Controlling The Future

ABOUT TWENTY FIVE YEARS AGO Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physis as NYU, predicted that within a hundred years, by which he seems to have menat the end of the twenty first century, humanity would have the ability to control the weather. Time's ticking, but we still have seventy five years left, which might not be enough time to reverse climate change sufficiently to save the Earth's ecosystem from disastrous consequences. already the sixth mass extinction is well underway, millions of species of plants and animals from becoming extinct at an alarming rate, in what is now being called the "anthropocene", or "the age of man". The human race has become the single most powerful force shaping environmental conditions on this planet. Scientists tend to agree that the anthrocopene began in the early nineteen fifties, when both nuclear and hydrogen bombs proved that homo sapien sapiens had indeed taken control. Despite the well known Confucion admonition that only fools predict the future, Kaku plunges ahead without trepidation in a ceaseless attempt to do exactly that. His past futuristic ruminations have convered topics ranging from the future of humanity in general: "The Future of Humanity", of human mentality. "The Future of the Mind", the future of physics, "Physics of the Future", and general futuristic speculations: "Visions", all topics ot which he has devoted intriguing, highly speculative, but easily accessible monographs. He even dares to take theoretical physical to future realms "Beyond Einstein", a sequal to his successful work "Einsteins's Cosmos". His latest endeavor, published just this year, is titled "Quantum Supremacy", and, as the title suggests, deals with the future of computers. Kaku does for future science what Carl Sagan did for past and present science, mainly astronomy and physics; elucidates it succinctly. We began our journey with computers with the vacuum tube, when, begining in the nineteen forties, teams of graduate students rolled shopping carts up and down, back nd forth between rows of computer connections in warehouse sized buildings on university campuses and corporate research facilities. Then came the era of transitors, and humanity was on the road to smaller and more powerful computing. finally came the microchip, and its nearly constant redesigning to produce ever smaller, more efficient versions for ever more efficient data storage. But now the era of the microchip is coming to an end, as the devices are reaching the limit of miniaturization and data storage. We are plunging head long into the era of quantum computing, wherein vast amounts of data are stored and transmitted on mere atoms and molecules. Already teh lates computers are perforing at a levelby which comparison teh famous microchiped computer, IBM's "Big Blue" is being made to seem large, slow, cumbersone, and lazy. Beyond this extraordinary level of computer processing capacity not even Michio Kaku would for the time bieng dare to proceed in his musings. There will doubtless soon come a time, however, when he indeed will.

Counting Gods

THERE HAVE BEEN more than three hundred gods so far, but yours actually exists. All the others are silly, superstitious nonsense, but yours actually exists, said the prescient Facebook post. The prescient person had the decency to spare us the cliche "let that sink in". Anything sufficiently substantive to sink will sink of its own accord, and needn't be prodded and cajoled to the bottom of the brain. It sank in, with qualifications. Haven't there been more, may more, than a mere three hundred fabricated deities? Didn't both the ancient Greeks nd ancient Romans achieve something near or exceeding that number? When you consider the sheer number contributed by Hindusim, the total surely well exceeds a mere few hundred. In these contemporary United States there are an estimated fifteen hundred organized religions, organized and registered with the federal government for purposes ot tax evasion. And, arguably, they all worship their own god, or distinct versions of another, ubiquitous one. The Baptist god can, with some vagueness, be distinguished from the Methodist deity; the Baptist God does not dance. Beneath the prescient post somebody percipiently typed in the comment: "All 1", presumably meaning that all the gods are one, all the same god. Even that's questionable. Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke wrote a short story titled "The Nine Billions Names of god", in which an ascetic philospoher, sitting alons in a cave,recited all nine billion names, after which the universe came to an end. Granted, Zeus and Jupiter, Mars and Ares, Venus, Aphrodite, and Athena can be paired up as represening the same god or goddess. The Romans stole from the Greeks,imitated them and their culture. But even that only goes so far. If the goddess of love and beauty and the god of war are one and the same, they certainly weren't intended to be by their creators. We fashion our gods to suit our purposes. The requirements of our gods invariably match our own desires. I knew a man, an evangelical Christian and, predictably a hard right conservative, who once lamented his inability to completely satisfy the demands of his self styled Christian God."I try hard to do what the Lord wants, to live my life according to scripture and the Lord'scommandments. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I don't swear. But women, that's another matter. I can't stay away from them. I have o have them, I a only hope I don't spend eternity in hell." I was tempted but refrained to suggeest that he get married, fast and soon. He did,then got divorced. At last count he was on his second or third wife, but obedient to the Lord, assuming of course that his evangelical fundamentalist Christ conservative God was willing to sanction divorce, which seems questionable, according to the votaries themselves. Why he didnt simply invent a god who ordains sexual promiscuity I never discerned. Maybe he feared that his church would laugh or pray or drum him out of the congregation, in tongues. Like Goethe said: "When I realized that everyone invents his own religion, I decided to invent my own."

Keeping America Strong, Despite Resistance

THE APOINTMENT OF HIGH RANKING MILITARY OFFICERS is quite obviously of paramount importance to national security. All military organizations require just that; a high degree of organization and a strong chain of command. In these United States, such appointments, the highest of the high, the general staff, require the approval of Congress. Such approval is now lacking, and the military, all branches, is being exposed to an alarming absence of command and control, thanks largely to the misguided efforts of one college football coach turned Senator: Tommy Tuberville of Alabama. He did a much better job at Auburn University than he is in the U.S. Senate. His coaching staff was always solid and complete, staffed with men of the highest quality and capability, and the head coach never refused to name an assistant to any of his staffs because of their sexual orientation, attitudes towards abortion, or attitudes toward LGTBQ people. If he had, he might have found himself alone on the sideline, trying desperately to keep dozens of energetic young men organized and under control. Even worse, he is joined in his dangerous game of obstruction by several other members of Congress, particularly in the House of Rpresentatives; Republicans, mostly from the far right, as you might imagine. The good news is that if only a handful of Republican House members agree to move military appointments forward to the Senate, where they are all likely to pass in the Democratically controlled upper chamber, we will be out of harm's way. The military is assiduous in its inclusion and fair treatment of women service members. It provides travel expenses to those who require an abortion and who must go elsewher, across state lines, to obtain one. The military has also adopted an inclusive policy of admitting and retaining women members, gay members, transgender members, members of color, and members of the LGBTQ community in general. (Long live the American military) This progressive policy has unsurprisingly aroused the wrath of those on not only the far right, but among conservatives in general, who evidently believe that an all white, all male, all heterosexual military, such as that from bygone years, is preferable. But what else are we to expect from the party of retrogression? We are told by our military leaders that it is absolutely essential to maintain a strong, well disciplined military for America's defense, and yet, Republicans seem not to be concerned. And then too, at least sixty duly empowered courts of law declared that Donald Trump indeed lost the election of 2020, and the "party of Law and Order" ignores these rulings, preferring instead to dwell in their fantasy that he in fact won, unsupported by even a trace of evidence. And now, the pernicious conservative war on human beings continues, unabated, and threatens to hobble our nation's military. Here the word "shameful" is inadequate.

Briefly Raining

THE RAIN which mercifully soaked my lawn in the hours before sunrise was to me a great blessing, but soon after sunrise it moved out. The temperature would soon climb to nearly a hundred, More rain was predicted for the next day in this middle of July, and may it blessedly manifest. It almost seems a certainty that a summer drought will take the place of regular rain, and regular rain is a necessity in an area dominated by deciduous forests. Last summer we had not one but two prolonged droughts, punctuated by a short spurt of rainy days. There is an ominous sense that a repeat performance is on the way, for this summer, and for many summers to come. Eighteen summers ago, when I bought about half an acre of land and built a modest home, I, in a fit of arborial enthusiasm, planted more than twenty saplings and filled the yard with nacsent shrubbery. My hope was for a suburban future replete with bucolic wonder, azaleas included. The saplings grew into towering oaks and maples, the shrubbery prolifrated into large, overgrown bushes. The thick field of bermuda grass which I found when I started was, over the years, supplanted with a veriety of grasses, some of which thrived, while some did not. Amazingly, the azaleas srtll remain. This is perhaps due to my having refrained from installing gutters on the roof; the rain is not carried away into the corners of the property, but pours diretly down upon them, when they are lucky enough to receive rain. The trees and shrubs are greedy with the available ground water. I fear for the future of my lawn, and all lawns. I have already decided to do no more tree and shrub planting, and to not try to replace them as they age and die.It may eventuate that my now verdant but once barren yard returns to its previous state, a field of thick bermuda browning in the hot mid summer sun, bereft of other foliage. Or it may be that that this property one day returns to its still earlier state, a construction site wasteland, with glass and metal shards scattered among thick patches of crab grass. Our rolling hills, covered with thick forests, might one day transform into fields of grass, a prairie land where the land is nourished by scant rain sufficient only to sustain tall grasses with a few wildflowers. As for our cities, the increasingly bizarre patterns of extreme weather will bring violent storms, torrential rain, and tornados into their midst. The rising oceans will inundate and eventually engulf them, despite our best efforts to remove them from danger, back, and out of the way. And it may be that, as Bertolt Brecht wrote in a poem: "Of our cities there shall remain but the wind that blew through them.

Friending

THE LADY ON FACEBOOK takes a picture of her lunch every day, and shares it with her friends. She does the same with her cat, a cute one, her swimming pool, and her repotted plants. Also her snacks and drinks; they all show up on the internet, inliving color.The marvels of modern smart phones. Her tastes are of the highest quality, certainly higher than mine. But she never posts any pictures of herself or her house. Wisely, in the omission of home photos, since pictures of houses invite scrutiny and possible crime. It is also perhaps best that she takes no "selfies", for the same reason, although she does have pictures of herself on her profile, taken, one would estimate, about thirty years ago or more. I recall the one time she posted a picture of her current self it was very indistince and blurry, but you could see a woman considerably aged beyond the sultry pictures on her profile. It seems that she wants people to think of her younger self, which to me seems a pity, since current pictures of people do not conceal their inner and outer beauty, but reveal it. I mentioned to her that her swimming pool seems like a bit of a camera hog. That's more than I do. I take no pitures of anything, neither myself nor my house nor cats, and there is essentially nothing on my Facebook profile. I attribute this to lack of interest. Though I have been on Facebook for something between five and seven years, I have never been able to summon the interest in it necessary to motivate me to do the work required to show myself and all about myself. Facebook laziness. I must confess that I am doubtful whether anyone would be interestd in seeing what I had for lunch, where I live, or what I look like, and I vageuly have the same doubs about this lady, and, for tht matter, everyone else. We have an interest in the people we already know, and in our friends from bygone days who are on our "friends" list, but for for friends who are friends on Facebook only and not in real space time, I have my doubts. I tend to think that most Facebok members would disagree, and would proclaim their undying lvoe for all friends, real and Facebook only. I respect that. Often peole take pictures of sunsets, beaches, forests, or beautiful skies, and these are my favorite. There are, however, folks who have expressed agreement with me concerning lunch and drink photos, mainly among those who eschew them themselves. But the people who take and post them are not among them. We enjoy being flattered: "What a lovely lunch"! "My, your seimming pool certainly looks refreshing"! I try to contribute to the flattery, mainly to stay out of trouble. I hit the "like" button, or type in the word "precisely", or "exactly", to preserve peace and prevent war. Any indication of disagreement engenders an angry response, and a potential argument, away from which I hastily run. People prefer flattery, and despise having their sacred shared opions opposed.The only remedy more effective than the like button might well be the "delete Facebook account" button, wherever it might be.

Tolerantly Fellowshiping

MANY YEARS AND SET POINTS AGO our little doubles tennis group included four good friends, two of whom were devout Christians, two of whom were not. (I was among the unsaved, and remain so. A tennis player sans salvation) One Christian and one heathen per team, very evenly matched. The Christians got in trouble at church. They were admonished that they should abandon the tennis, or find a way to play Christian tennis, with Christian tennis players, and should not, under any circumstances, include non Chtistians in the group. They bravely responded by suggesting that we the non religious were excatly the type of folks with whom they should be fellowshiping. Did not Jesus go among the ungodly, spreading the message of God? Does a doctor not attend to the sick, rather than the healthy? Although my Christian friends made me proud by "having my back", as we say today. I was not pleased with the rather condescending implications, as if to be a non Christians were somewhow a sickness, a problem to be corrected. I thanked my devout firend, then suggested what to me was an even better approach. To wit: We play tennis with people who are good tennis players, well matched with us Christian tennis players in terms of skill level, and we play for fun, not salvation. Tennis is not a religious activity. Furthermore, it is not our job as Christians, on or off the court, to judge anyoone else's religiosity. We'll leave that to God. Not only do we tolerate folks of other faiths and belief systems, we accept them as our inherent moral equals. Tolerance, as Goethe said, is an insult, unless it leads to ultimate acceptance. Never mind that the Bible says, no fewer than twenty five times, that it is a "sin" to be lefthanded, or that Jesus said , in Mathew 15;4 that Whoever curses the mother and the father shall be given the death. For me that's a bit harsh. I am free to disagree with any book, or anyone who writes them or speaks in them. My charge is to accept and respect the beliefs of Christians, even though I strongly disagree with them. I do not allow myself to think that they could improve themselves by embracing my beliefs, for that would be an insult, and condescenidngly intolerant. I would be very grateful, eternally so, if my Christian friends and neighbors would stop thinking that something is wrong with me for having beliefs different than their own, and would instead accept me as their spiritual and intellectual equal.My sense is that I will have better luck waiting for hell to freeze over.

Evolving While Having Lunch

THE GENTLEMAN at the senior center with whom I have lunch about once a week is a staucnh Trumper, and says that he would or will vote for him again. We don't talk politics, wisely. Therefore, we get along great, proving that it can be done. These days I stifle any urge I might have to suggest to Trump supporters that they choose a good, solid conservative political candiate who is also a decent human being, assuming they exist. I forget the conversational context, maybe we were discussing what we do or do not believe in, but my friend said: "What about evolution"? I said: "What about livestock breeding? What about hybrid corn? What about breeding wolves into miniature poodles? My point is that these are all examples of evolution in action, evolution by human selection rather than "natural selection". I waited for him to claim that human-made evolution doesn't, somewhow, count, but he never said it. It counts. Humans are part of nature, natural. My next comment was that we are swimming in evolution, verily inundated in it, evolution is all around us, if only we pay attention. My friend and I have developed such great restraint in our associatin that he never stated his view on evolution, but I strongly suspect that he considers it some kind of hoax, like Trump's election defeat, or climate change. He is, after all, a conservative. He gave me a sort of reprieve. He didn't say something like: "If people had evolved from monkeys, there were be no monkeys." Thus, I didn't have to inform him that evolutionary science in fact does not say that humans evolved from monkeys. Nor did I have to say that there is more proof of the reality of evolution than there is for either the holocaust, nuclear physics, or the eelction being stolen from Trump. My tenth grade English teacher made an interesting comment fifty three years ago. She said that to her thinking creationism and evolution harmonize and compliment each other beautifully, and I can recall my sixteen year old self finding that a dubious assertion, if a pleasant one. It still seems dubious, at best. I went on to sing the praises of science to my friend, and further asserted that science is the best method humans have for comprehending the universe, and that religion is the worst. Science improves upon itself, religion refuses to, and so forth. He said something about the Bible. I responded that the Bible, on no fewer than twenty five occasions, says that it is a sin to be left handed, among numerous highly questionable assertions. the same people who believe that the election was stolen from Trump, that climate hange is a liberal hoax designed to give more power over our lives to the government, tend to refuse to believe in the obvious reality of evolution. I recall suggesting that anyone who doubts the reality of human evolution by natural selection should consider taking a high school biology course. I also made the point that evoution among home sapien sapiens is ongoing, that there is no evidence that evolution has stopped dead in its trasks, that we are a transitional animal, evolving into another type of animal right before our very eyes. That, I think was a bit much for him, and for most folks to swallow. But lunch, as usual, was quite enjoyable.

Dispensing Justice, or Politicking?

UNLESS I'M DREAMING, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to render equal justice under law. At least, that's what it says on the top of the stately, bright white granite Supreme court building. "Equal justice under law". Therefore it follows that the people who are appointed to the high court are placed there for that purpose, and that purpose alone. The highest court in the land should be, and in theory is, above and beyoond poltics, above and beyond anybody's political agenda.In reality, its never been that way, and arguably is less that way now than ever before. The hidden but true purpose of the "SCOTUS" is, rather, to impose the political agenda of the party which has the power to place a majority of its messengers on the court. It also follows that any qualified nominee should have no discernble political agenda or ideology, if nothing else, should be a bland moderate. The more demonstrably liberal or conservative a person is, the less qualified, or so it seemingly should be. In reality, the republican party, the conservative movement has but one objective; the make the court as ideologically conservative as posible, the pask it with right wingers, to impose upon America what hit has failed to impose democratically. This, by definition, is corruption. t is corruption which we the Amerian people seem to have grown so accustomed that we accept it as normal. "Normal" is the last thing it is, or should be. The federal and state court systems suffer from the same disease. Consider Arkansas, a deeply "red" state where Trump has sixty percent support, and the governor and legislative branches are hard core conservative, passing laws against acknowledging the existence of racism in America, abridging rights for gay people, as so forth, the whole vile agenda. A vacancy on the state's suprrme court was filled by the Republican governor with none other than the chairperson of the state Republican party. Unabashed corruption. Blatant politicization of the system of justice. Corruption in government and the justice system signals a rotten, declining civilization. When the corruptiion is so deeply embedded that it is accepted as normal, and the corrupt politicians who practice it are accepted as good leaders, the societal decline is severely advanced. A recently published monograph astutely describes the problem with the current court, even only in its title: "The Shadow Docket; How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings To Amass Power and Undermine the Republic", by Stephen Vladeck. Much has been made in recent decades of the amassing of power by the executive branch at the federal level. Vladeck convincingly demonstrates that the behavior of the Supreme Court is no less concerning.

Heating Up on the Fourth

INDEPENDENCE DAY has always been a big part of my life, from the excitement of fireworks in childhood to the present. I rememer that by the time I was fifteen or so I had noticed that every Independence Day the sun shone, and it never rained. This was remarkable in the nineteen sixties, when in the area in which I lived it was normal to have at least a brief pop up rain shower most days. Special days stand out. On July 4, 1989, my thirty four year old self, half a lifetime ago, hiked up Aspen Mountain in Aspen, then was rewarded by a free ride down on the ski lift. In 1976, I was in New YOrk for the Bicentennial, which older people will recall was a relly, really big deal. Tall masted 18th century sailing ships filled New York harbor, and floated up and down the Hudson, to the delight of what was estimated to be about twenty million people in the city. I attended a baseball game between the Yankees and Kansas City Royals. One of the most massive fireworks displays in world history took place that night on Staten Island. But the Independence Day just past was perhaps the most monumental of all, for me, and for everyone, in not so wonderdaul a way. t was the ottest day in teh history of planet eearth, according to scientists. Predictably, percipient people all over the word made the same comment: "This is a record that will soon be broken, and broken often." And indeed it was, on the very next day, July 5th. Then it was broken again on July 6th. Perhps it is now time to begin fervantl hoping and praying that it doesn't continue to be broken every day throughout July, and beyond. It will, of course. People my age will be leaving this world as climate change truly starts to become frightening, more frightening than it is now, which is certainly frightening enough. It would be nice if we could, as we go out, find reason to believe that the human race has built a firm foundation for reversing it, and preserving a future for humanity. Independence from death by heat. independenc Day from our own folly.

Settling

MY BROTHER-in-LAW is a conservative Republican, and Christian. That's my opinion, and I feel confident he would verify its truth. He is among my many ideological opposites, and so be it. He and I get along great, as many of them and I do, becaues we never talk about religion or politics, or at least rarely and in restrained fashion. My sixth grade teacher told us to never discuss religion or politics, and I have spent my entire life opposing this wisdom - until now. Now, i practice it. What I like about my brother-in-law is his intelligence and willingness to listen, open mindedly, without bias, and the fact that he is not an extremist, has not used his enthusiasm for his political and religious beliefs to coalesce into a far right extremist religious-political viewpoint, with religion and politics deeply intertwined. You know the type; the "Trump was put in power by Jesus and the Lord" type, the insufferables. My brother-in law is amazed that so many of his fellow christian conservatives continue to support Trump. HIs notion is that trump's behavior has been so obviousl, veriviably bad on so many occasions, with seemingly more to come, that it makes no sense to support his plitical campaign ambitions, that the time has long since come for Republicans to choose a new leader. To your average secular progressive Democrat, nothing could be more obvious, but to most MAGA members this reasoning is unthinkable, blasphemous, incomprehensible. I have a good friend at the senior center who is my good friend partly because we never talk politics. He says hew would vote for Trump today, and will vote for him in the future. Yes, I fing this amazing. A glance into my friend's mind came the tie he told me that if ttwo men were applying for a job, one white, one black, the he would hire the more qualifiecgentleman, but that if the two we equally qualified, he would hire the white guy. That comment to me is a nearly explicit admission of being a racist. And I would be my house that my friend would insist that there is nothing "racist" about it. Fortunately, we'll never have that conversation. At least, I won't start one.

Finding Writers, Solving Problems

ITS ALWAYS EXCITING finding writers, romance writers, science fiction authors, whatever floats your boat, finding a new one and really likeing him/her, and then discovering that the author has written several books, with more on the way, a whole new universe of reading pleasure for you. Introducing Jeff Goodell, a writer from the S.F. Bay area who focuses on the Earth's ecosystem, and therefore, climate change.C limate change is, above all else, what we eed to be writing about, talking about, doing somethinb about, obviously. Three book by Goodell which seem to be "must reads" are: "The Heat Will Kill You First", his most recent, and, "How To Cool the Planet", and, "The Water Will Rise". Two of the books dal with the two main components of global warming; sea level rise, and burgeoning heat. The former will force humanity to invest untold billions of dollars moving itself back and away from the encroaching oceans worldwide, relocating thousands of cities and billions of people, and the heat is already killing people, more every year. Al that we already know, need to know, and can learn a great deal more about by smmoothly reading Goodells's clear, easy to read prose. For a little bit more optimism, let's try "How To Cool the Planet", in which Goodell claims that for the most part, humanity already has the necessary technologies, or can rapidly develop them, to actually reverse global warming and climate change, and save the planet for future generations. Massive geo-engineering projects, such as removing billions of tons of carbon from the atmosphere, are possible. What we lack presently is teh human political determination and political will to get started, and the comprehensive international cooperation necessary. However, it is comforting to know that intelligent people are researching and explaining the situation to the rest of us; now, its up to the rest of us to take advangae, learn, and take action.

Doing, Or Not Doing Business

IT TURNS OUT that the big Supreme Court decisioin involving whether a business in which the owners are devout Christians, a "Christian business" if you will, is requird by law to do business with people whose lifestyles, behavior, or religious views - or whatever - are so objectioanble to the businessowners as to be unacceptable, invloved not a bakery, but rather, an online enterprise of some sort. Nonetheless, same basic idea. And by now we all know the result, the ruling. I have no trouble understanding it. Hell,a business owner ought to be able, and allowed by law, to do business or to not do busines with whomever he or she damned well pleases. At least, so you might think, so you might imagine. But on the other hand, any business which seeks and obtaines a business license, which is basically permission form government to go into business, the agreement is that the business will serve the public, the whole public, and nothing but the public, so help it God...that the business will not violate federal non-discrimination laws it either stipulated, or implicit. As in most questions involving the effects and desirability of some action, there are many possible ways of looking at and evaluating the situation. It is not illegal to be unkind, or rude, nor insensitive, nor should it be. Arguably, if a gay couple wants to buy a wedding cake from a bakery, the couple is not in any way intending to be disrecpectful of the religious beliefs of the owners, nor do they intend any harm to them or their religious freedom. Of that, you can be assured. What harm does it do Christians to do business with non Christians, or gay people? To not do businees with them damages the business, and the economy, and therefore, society. What is conspicuously lacking is an adequate constituion, especially at the federal level. I'm sure many if not most can be similarly identified, as constitutionally deficient. Trying to decide whether the founders intended abortion to be legal in the twenty first century is a complete waste of it, and yet...and with regard to the second amendment, what we need is a slightly longer, more detailed, more specific version, better suited to the twenty first century, and our technology. Its teim to stop canonizine, revering our past and current constitution, and creat a better one, a much better one. Madison and Jefferson would, I can assure you, wholeheartedly agree.

Going To Church

I ATTENDED CHURCH on July 2nd, the year of our cosmos, two thousad and twenty three. I enjoyed it, and will probabbly go back. I might return to the ame church, or give another one a try. Hell, I'd be happy to attend every church on the planet, any religion, at least once, just for the learning experience....So I'm open minded. So, shoot me, oh ye iniquitous evangelical pro Trump Christian. There are thousands of religions on Earth, and the major ones are all fragmented into thousands of splinter groups, "denominations", leading me to suspect that not only is religion a human invention, but that, at the end of the day, one is about as good as another. I have a close frined who attends yet another Methodist curch, in which he plays in the gospel band. He waid he was unhappy with the church, with the way many of its menbers treated him. Then, one recent, blessed, glory hallelujah day, the conservatives all quit, to start their own church, and, as my friend gleefully put it: "The trumpers walked out". Now, he's happy again... For me to choose, settle into, and become a member of any church in particular would be problematic, indeed, impractical, unworkable. Membershhip in any religion, any religious tradition on Earth requires, I must assume, strict adherance to and belief in the dogma within. Why bother to have a chucrch at all if if includes members who don't believe in it? The only religious beliefs I embrace are my own, not anyone else's. I am "condemned", happily and by choice, to be only a wandering visitor in the churches of other people. I am a follower of Goethe's admonition "when I realized that everyone invents his own religion, I decided to invent mine." I attended a Methodist service, liked it, particualr liked the fact that the minister was an attractive young lady. I prefer religions which include gender equailty, assuming there are any. In a fairly large college town about twenty miles from my house the Methodist church, once the biggest congregation in town, split into not two, but three parts, each of the three amended congregations going its separate way, one of the three remaining put in the old building, the other two finding new venues. I assumed the split was over politics; conservaives versus liberals, but why, then, the three way split? What else is there other than liberal or conservative? Well, issues in politics and religion include many areas and topics, and aligments can become rather complicated. For that matter, why not four, five, or a hundred dfferent groups? These Methodists should probably all go their seperat ways as individuals, each individual starting his or her own church. Ultimately, isn't what we do anyway?

Bigoted Cake Baking

SO, AN LGBTQ couple walks into a bakery in Colorado, and tries to order a wedding cake. The conservative Chrstian proprietors roundly, righteously recjet the busines offer. Ofended, the gay rejectees pursue the legal course, and after years of litigation and stress and strain the plaintiffs gain some satisfation in lower courts. But of course this is not the end of it. Thc conservative Christian cake bakers take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, just like anybody else, inluding the gay couple, would have. And of course the Trump conservative court of abnormality rules in favor of the faith; hell no you don't have to serve them damn queers. In America you have the freedom and the right to serve or reject any customer you choose, at least, if you do it on religious grounds. The inalienable right to bankrupt your own business, in America made great, again.... Maybe next time racism will be alleged to be someone's "religion". One fears that we have, alas, but opened another "can of worms"... Somebody on the internet claims tht the whole thing is a hypothetical case; that all these years of stress and strain an lawsuits didn't atually happen, at least not all of it, that the ntion's highest court simply took the case as a hypothetical, to establish a ruling, a final solution to a very real question. well, either way, who knows? If a business owner can refuse to erve customers on the basis religion, what about on the basis of spirituality, or philosophy, or ideology? What about whatever the hell basis the business owner chooses, in freedom's name and the name of making America great again? How long before we arrive, or rather get back to, the traditional American notion that serve can be legally refused on account of skin color? How long until one has to scan one's Christian I.D. card to even get in the door to order a damned wedding cake?

Facing

ALTHOUGH I FORMALLY DISAVOW FACEBOOK, in truth I spend more than enough time logged on to it. Using the system of "likes", I have inspired the algorythm to fill my feed with an abundance of beautiful photography, great artwork, nd posts aout my favorite sports teams. Scrolling has become more fun, less contentious less stressful. Although for several years I used Facebook mainly to distribute negative information and opinions about Trump and the Trump movement, there has recently been a sharp decline in my outpit of that nature. It seems as if, after years of venting, years of anger and hatred, I have finally vented it all, have emptied out my vessel of poisonous bile, and am content to focus on beauty. The whole Trump thing, so strongly characterized by the whole election denial phenomenon, is so patently, obviously crazy, that I have become content to merely laugh at it. No need to disparge it; it disparages itself, on its face. Why bother calling Trump an idiot, or a liar, or a narcissist? He tells us all that every day, with his every utterance and appearance Sometimes a particularly wise and incisightful post appears on Facebook. One said: "If money were hoarding banana while monkeys all around him were going hungry, we'd study the monkeys scientifically to ding out what's wtong with them. When humans act like that, we put their picture on the cover of Forbes". Here come the conservative capitalists, who argue that the rich do not prevent the poor from becoming wealthy, nor nything else. The ingorance of fundamental facts represented by this fantasy viewpoint is staggering.