Rendering Justice

THE AMERICAN JUSTICE SYSTEM, like the United States generally, is a Heinz 57 hodge podge of traditions and theories borrowed from other, older cultures, mostly English. The fact that the U.S. has fifty one judicial - legal systems only complicates matters, and makes necessary an entire comprehensive theory of law, called "conflicts". "Conflicts of law" is the system which determines original jurisdication for litigation, and litigation which involves activity inmore than of of these United States. My father (1918-1986) was a tort lawyer who studied under one of the greatest jurists in American history, Dr. robert J. Leflar (1900-1997), who spent decades teaching at the law school at the University of Arkansas. The law school at that university is now named in his honor. He also had a "side job" teaching in the summer at the New York University School of Law. At various times both Supreme Court Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger flew across the country to visit with Dr. Leflar, and to get his advice and knowledge concering some issue with conflicts of law, a subject which the Supreme Court often, with ultimated jurisdiction over all fifty state legal systems, has reason to be involved. I had the great honor of meeting Dr. Leflar when I was about fifteen years old. My father took me to the university, presumably to get me accustomed to the environment, since we all knew that I was headed for college, somewhere. He also wanted to swing by and see Dr. Leflar. I remember dad telling me that we would have no trouble finding Leflar: simply go to the law library, and he would be there, with his nose in some volumnious legal tome. That is exactly what happened. the esteemed professor walked with us around the campus, and although we were accompanied by a retinue of other people, I will never forget aht Leflar spent the entire time paying attention to me, the runt of the group. Dad had brought with him a valuable, old law book, which he donated to the law library, which greatly appreciated the gift. Years later, I was in graduate school, and dropped by Dr. Leflar's office, with a new copy of his autobiography, "One Life In the Law" tucked securely under my arm. I left it with an administrative assistant, with my request that Dr. Leflar autograph it. Indeed he did. When I returned to pick it up, he had written to my father: "With fond remembrances for days gone by". When I presented it to my father, who was by then himself retired from legal practice (although his former professor, Dr. Leflar, was, amazingly, still working , at the age of eighty two), he burst into tears of joy. Maybe that's why I have, even in today's legally chaotic environment, a deep and abiding respect for the system of justice in the U.S.A.. With people like Robert J. Leflar as role models, its easy to be respectful.

Taking the Low Road, Liberally

CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT ALONE in their often illogical, unreasonable responses to the topic of the day: the proper treatment, within the criminal justice system, of Donald J.Trump. Although Trump supporters amaze us on an almost daily basis with their jaundiced views of facts and their tedency to replace facts with alternative facts, Trump detractors chip in, in their own way contributing to the illogic. Many were unhappy with the seemingly special treatment afforded Trump at his arraignment. Most common is the complaint that the judge not ony did not confiscate Trump's passport, but that she didn't even require bail to be posted. Furthermore, no mug shot was taken, Trump never appeared wearing an orange prisoners jump suit, nor was he burdened by leg irons and handcuffs. Definitely preferential treatment, according to progressives. I responsed by tring to point out that a mug shot would have been totally unnecessary; everyone knows what Trump looks like; he is hardly likely to run from justice and "blend into the crowd". Or, at least, he would have ennormous difficulty getting away with it....I also tried to counter with the viewpoint that for Trump to keep his passport was actually a good thing; maybe the courts should have given him money as well - who knows, maybe he would've used these items to leave the country, and not return. If you try, it is easy to imagine Trump on the beach in the south of France, luxuriating in the pampered life of a retired aristocrat, well out of harms way, and, more importantly, far enough from human society and politics to prevent him from doing any further harm. I'd take that offer in a heartbeat....Problem is, Trump never would. I want to ask every Republican who insists that Trump is the victim of a politically motivated campaign to destrooy him, the following: What if Barack Obama had left office with a garage full of Top Secret documents, at first denied he had them, refused to return them, and tried for months to obstruct the process of returning them. Would he have been indicted with federal criminal charges? Would the Republicans be screaming to let the poor guy alone, stop "weaponizing" the justice system, and leave poor Barack Obama alone? Would their reactions and attitudes been the same for Obama as they are for Trump? As they like to say: you be the judge. The Americal legal and judicial system, with all its faults, remains the envy of the world in its administration of justice and protection for both victims and criminals against arbitrary justice, confrontational and inconsistent though it is. Peopel who attack it merely becaue it does not perform to their hopes and expectations, as we are now seeing among the MAGA crowd, are doing a great disservice to teh very nstitution wih=ich protects them, and to their own country.

Taking the Low Road

TRAGICALLY, SHOCKINGLY, but no unpredictably the reaction to Trump's multiple indictments on the right wing of Capitol Hill sank to the lowest common denominator, as the Trump movement, (oh, surprise), took the low road. Republican menbers of Congress are apparantly almost unamimously claiming that the whole affair is part of a massive conspiracy of Trump haters to "get Trump". Purely politically and personally motivated. This, of course, is insane, vile, pernicious. A few moments of logical thought should make it clear to anybody how complicated and unworkable it would be to actually force someone into the federal justice system for purely political reaons; for one, how would Trump's enemies go about stacking the grand dury with partisan Trump haters, without getting noticed or caught? Or how can it be possible for a conspiracy of thousands of people needed to steal a national presidential election to perform its task without anyone noticing or finding evidence for the theft? That they would do this, take this horribly false, malignant point of view, which is so blatantly, obviously, transparently false, reveals much about their intellect and their moral character, just as their insistance that the election was stolen reveals the same. As if the grand jury in Florida was chosen beceuse of hatred of Trump as the only prerequisite. It is obvious by now that if indeed the Donald really were to shoot somebody dead on fifth avenue that his legions of cult followers would blame it on the anti-Trump conspiracy; they made him do it, somehow. Explanations are never a problem with this crowd, because sanity is not a requirement. Among Republican presidential candidates, only Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson have the intergrity to refer to Trump's classified document heist in negative terms. Asking a Trump supporter about Trump's behavior and the response will almost invariably involve Hillary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and any number of other people, as if bad behavior can be justified by pointing to somebody else's bad behavior, or fabricating it. Just as everyone should read the Muller report, everyone should read the indictment, which is about forty or fity pages long, much shorter than the voluminous Muller report. Nothing but diversions, and distractions. The indictment makes the case agaisnt Trump so compellingly, so convincingly, that it seems obvious that Trump is guilty as hell, so to speak, beyond the dishonest capabilities of even the most ardent MAGA members to discredit by distorting. But they'll keep trying. Themore duly authorized indictments come down against Tump, and the more overwhelmingly the evidence suporting them, the more twisted, crazy, and fantastic will become the defenders of Trump with their false realities, in their unceasing crusade to put lipstick on a pig.

Indicting Trump

THIS TRUMP INDICTMENT on charges related to his evident theft and hoarding of top secret documents when he left office is, we must bear in mind, only the beginning of Trump's interaction with the justice system. There are still probably indictments to come relating to his incitement to insurrection on January 6, 2021, and his post election attempt to coerce the Attorney General of Georgia to fabricate eleven thousand seven hundered and eighty votes, one more than he needed to win the state against Biden. These ases will be in the federal court system the rest of Trump's life, and maybe the rest of most of our lives. I share teh glee among progressive Trump -haters over this dramatic development. Not so much "Schadenfreude", or whatever the heck it is, wanting other people to suffer, but rather, because, damn it, its about time justice caught up with Trump, the obvious criminal. All the way to the election in twenty twenty four, these lawsuits will be growing and building, as will Trump's campaign for the presidency, and, quite likely, the enthusiasm and loyalty of his supporters. In 1920 socialist labor union organizer Eugene V. Debs, while in jail, received about one million votes for president, in the election won byWarrren G. Harding, who died about a year later while in office. Trump's journey, or attempted journey, back into the White House promises to be dramatice and entertaining, and the behavior of his cult following will be no less interesting to observe, as they become increasingly angry and active with Trump's gradual but steady legal and political decline. And lest we forget, Trump has already tried to illegally remainin office by organizing and inciting a violent attack on the United States government, in which several people died and dozens of police officers were maimed for life, and his cult follower - supporters were with him every step of the way, and still are... Indeed, a majority of conservative Christian Trump supporters say to this day that the insurrection at the Capitol was a good idea. They see nothing wrong with Trump's behavior, his conservative Christian supporters. That tells us much about their moral character and intellectual abilities. That shows us clearly that they indeed are capable of anything, including criminal activity and violence, and, you never know....what if Trump decides to organize and order them to start a civil war in the streets of America? In America, you, or anyone can become president, even while in jail. God bless America.

The Corrupting of The People

THE 'L.E.A.R.N.S." ACT passed in Arkansas and was signed into law by Governor Sarah Huckstabe Sanders. "LEARNS", as you might suspect, is a crazy, contrived acronym:Literacy...Empowerment...Accountability...Responsibility...Networking...School Safety...Just a bunch of good sounding words, strung together to spell out the word "Learns"...By this you migh deduce and extreme creativity and brilliance of the part of those who thought it up. If so, you would be mistaken. Before becoming governor of Arkansas, Sanders spent the better part of two years standing in front of the national media, looking into the camera, and spouting thousands of lies on behalf of President Trump. that evidently endeared her to Arkansas conservative voters. Now, she is proudly, diligently trying to sign into law the toxic false educational agenda of the far right. The LEARNS ACT is another example of the right wing disease, the progenitor of "Trumpism" still sweeping the country. It bans books, bans acknowledgement of racism and homosexuality in Arkansas public schools, because conservatives prefer that they didn't exist, and thus, thou shalt not. Sheer insanity, propaganda, indoctrination, false fascism, this abominable LEARS ACT, and, for that matter, the entire far right wing twisted educational agenda. The act steals money from public education, public money raised by the taxpayers, and gives it to private schools. The Republicns seem to have forgotten their own dogma, that free enterprise only works without government interference, that socialism is bad, and that therefore public money must not be used to assist private enterprise. Thousands of librarians and public school teachers hate the LEARNS ACT, probably because of its canctioning, mandating of book banning, and legislated theft of public school funds and their transfer to private parties. Therefore thay have filed a lawsuit in federal court over it, and a federal jusge has put the damnable, contemptible mess on hold; effectively delaying or possibly even prevenitng it from ever going into law, God willing. All over america these cazy and crazier far right wing wing laws targeting LGBTQ people and indoctrinating children with lies is being given stron opposition, in the courts and in he media, especially among intelligent, educated people, the sort who oppose Trump. It seems likely that eventually this current upsurge in far right fascism in America as manifested by the Republican Party, will subside and be For the moment, however, it is tragically, very much alive, it not well and the sacred crusade agaisnt it thus must carry on, vigorously.

The Corrupting of the High Court

UNLESS YOU HAPPEN TO BE a far right Christian conservative extremist, you have noticed over the past few years, or perhpas past few decades, something going very wrong with the United States Supreme Court.Its been filled with far right wing extremists appointed by far right wing presidents, with the help of Congressionl extremists, who jammed nominees through and succeeded in preventing any decent, reasonable nonimes from even being considered. In his new monogrpah: "The Super Majority; How the Supreme Court Divided America", Michael Waldman, President of The Brennan Center, a progressive think tank, explains this judicial tragedy, wnd elucidates what precipitated it. He focuses on the most recent court session, last summer, 2022, when the court overturned Roe v. Wade, greatly loosened gun rights restrictions, even as the nation is besdieged by a national epicemic of gun violence and mass shootings. the court overturned a law in New York City whcih had been in effect for over a hundred years, prohibiting carrying guns in public. Now, Anyone on the street in New York can legallly be bearing a firearm. The Court greatly weakened the power of the Environmental Protection Agency to protect the environment, even as climate change roars down upon us, more each day. Conservative judicial extremism. The problem with all three of these decisions is that they are insane, unreasonable, contrary to progress, harmful to the country, and utterly without actual legal basis. This is the same judicial misguided philosophy which ruled in 2010 that money is speech, thus allowing for unllimited amounts of unaccountable money to be injected into political campaigns. They call themselves, thes wacky jurists, "originalists", meaning that they consider it absolutely manditory to read and interpret the constitution exactly the way its authors did. Obviously, they don't actually do this. The idea that they do is a scam, a lie, a false pretext to burden America with a conservative extremist society, legally. for instance, by "bear arms", the founders meant "serving in the military." Today's right wingers have reinvented the phrase to mean "a private citizen taking a gun with him wherever he goes..carrying a weapon". In colonial times, gun laws, firearm restrictins on owning, carrying, and using, were the norm. But every man was required to serve in the military, the local well regulated militia. It was the nation's defense, its national army. Ou rcontemporary right wing extremists now have us all armed to the hilt, out in public. And the mass carnage continues, all because of a grostesque, deliberate misinterpretation of the constirution by the people who claim to know, understand, and obey it the best.

Going Around, Coming Around

PERHAPS THE TWO MOST INFAMOUS GOVERNORS in America, at least in progressive circles, are the twin titans Greg Abbot of Texas and, last but least, Ron DeSantis of Florida. they have much in common, both levaing a veritable litany of nefarious policies on their (one can hope) way out the political back door. Both are eihter fascists or trying hard to impersonat fascists, which is of course what the Republican party and conservative America in generla seem to be doing. they favor banning books, teaching children that racism and homosexuality do not exist, among other imatinary social paradigms. And together thay have beenperpetrating and continue to perpetrate, at least for th eeimte being, their most insidious, nefarious plot of all: shipping immigrants seeking asylum out of their southern conservative Christian states and up north, usually to affluanet progressive communities, like, saym Martha's Vinyard, plush neighborhoods in New York, and so forth. Investigations of this have come inevitably, and are beginning to reveal that the immigrants are lured onto buses by fals promises and deception, and dumped off up north with no money, food, or help from their senders, only brokin promises. This rasises all kinds of legal questions, as seemingly everything in these United states of litigation does, questions of kidnapping, breach of promise,..again, all sorts stuff. And now, finally, the Attorney General of the great state of California is filing federal suit agains the pair of smart ass punsk, (Abot & DeSantis), both of whem doubtless think themselves soo very clever and brilliant and presidential. They have a valid point; federal government policies, or lack thereof, is allowing their states to be inundated with to many new resideort of the American people. Playing games, abusing people, and behaving aggressively and divisively is not the way forward. But then again, since when has any conservative Christian Republican ever had the foggiest notiong about the best way "forward", rather than "backward". Law suits filed by various agencies in various states against this kidnapp and dump scheme are starting to be formulated, and should be making their way through the court system in the near future. Maybe the justice system witll remedy this deplorable gubernatorial behavior. If not, maybe the American people will.

Seeing the Obvious Future

AT LEAST A YEAR AGO if not more, this website make a prediction whicih, in reality, is not all that bold. Not like we went out on a limb or anything when it said here that the Republican party would end up havingmany presidential candidates for twenty twnety four, that they would all be face with the same problem - Donald Trump - and that out of sheer desperation and necessity they would all, beginning gradually and escalating over time, savagely attack Mr. Trum, verbally. they would use his record in business, personal affairs, and in his four years as president against him so bluntly and directly that they would begin to sound like a bunch of Democrats. If you think about it, how else could it have been? What other alternatives were there? None, actually. We all knew all along that Trump would have a lot of company in the next election, and that his opponents in the Republican primaries would be hard after him, by necessity. As the campaing wears on, the process will only grow; it has already begun. There are now about a dozen Repbulican dandidates, and a couple fo them have already started going after Trump. As the election approaches, and Mr. Trump continues to lead in the polls over everyone by a wide margin, the other candidates will grow desperate, and will realize that there is no way for any of them to win the G.O.P. nomination without attacking Trump directly. Already DeSantis, in a lame, sissified sort of way, has begun insinuating that Trumpism is a losing agenda, and that he, DeSantis, represents the only hopeful future for the Republican party. Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who seemingly has ltle or no chance to actually win the party's nomination, has plainly, clealy siad that Donald Trump is not qualified by run for or be presdient, because of the January 21, 2021 Capitol insurrection. Interestingly, only Hutchison thus far has had the honestly and courage to say this, obvious though it is. Eventually, the other candidates will say it too; they'll have no choice, they'll be pressured by the question. Its been over a year now since we admonished our readers to purchase a bigger popcorn popper, sit back, and get ready to enjoy the vultures vs. Trump show. Well, the show has begun, and will be getting better each day. Don't forget the butter and salt.

Remembering

TINA TURNER was not one of my favorites; I don't always understand and appreciate greatness. but her one hundred and fifty millionalbums speak volumes. For me, an inveterate rock n roller, Tina's music always seemed a bit over the edge in screeching screaming, gyrating body, and sexual content, not that I'm a prude or anything. A musicologist pointed to me that in terms of her title "the Queen of Rock", she really doesn't have much competition, rock n roll being heavily dominated by males. The reaction to her death was beautiful, warm, loving, and interesting. Interesting as a sociological phenomenon. The most obvious conclusion is that Americans simply, dearly love entertainers and celebrities; celebrity entertainers, of whom Tina was most certainly preeminent. Journalist Chris Hedges, who has been all over the world and experienced many diverse cultures, cogently points out that in America, we build monuments and shrines to our entertainers. We almost worship them as Gods, a pantheonn of glorious enshrined people who obtain sacred status in our holy canon of luminaries by making us smile, laugh, yell, and applaud. We start by emprinting their hand in wet concrete, to preserve the print forever, andgive people, millions of people, the chance to actually see in person the hand print made by John Wayne, Kate Hepburn, whomever. We certainly venerate entertainers more than military heroes in America, and perhaps that is a good thing. The tombstone in Paris for Jim Morrison is impersseve, a modern looking solid square bolck of dark granite in a cemetary in the middle of paris, though Morrison's marker is sorta hemmed in by older, larger monuments. I intend to find out why he is buried in Paris, even though he was there when he died, and liked being there, having lived there for awhile. Perhpas his father, the naval admiral, decided that it was best that qay, more appropriated, to give Jim a resting place where he could at once be prominent, and at ease in relative solitude. Admiral Morrison provided what I consider to be the best, most beautiful eulogy ever given by anyone; "My son possessed a unique genius, which he expressed without reservation." Or maybe the one at architect Christopher Wren's modest marker; "If you want a monument, just look around". Christopher Wren was the great seventeenth century English architect who designed almost every prominent building in London, massive granite structures, many of which remain today. I really like Einsteins's idea of being cremated and the ashes dispersed at an undisclosed location. I like it for environmental and spiritual reasons; Einstein simply didn't like the thought of long lines of tourists standing at his grave, taking pictures.

Fleeing the Trap

AMIDST THE CHAOS AND TURMOIL, the dissension, back and forth, the "strutting and fretting", a question comes to mind. Do the people who still support Donald Trump's political ambitions, and there remain tens of millinons of them, reamin supportive in spite of Trump's glaring inadequacies...or because of them? By "glaring inadequacies", it thould be readily apparent what it meant. The litany of crimanal activity, blatant prevarications, moral and intellectual sins of enormous variety and extent, needn't be recapitulated. That he Trump, might become president again, as indeed he well might, against this backdrop, seems astonishing. I know many many Trump supporters. They're good people, almost to a person. They say and do crazy things though, leading to the suggestion that with regard to their love of Trump, they are doing their thinking on a purely emotional level, and are putting their intellectuals attributes, whatever they may be, on hold for the duration. On the "in spite of" side of the coin, they seem to have a penchant for compartmental thinking; burying the negatives out of view, and on the "because of" side, the answers become vague, having to do mostly with the three great pillars of Trump support: freedom of guns, immmigration cessation, and lower taxes, less government, with a religious based culturally traditional value set. A friend of mine bet me a cold case of imported beer in 2021 that within a few months, Turmp would be back inpower as president. He's been mad at me ever since I made him pay up. (What did he expect?). once he told me that he knows damned good and well that climate change has nothing to do with human behavior, because he is a geologist. How he figures that is anyone's guess. Support for Trump is all emotion, and based on anger at a rapidly diversifying American culture, with "white" people decline as a percentage of the general population, and gay and transgdner people demanding recognition and respect. For Trump supporters the rate of change in America is far too great, and they want to take us back to a simpler time. Although they never mention Trump's many examples of horrible actions and deeds. In most cases, they are aware of them, even if they twist and distort so drastically that a premeditated and well organized attempt at violently overthrowing the government becomes a guided tour, or a harmless rally that sorta got out ot hand.

Banning Books, Sidestepping Parents

THERE ARE A FEW TENETS concerning education that conservative Christians seem to all embrace. A fundamentsl one is to avoid by prohibition teaching about things that are undesirable, meaning, things which conflict with conservative Christian political orthodoxy. If it aint savory to conservative Christian sensibilities; ban it. For instance, no discussion about gay or transgender folks. Nothing about racism in America, past or present. And, the lynch pin; the banning of "certain" books, which is daily coming to mean many more than "several"; several hundred at last count. The books most often banned concern gay and transgender kids, racism, or religions other than Christianity.Lastly but of utmost importance, underscoring all other decisions; parental influence and ultimate control of school curricula.Tthe fly in the ointment that that none of these policy decisions has been implemented or even voted on by the parents in the general public anywhere. In every case, its a small group of politicans and administrators, some not even elected, who are making these choices. This fact will predictablly be counterd by teh specious argument that all over America the paents indeed are deciding on and implementing these restrictions, since the school board members and administrators who make them were chosen by the conservative Christian community majority of voters. This argument, of course, is pure nonsense. The fact remains that no local, regional, or national voter referendum has occurred to indicate any majority support for any of these harmful policies, about gay people, race, or books. After the fashion of fascists, everywhere, the book banning community, a definite minority of the American people, is claiming, like Trump, a mandate which simply does not exist. Parental control is nothing but a noble sounding catch phrase to justify the usurpation fo what Americans really want and replacement of it with outdated, censorious, heavy handed government interference in public education by a radical group of far right wing extremists. What Americans really want in public education, and in soceity, is cultural acceptance of diversity and an open, free culture of diverse ideas and lifestyles. Banning books has no placein a free, democratic soceity which values educaiton, and msot Americans know and support this sacred principle. then, there are the minority of fascist usurpers,ozzing like posson from within the Trump movement. They must be defeated, and relegated, ideologically, to the veritable dust bin of history.

Woking Up

BAD GRAMMAR NOTWITHSTANDING, there is no defensible, justifiable eason for not being "woke". "woke" merely means being aware of the history of racism in the United States, and its persistance, in more sublte forms, in contemporary society. Failure to acknowledge this is like failing to acknowledge the reality of economic inequality in America, or sexual abuse, or bad weather. The very existence of white supremacist groups such as the "Proud Boys" proves that racism exists. Why deny it? Political conservatism and Christian apologism are complicit. The rampant racism in Spain, currently noted in the international media, as manifested by fan treatment of a star African soccer player, is ironic because racism, actually a modern invention, first appearaed in Spain and Portugal as a pretext for enslaving Africans in the mid fifteenth century. Ancient manuscripts show no trace of racism. On the Iberian penninsula, the Catholic church did nothing to discourage slavery, and everything to support it, and its Christian justification. Much the same is true in seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth century America, where religion was used to justify slavery. Europeans and European-Americans were doing benighted Africans a tremendous service by removing them from the dark, barbaric culture of Africa, with its pagan religions, and exposing them to and indoctrinating them into the true faith, thus ensuring their eternal salvation. Enslaving Africans brought them reprieve from the fires of hell, and the hope of salvation by admission to and eventual entry into the heavenly kingdom of God. Every state which seceded in 1861 to form the Confederate States of America issued a founding document, a sort of "declaration of independence" from the United States, and all of them articulated defense of the institution of slavery and the northern states' threat to it as the primary motivation for their separation. Denial of the validity of "wokism" is as false as the revisionist historical assertion, long prevalant among misguided history students and scholars, that the cause of the American Civil War was not slavery, but rather, the noble cause of the defense of "states rights." To disprove this false thesis, one need only ask: "precisely what "state's right" were the confederate states defending? The answer is that they were defending their perceived God ordained right to own human beings, and to reduce them to hard bondage and hard labor, in the interest of establishing and maintaining a propserous agricultural economy for the wealthy elite white Christian plantation owners. It is crucial to accept, and impossible to honorably deny, the reality that in contemporary America denial of extant racism derives from the descendants of the people who once promoted it.

Awakening

THERE ARE FEW EXPERIENCES more nauseatingly illuminating than listening to a group or even a pair or Christian conservatives discuss - nearly everything - but especially political, religious, and social issues. The hot topic of the moment, among others, is something they derisively call "wokism". Wokism, asbestos I can make out, is what crackers term the results of something called "Critical Race Theory". Critical Race Theory should actually be simply called "history", or "sociology", but, never underestimate the abilitly of scholars and bigots to invent, promote, and deride a newer, fancier sounding moniker. CRT is nothing other than the vast and growing body of scholarship and knowledge which has definitively shown that racism in America still exists as always, but that it has been shamed into going underground, and is now manifeest primarliy in institutions, legal, law enforcment, medical, you name it, racism is buried within it. Becoming aware of this hidden, residual racism is what African-Americans have come to call being "woke", rather than the much more grammatically corrrect "awakened", or "enlightened", or "illuminated". The point is that, whatever you call it, Christian conservatives despise it, and they they call "wokism", as if it were a blasphemous organized religion or political ideology. To them it is a liberal hoax, or Marxist plot, intended to destroy the country by educating and thus destroying it. This is predicated on the conservative refusal to accept the "liberal" belief that racism still exists in America, if indeed it ever did. To conservatives, to acknowledge any lingering racism is to hate the country. Conservatives rid themselves of the burden of accepting racism's reality by denying its existence, much as they deny the existnce of the LGBTQ community, or try to, and its needs, with "conversion therapy", which brainwashes gay people into hererosesuality, much like evangelical missions brainwash people, or try to, into abandoning their existing religiosities and accepting salvation through the one and only "true faith". Denial of climate change, of vaccines, of cultural diversity, and of the benefits to society of government social programs for the poor and regulation of the economy are among the more prominent forms of right wing Christian denial. Acordingly, Christians who embrace "wokism" are not really Christians, since there is nothing in the New Testament which tells us that Jesus was "woke". Love thy neighbor suffices not, it seems.

Ha Ha-ing

THE NICE FACEBOOK LADY who only steals magnolia blooms fron her neighbor's tree when she determines that the tree has "too many" blooms, is a digital picdture taking and posting machine. She takes pictures of all things and everything relating to her self absoprtion, including magnolia blooms in every stage of bloom, except at the end. She spares us that, but does not spare us an endless parade of swimming deck and cat pics, both of which might actually be hers, or might not. On Facebook, anything goes, and nobody knows. There is a certain wistful sadness associated with fading flowers, and above all else, she waxes positively cheerful. Her only pictoral omissions are pictures of her house, which she wisely refrains from taking or posting, and of herself. For this she substitutes pictures which seem to have been taken in the nineteen eighties or nineties, judging by her hair style, clothing style, and baby, which she says is now an attorney in his late twenties. But ever cheerful she is, and the magnolia blooms are forever young, ensconced in water and thriving, for the time being. He good cheer is So much so that no matter what she posts or says about it, she accompanies it with one of three expressions: "Ha"..."Ha Ha", or, and you guessed it: "Ha ha ha". Never an "lol", always the "ha ha's". She laughs at her own jokes, which is of course a social faux pas, but not other people's. This began to annoy me, and still does. Finally, after sustained reflection, I understand why. In early childhood, kids, being human, learn how to ridicule each other derisively. Its one of the first lessons they learn. Jealousy, and the perceived need to retaliate, evokes the sound which most closely resembles actual laughter; the onomatopoeia-ic "ha ha ha", which means "neener neener neener", or "I am making fun of you". I find her ha ha-ing annoying simply because I associate it with the pain of early, and sometimes late childhood, derisive ridicule. Gimme a good old fashonied "lol" any day of the week; the marveolus, neutral statement invented on AOL decades ago that simply says: "I am laughing out loud", or that I am giving "lots of laughs". So far I have been unable to convince her that stealing magnolias involves two crimes: criminal trespass, and theft of property. I've given up the ghost on that project and, if I'm smart, I won't even bother to try to get her to translate her ha ha into something a bit more palatable, and at least somewhat less derisive and childish lol.

Solving A Problem, Ostensibly

OVER THE PAST FIFTY YEARS, the Earth'spopulation has more than tripled, trillions of trees have been destroyed, and more than twelve thousand natural disasters, nearly all of them caused by climate change, have cost humanity roughly two trillion dollars in damage repair. (At the dawn of human civilization, the number of trees on Earth is estimated to have been about seven trillion; we are now reduced to less than half that number.) The resposne to this by the fossil fule industry has traditionally been to disregard it, and to claim that the problems are all made up, and that fossil fuel use has had nothing to do with the calamity. But traditions sometimes give way to reality. The industry eventually, belatedly decided that its position was neutral, then, with equal reluctance and hesitation, that the destruction of the environment was real. Finally, it acknowledged that fossil fuel consumption does indeed play a role, a minor one, in concert with nature. Only in the recent past has big oil and coal and natural gas unabashadly 'fessed up, acepting its complete responsiblity for environmental degradation, minus an earthquake or volcano or two. Opportunistically, the culprits themselves proposed a solution, hoping to get their feet away from the fire, so to speak, and to simultaneously present itself as the hero, as the solution rather than the problem. Carbon sequestration!... Simply remove the carbon from the atmosphere, turn it into solid chunks of coal, or diamond, or whatever, and store it underground...somewhere or other. The actual proposal was not made by members of the industry, but by environmental scientists, but, hey, who'll ever know? Why give credit where credit is due, when one can steal credit like a theif stealing the health of the planet and the future well being of those who live on its surface? Problem is, the solution is not so great after all. It turns out that even the most cursory examinatons of human and corporate nature clearly indicate, when analyzed by artificial and organic intelligence, that solving by any means possible the problem of carbon in the atmosphere is likely only to increase the willingness of big fuel to continue putting it there, for the sake of profit. (you know how people are...). Only a world wide ban on carbon emmissions will suffice. Either that, or as we like to say: back to the drawing board...