heart throughout the rest of their lives. Across America there are many Jeffersonian admiration historical societies. For the most part, they all agree that Jefferson's birthday, the new one, ought to be a national holiday. If it were ever so honored, it would undoubtedly be squeezed into "President's Day", which occurs on a Monday every February, in honor of our American craving for three days weekends, and has surprisingly gained traction in American culture. Surprisingly, because nobody knows exactly what "President's Day" is intended to celebrate. Originally it was established as a combination of the birthday's of George Washington, February 22, and Abraham Lincoln, February 12, but since it is called "President's Day", many people assume that the holiday is designed to celebrate the lives of everybody who has served as president of the United States, all 44 of them. (Grover Cleveland served two non consecutive terms, therefore we have had 45 presidents, but only 44 different presidents). It would be strange indeed to celebrate someone born in April in February, only adding to the confusion, so, by necessity, Jefferson might have to be kept separate. The easiest thing to do might be to merely refrain from elevating Jefferson's birthday to the status of a national holiday, and that is the most likely outcome. Complicating the issue is the fact that we, in our modern political correct view of history, no longer necessarily consider Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington for that matter, worthy of celebrating. They owned slaves. Abraham Lincoln, who in his younger days did a bit of whoring around, didn't own people, but was far less the strident abolitionist than one might like to think; he in fact would have been perfectly willing to allow slavery to continue in the south, which makes the secession of the southern states upon his election somewhat ironic. What Lincoln actually opposed was the extension of slavery into newly formed western states. The upshot is, we have no idea how to treat our dead presidents, (nor anyone else, including each other), whether to venerate or denounce them. Therefore we tend to do both. The situation is comparable to Donald Trump's attitude about john McCain, and the attitude of everybody else. The most appropriate point of view is probably to accept the reality that life, and therefor history is inextricably complicated, and that we must, for the sake of honesty and accuracy, both admire and dislike everyone, including each other, including our past presidents, particularly since not only can we not decide whether they were great people or scoundrels, but we cannot even decide when they were born, what they did, and when they died.

Trying To Explain: Freedom of Speech Is Not Freedom of Preach

AMONG THE BEST VENUES available in America for the absorption of jaw droppingly inexplicably bizarre words and deeds is ye olde small town senior center, especially deep in the conservative Christian south. Smilingly I recall the extreme right wing extremely devout evangelical Christian MAGA-man saying: "a true Christian must vote for Trump". This same person, an eighty year old from Minnesota, who should therefore know better, expressed his opinion that the Democratic party is so anti-Semitic that it is "pushing for", as he put it, a new holocaust. (yes, I really heard him say that.) This is a man who proudly boasts of having traveled to eastern Europe for the purpose of trying to turn Eastern Europeans into Christians, "witnessing", as they like to say. That most eastern Europeans are already Christians, and probably don't need any American role model witnesses doubtless has never occurred to the old goat. The most reprehensible aspect of America's conservative evangelical community, other than its devotion to the decidedly un-Christian Trump, is their delusional belief that they are mandated by God to change other people's religions, and that the only correct religion is the one to which the evangelical is devoted. These right wing evangelicals are not spreading the word of God; they are presuming themselves to be God. Sometimes, they step over the line among their devout brethren and sistern. One can over preach to the point of bullying. So it was with our octogenarian zealot. At long last his membership in the senior center was suspended, temporarily, for doing more Christian bullying than witnessing. When he threatened people with eternity in hell for not accepting Christ, he was out, if only refreshingly briefly. He didn't go easily. he went with a bang, proclaiming all the way to the door his right of free speech, and his intent to exercise it fully and completely upon his return. he was dead wrong, of course. I wanted to, and may yet try to explain to the self sainted Bible spouting bully that, no, in the senior center he has no "free speech". He, and millions of other Americans, do not understand the first amendment. it says that congress shall pass no law abridging free speech. It says nothing else. The sacred document says nothing about parents, teacher, employers, and senior center directors. One can arguable extend the word "congress" to mean "government", but that's about as far as it goes. Any parent can tell any offspring to shut the hell up. any teacher can tell any student to be silent. Any employer can tell any employee...but you get the point, assuming you are not a right wing Christian Trump loving maniac. When I was teaching high school I got into it with the principle, which I often did, and tried to argue that since the school received federal funding, my freedom of speech inside the building was intact. I think I was was wrong. Good try though. It is important, particularly so for extreme right wing Trumper christian fanatics to understand that free speech is not absolute, and that it protects us only from Congress, and from nobody else. if the old bastard ever comes knocking at my front door, he'll learn that vital lesson in one hell of a hurry. At eh senior, center, I'll play the part of prudence, and let the director explain it, assuming she understands it.