Bringing God Back To America

I HEARD IT on Christian radio, or read it in a post on Facebook, or both, I cannot reacall which. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. What matters is the message itself; "We must birng God back to America". This means the same thing, I assume, as "put God back in America", I believe is a frequent way of saying it. Although it is a very vague, general statment, I think I know what it means, what they are saying. The conservative Christian community, tens of millions strong, wants to restore formal, administration mandated and sanctioned public group prayer in American public schools, like it uased to be. I can remember our first grade class praying every day before school, along with I believe the "Pledge of Allegiance", in 1961-62. Then, in second grade, I'm pretty sure that we didn't pray as a class in school, ever again, because the Supreme Court had eliminated it in a major ruling. Ont of the things they want to do, beyond doubt, is for the Surpreme Court, the president, they aren't particular whom, to restore the public prayer to the public schools. Put God back in the schools. The Christian God. What about the other Gods, the other religions? That remains a fair question. Te conservtvie Christian community not only wants to put "God back into America and American schools, it wants to formally, officially put the Christian God and thus the Christian religion therein. What about the other religions? There are millions of Jews, Muslims, and others in America. Sometimes in America the prayer the religions aspect of civic events has consisted of a prayer to a sort of generic God of no particular religion, simply the God of the universe, implying the same God in any and every religion. At my local small town Senior Center, of which I have been an integral part since I turned sixty and joined eight years ago, we recite the "Pledge" and say a prayer every week day before lunch. When I started going there they prayed, but we started adding the pledge a few years ago because, and only because of... one reason,..one person... me. For several years I lobbied one director afer another, until I finally got permission to stand and lead the pledge every day. Little old pantheist - socialist me, bringing the pledge to the senior center. Not only am I a democratic socialist rather than a capitalist; but a non-Christian, an atheist according to them, a pantheist according to me. The daily prayer is pure fundamentalist evangelical Christian. That's what they mainly are. Except, often depending on who delivers it. Everybody has a different prayer style, and different people get to lead the prayer.Often it is directly spoken to God, with no mention of salvation through Christ, the shed blood, washing away sins with the blood of Christ, or any of that. Just God. Even the conservative evangelicals sometimes pray like that. Just God, no specifically Christian dogma. When its my turn to pray, I do it better than any of them, in my humble opinion. I use phases like "great eternal spirit", and "grateful for this unvierse and live"..very poetic, emotional, and they love it. We all pray differently, but I more differently, uniquely than anyone, by a mile, and yet,and yet..I get away with it! Nobody at the senior has ever complained to me about the way I pray, unless they did behind my back, which I rather doubt. So, who knows? Maybe there is hope. Maybe we can somehow all evolve, and come together more, spiritually, more as a nation, a people, and, above all else, come together more as a world. In truth, we do not need to put God back in America, or bring God back, because God never left America. Anybody who wants to pray in public school, or anywhere else in America, can do so whenever one wants. And, best of all, when we pray silently, we can pray to whatever God we want, want to believe in, or invent.

Trump, Actualizing

WHEN A GOOD FRIEND OF CALLED TRUMP "that orange haired Hitler" shortly after Der Fuhrer became president, I dismissed the remark as angry, bitter, hyperbole, an outburst of bad shortsmanship. Hillary had been cheated out of the presidency. She got three million more votes than our American HItler, and, surely, surely one of those states that Trump won by a few thousand votes had been stolen, rigged, and therefore a recount was essentail. We Hlllary-ites conveniently omit mention that after her election defeat, we libdems had our own concerns and misconceptions and paranoia about voter fraud, a stolen election, only not nearly as zelously, insanely intense as those of Trumpers, and, unlike them, we did not seem determined to carry our suspicions and our grudge to our graves. Hillary had been ahead in all the polls for months; how could she possibly have lost!? Well, the simple answer is that whereas the polls had predicted anywhere from a two point to ten point win for Hillary, indeed she won the popular vot by two percentage points, 51 to 49.....but..we all know, its the infamous and malicious electoral college that matters, not people's votes. Well, then the highly demanded recounts all took place, and not surprisingly, Trump's margin of victory only increased, but by a small enough margin to make it seem like salt in the wound. Gradually but steadily over the years since 2016 my friend's dire Hitlerian-Trumparian remarks seemed first less out of bounds, then increasingly less outlandish, less hyperbolic, more and more reasonable, until now. Now, it seems like a prophecy. It seems dead on. If you think this sounds like a warning, it is. Trump is beginning to talk more and more every day, as the election and his many court trials approach and Trump's desperation increases. It may well be that here in the great American fun house, Trump's words and deeds, and the complicated stew of circumstances that is our beloved 'merurca, will all combine in some inscrutable quantum mechanical manner to produce a perfect storm of ultimate calamity; the election of Donald J. Trump, accused felon and all, once again to the highest office in the land. Oh heaven forbid, but it might happen. More likely though is that over the next few months, Trump will destroy himself as the supercharged chaotic insanity of his screeds bestroys him when it detonates. The other day, he screamned that on his first day in office he will become a dictator (he says this often), and will decreee by executive order a complete ban on teaching the history and current state of racism in American public schools,and will prohibit any mention of LGBTQ people, expecially their current movement to gain equality. He would also prohibit by decree the teaching of climate change, and would sanction the banning of books, including books written by liberals and explaining subjects based on progressive realities. In short, the liberal-progresive point of view, and anything which bears it out, would be strictly prohibited in public schools under Herr Trump. Also, unflattering monographs about himself, but he didn't mention these. Even Donald Trump only has so much time, and con only cover so many seminal topis in pne speech orMAGA campaign rally. But no worries. He'll have numerous opprtunities to cover the rest of it, to explain his complete plans for his next presidency, in near future MAGA hate-fests. Precisely how the nation responds to the exploding depravity is the key. It all boils down to who is the more numerous, the fascist Trumpler mob, or, we the Americans of moral values, intelligence, and love of country and constitution.

Being Dead Wrong, and Dealing With It

WHEN I WAS ABOUT TWENTY ONE, in 1976, getting ready to finish college,a friend of mine was home on break,and when he and I got totether, we started talking, and decided to get a group of people together,a small group, at his parent's house,including a well known local minister, I believe a Presbtyterian or some "similar" demonination, and have an evening discussion group. My memory, which is very good, has dimned somewhat about this event, but I believe the reason we invited the minister, and older man, was that we wanted the discussion to be based on religion, something about religion, although I cannot recall exactly what. Hell, maybe we were going to discuss or debate what religion, in any, is true, especially Christianity. I became a non Christian early in life, and remain one. A I recall, there were maybe ten people there, including my friend and I, my friend's nice mother, an attractive, intelligent, middle aged woman, the minister, and several good friends our age. As my friends were discussing an dplanning our big event, we talked about how it woas going to function, topic, and so forth, and we talked about wheehte alcohol woule be served, in particulr, screwdrivers, voda and all. I argued stronglky that I wanted no alchol present, because it might damage or destory the discussion, a point of view I still consdier valid and sensible today. Back then ,as well as now, I am a modest to moderate drinker, although I can certianly "tie one on" form time to time, but that night, I wanted no part of it, for me or anyone else. My friend, however, who was less of a drinker than I, very much wanted to have the screwdrivers, and made it known that he and not I would decide. Fair enough. His house, after all. recall feeling kind of hesitant and nervous as the discussion group members assembled, but, his forty five year old open minded mother was perfectly to willing to allow this strong drug to be served to a group of twenty one year olds and a minister in her home, so, away we went. Opposed though I was to the booze, once it started flowing I wasn't about to miss out. I started drinking right from the beginning and got very drunk very early in the discussion, as I beleive did everybody else. The mother and the minister may have drunk a bit less than the rest of us, but, I believe, if memory serves, that they drank their fair share, if somehat less than I. The evening proceeded, very interestingly, amiably, and successfully if I recall. I can vaguely recall that I emerged as non religious, the minister was religious, and the others, including my friend, I recall not what they said, though I suspect that my friend was agnostic. The minister was, as I recall, very progressive, open minded, and understanding, and although he was a good witness to his faith that night, he made no attempt to pressure and proselytize me or anyone else. The most interesting development that night was that, at length, by some winding but presumably rational path, the conversation turned to the question of whether or not animals have amotions.... Why, and exactly how, I can't recall, but it did, and the topic lasted awhile, many comments were made. The one thing I absolutely remember is that I was the only one who said that animals do not have emotions. Everyone else said that they do. For whatever reason, I was not only certain that they do not, I was dead certain, and could not be moved, although all the others, especially and including the minister, tried to convert me to the emotional animals point of view. At one point he asked me whether I had a pet, what kind, gender and age, and I answered, yes, I have a pet. He asked me whether I loved her. Without hesitation, I strongly declared my love for my precious female Manchester Terrior,a chihuahua-like dog. He quickly proved that she loved me too, which of course should have been obvious all along to me. Only, it wasn't. For whatever reason, I insisted that what my dog felt for me was something other than love, a emotion-free creature concerned only with food and survival.... At some later point in my adulthood, as I aged, of course I realized how wrong I had been, though I can't remember when and how this transition ocurred. Of course, I still realize it. Now, the older I get, the more ashamed I am of ever having believed such nonsesne, as a smart, well educated young adult. As I write this, it seems kind of funny, and kind of embarassing. Well, and then, one cannot change the past. The best we can do, maybe, is to either forget it, or learn from it, and it seems I have chosen the later. With my generally good memory, I can never forget the past, even if I try, without some kind of drug or brain damage, neither of which I want. But at least I recognized my error and corrected it, if belatedly, and I feel that I grew in some weird way because of it, and I will never make that same mistake again.

Critically Thinking, Theogically

JOHANN WOLFGANG von GOETHE (1749-1832), the undisputed prince of European literature, and perhaps the most intelligent human who ever lived,said: "The Christian religion began as an abortive political revolution, and turned moral". A shocking, blasphemous statement for your average conservtive evangelical Christian, for whom the Christian faith is The Truth, the only truth, the revealed Word of God, the one true religion of the one true God. In fact, for the first few centuries of the faith, it was called,simply, "The Truth". The term "Christianity" came later, after the Council of Nicea, in 325 A.D., at which the Christian bible was instituted,by vote. For the critically thinking hisotrical, scientific scholar, the Christian religion is the product of a long sequence of specific historical events, amny of them knowable, documented, many not. For the intelligent polymath and poet, like Goethe, the critical historical, scientific approach works best. For your average intelligent well educated person, Goethe's approach tends to adhere. One such person Earnest Hemmingway, said; "All intelligent, thinking people are atheists". Not so, Ernie. Baruch Spinoza was a pantheist, in fact he is credited with having "invented" that religious philosophy, Thomas Jefferson and many of America's brilliant founders were deists, and Albert Einstein was also a pantheist. He said he believed as Spinoza believed, and described God as "The infinitely superior spirit", "The old eternal genius who built the world", and "the ancient one". All these folks, like a high percentage of educated intellectuals, regarded the bible as quaint ancient literature, Christian dogma and theology as superstition, and all forrmal, organized, dogmatic religion as inadequate in explaining cosmic and human existence. Jefferon used the term "our modern superstition" in his writings. Back to Goethe. He simply read the Bbile, and other histories, and what he read told him the the Hebrews seethed with anger and dismay under Roman oppression, and, in accordance with their scripture, awaited the long promised "Messiah" to deliver them from subjagation. They envisioned their messiah as a conquering, liberating military figure. Joshua ben Joseph, whom the Romans translated as "Jesus", disappointed them, with his message of a heavenly kingdom, and advice to the Jews to submit to Roman rule, and to reap their reward in heaven. Not wanting to discredt himself, however, he also promised that after his death, he would indeed return as the conquering heroic messiah of prophecy. That made it easier for him to attract listeners and followers; I'll give you what you want, but not now, later, effectively "stringing them along". Similarly, today's Christians often confront agnostices and atheists, after being unable to convert them, with the promise; "you'll find out about the necessity of being saved by Christ after you die, and find yourself burning in hell". (How generous of them.). That delay tacitc relieves our modern evangelicals of any responsibility to prove the truth of their faith, by leaving it to others, to the eternally damned themselves, after death, just as Jesus cleverly relieved himself of the impossible task of personally liberating the Jews from Roman oppression, merely by saying, in essence: "Just live with it for now, I'll be back later, while you're still alive, to make things right. They died waiting, just as today's Christians will.

Diverging Values

THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES when the two major American poitical parties seemed nearly indistinguishable. The immediate post World War Two period was charachterized by a mad rush to the political center. Strong on defense, so strong the President Eisenhower feared that spending on military procurement might bankrupt the country. Support for social programs and labor unions by both parties, with no apparent retreat from the New Deal. Most noteworthy, the Republican party was barely right of center, often slightly left of it, with support for women's equality and support of labor unions written into the 1956 party platform, which more resembled the agenda of Bernie Sanders than Ronald Reagan. Reagan changed, both parties evolved over time. Back then, Ronald Reagan had only recently converted from New Deal democrat idealsim to his eventual soft landing in hard core conservatism. The most outstanding development of recent times is the flight of the Republicans to the far, extremist right. It is neither unfair nor unreasonable to assert that the current Republican party contains strong strains of fasism, racism, and pure neo-liberal economics, with unfettered corporate enterprise opening the floodgates of corporate money controlling politics, and both foreign and domestic government policy. The two parties are perhaps as far apart ideologically as they have ever been, but it can be argued that despite the divisive vitriole which characherized the political landscape, it cannot be denied that, perhaps more than ever, we the people, if nothing else, certainly have a clear cut choice. Nor are they equal in honesty, integrity,and what they offer the country. The mere fact that the G.O.P. has cast its lot with Trump says much about its abandonment of integrity for political expediency, and its willingness to allow or accept low moral character and even criminality within its leadership. That two thirds of registered Republicans still insist that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump,that the insurrection of January 6 2021 was either justified by circustances, or was nothing more than a peaceful demonstration that got a bit out of control, speaks volumes, about integrity. Climate change denial, a bulwark of contemporary conservatism, is no less revealing. Denying the very existence of what the Department of Defense has for decades termed the single greatest threat to American national security is, arguably, criminally traitorous. The two parties are on opposite ends of the moral character spectrum.The fact the Republcians are tyring to level the moral playing field by fabricating wholly unsubstantiated allegations of criminal activity against President Biden is yet more proof of their low moral character. For their sacred cause of remaking the country in their extreme conservative image, they have literally sold their souls to the devil. They have for decades perpetrated the false notion that their is a liberal bias in the mainstream American media. If anything, the opposite is true. The neutral and conservatve media is complicit by presenting the lucicrous idea that both parties are equally corrupt, equally disengenuous, equally contemptuous in disregarding the the preferences and demands of the general population. No less ludicrous is the conservative establishment using their strategy to enact the conservative agenda by law by packing the judicial system with conservtive judges to secure right wing renderings, has invented the fantastical concept of "originalism", according to which we are expected to predicate all bench rulings upon the "original intentions" of the founders, as if we are capable of reading their minds. Democrats support equality for women, minorities, and the LGBTQ community, and freedom of religion and acceptance of religious diversity.Republicans want to criminalize homosexuality, make no effort to and to enforce gender and racial equality and elevate the Christian religion to the status of formal societal establishment. Democrats want to use progressie tax policies to more equally distribute the nation's wealth, Republicans seem content with less than one percent of the population having a disproportionate share of it. The two parties are not the same.

Contending In Vain, Amid Confusion

APHORISMS ABOUT HUMAN STUPIDITY are numerous,famous, and often humorous. Einstein was great at it, and those attirbuted to him are authentic. He had a great sense of humor. "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius is somewhat limited"...."Two things are infinite, stupidity, and the universe, and I'm not sure about the universe."...You've heard'em all... "Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain", is from ancient times. They all are, as famous maxims usually are, quite correct. Nobody will ever convince a devout Christian conservative super patriot, for instance, that these United States of America were not fouded upon "Christian values", but rather, upon eighteenth century enlightenment principles,politically scientific ideals, such as those of John Locke, espousing popular democratic republican, enlightened government. These concepts were quite revolutionary for their time, much dabated, much mistrusted, and they engendered apprehension for the future survival of the republic. Then too, it seems readily apparant that if indeed the republic were founded upon Christian values, it would have been born as a dictatorship, for the Christian religion is, if nothing else, a dictatorship of Almighty God. But consider that in dealing with devout conservative reborn Christians, one is confronted with someone who believes on faith alone that the universe was created by an anthropomorphic deity (the entire universe was created by a very human-like being) who created humans who resemble himself, allowed them to behave badly, so badly that they dared to become curious, then murdered his own son, who is actually himself, and decided that this tortorous, ritual death would atone for the mistakes of everybody forever, but only if they would worship him. God, however, gave himself a break. He brought himself back from the dead,and rewarded himself with a heavenly, eternal life,thereby missing out on only one weekend. One lost weekend, quite a sacrifice! If that isn't bloody barbarism compounded by blackmail and coercion, what is? If that isn't chsotic, inchoate, convoluted, a veritable cowweb of a narrative, what is? Of the roughly four thousand recognized organized religions in the world, all contain some truth and widsom, all contain some falsity and nonsense. They also contain wickedness and horror,, such as the invention of "hell". If the concept of hell isn't psychotic, what is? Arguably, anybody who truly believes in hell is mentally ill, vicious, or brainwashed. Both heaven and hell are here, on Earth, if anywhere. Of these primitive, barbaric religions, none will endure long into the future, quite likely. Einstein speculated that the religions of the future will be cosmopolitan, encompassing our modern knowledge of the universe, reflecting a twenty second or third century awarness of reality, rather than one which is thousands of years archaic. These old religions concocted paradigms in which the world is flat, resting upon the backs of enormous turtles, among many other nonsensical notions. One notion is that when God returns to Earth in human form as Christ, the stars will fall from the sky and smash upon the ground like fragile glass trinkets. Conservatism, religious and political, embraces tradition, resists change, self improvement, and progress,and refuses to abandon demonstrably outdated but cherished notions of reality. The religion of the future will be predicated upon science, and the wonderous, miraculous universe it reveals, rather than long held sacred superstitions. But, regrettably, we'll have to be patient, and, while facilitating continued evolution, political, scientific, and religious, through our own efforts, we'll have to wait a while longer...

Selling Personal Porn, For Profit

IT BEGAN THE USUAL WAY. I was logged on to Facebook, for the only reasons I ever log on to Facebook, to promote this website, and to distribute negative information and opinion about conservatism, the evangelical conservative Christian community, the Republican party, and last and least, Donald J. Trump. Suddenly, as usual, a message popped up, accompanied by a photograph of the face of a beautiful young woman. The message said: "hello"... "howdy", I replied, as usual. Courtesy requires responding to pleasant greetings, including those from beautiful young women. The next comment is always the same question: "How are you?". (it happens that way every time. The standard interview has begun.). I gave my standard one word response: "well". Whenever the visitor understands my response,which is about half the time,the interview proceeds,in the usual order of questions and demands. Location? Age? Single? Married? What do you do to earn a living? Sixty eight,single. Nothing. (meaning, retired)...(I indulge them at first. It costs nothing but a few minutes,and can yield interesitng results, from the standpoint of sociological research, of course.) Then the interviews all begin to vary,taking off in their own direction, depending on the interviewer. These messages pop up between five and ten times a day. They all get to the part where they say they are looking for love, for a meangingful, long term relationship, and they think I may be the right man. What they are looking for, obviously, is money,and they intend to trick people, libidinous men, into sending it, by dangling the alluring prospect of love and sex,which, almost tragically, they seem to think is the best talent they have to offer. Money is money. This one sent me another picture, a full body shot of slender fully clothed curves, and said: "Send your pic". (They rearely ask for it, they usually demand it, and never use the word "please"). I suggested to this scam artist that she use some common courtesy,and make a request, rather than a demand. She, like all the others, chose to either ignore this suggestion, or didn't understand it. As always, I explained that I don't take pictures of myself, don't ask anyone else to, and that I care more about what people do and say than what they look like. They always respond to this with one word: "really", or "what?". This one did too. By this time most of them are asking for airfare money to facilitate their visit to me, the love of their life. This "lady" was more brazen. "Do you want to see a picture of my tits"? Sure! I respond, why not? She sends one, she on her back, fully clothed, large full breasts reaching towards the sky. "Nice tits", I say. Smart start for her; she has provided an alluring "hook", but given away nothing of real value which could bring in moneylater. "Fifty dollars for tit pictures, two hundred for pussy pictures. I have videos too". Now I have the price list, the menu if you will, and can decide. Sensing success, she aggressively intones: "Send mony now, please"..(finally, the word "please"!). "Let me think about it",I tell her. "I could buy a good porn magazine for about ten dollars", I say. She ignores this. I decide she needs a lesson in basic business managment. "I admire your entrepeneurial initiative, I say, but a good capitalist must follwow certain well accepted business principles, and must be smart, as well as hard working..."What?", she says. Red flag raised, I timidly ask her..um..do you know what capitalism is, and what a "capitalist" is? "No", she honestly confides. "Well", I begin, "capitalism is the economic system we have here in America,and, um, its where people start businesses, selling goods and services for profit, and, um"....still, she seems utterly confused. Now, I know I'm in trouble. My magnanimous desire to provde a much needed lesson in basic economics and small business management begins to seem doomed. This young lady is not close to ready for introductory Econ 101. I now realize that what she needs is probably a high school diploma, a GED, if not more basic instruction still. She goes silent,apparently less interestd in an education in business than in jumping right into her business, and letting nature take its course. Dimly bginning to sense that I am more interested in teaching than pornography, she fell silent. I truly hope that she does well with her personal pornography business, although I doubt that she will. What I said about the price of porn is undeniable. I see nothing more morally objectionable about what she is trying to do than the businesses selling cigarettes, alcohol, or cars, or those whose products pollute the environment with carbon, and are causing climate change, and hastening the collapse of the ecosystem and the extinction of all life on Earth through climate change. And, in any event, she will probably, perhpas after years of struggling with her ill fated business, learn her lesson through hard knocks, and, out of sheer desperation, get an education, a job, and, lord willing, become involved in capitalism in a more lucrative and honorable manner.

Demanding a Democratically Elected Dictator

AMAZINGLY, almost beyond belief, the dysfunctional, anti-democratic Republican party is beside itslf with outrage over the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to remove Donald Trump from the ballot for the 2024 presidential election. How dare those Democrats conspire to deprive the good people of Colorado of the privilege, nay, sacred right, to cast a ballot for that paragon of law abiding morality,Donald J. Trump, insurrectionist-in-chief. Their rationale? The people deserve the right to vote for whomever they want, including a convicted felon and demonstrable inciter of insurrection against the United States government. The constitution does not prphibit criminals from becoming president. The Republican party, it seems, insists that the democratic process be given the opportunity to democratically elect an authoritarian president, much as the German people democratically elected their infamous dictator, Adolf Hitler The difference is that the Germans in 1933 were unaware that they were indeed eleting a nascent dictator, just as about half of the American electorate seems unaware of, or unconcered with the obvious fact that Donald Trump seeks presidential powers approaching the dictatorial. We know this, because he has said so, many times. For all appearances, Trump supporters want precisely an authoritarian president with the power to implement their anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Christian dominionist agenda by decree. Not mentioned amid all the wailing and gnashing is that the movement to remove Trump was,to an extent, spearheaded by clearer thinking Republicans. Trump will fortify the support of his political support base, by, as always, playing the part of the victim. Poor persecuted Donnie, the school yard bully who doesn't like receiving what he dishes out, and doesn't like justice when it is dispensed in matters pertaining to him. Trump's fervant cultish support base hardly needs further fortification. The prevailing spew is that democracy must be upheld at all costs, and that notwithstanding the degree to which a candidate is a criminal or a reprobate, the voters shoud have the opportunity to elect him president.The party which sidesteps democracy by packing the courts with right wing extremists, and relies on them to install its agenda from the bench, demanding democracy. That, is they say, is rich. Charles Manson for president! The Supreme Court cannot avoid hearing the inevitable Trump appeal very soon, and probably does not want to avoid it. The high court, after all, is packed with far right wing ideologues, themselves Trumpers. Abd of coures, the Colorado ruling will be overruled, and Americans will be prefectly, democratically free to reelect a former president who refused to accept his election defeat, and tried to stage an insurrection to oerthrow the federal government to remain illegally in power. The party of law and order, choosing to ignore the constitution in their zeal to elect their dictator of choice. But, we can take comfort in knowing that if elected, Donald Trump would only be a dictator on his first day in office. The white elephant in the room is, however, that that should give him sufficient time to do everything that has to be done to complete the conserative agenda, and completely destroy democracy in America.

Governing Ourselves

THERE IS A GRASS ROOTS Initiative in the late great state of Florida to put the abortion question on the ballot, and let to electorate have a go at it. Liberal Democrats, as one might supose, are promulgating it; the slight conservative Republican majority staunchly opposes the plan. Humans by nature and commmon sense embrace democracy when they believe that it will result in public policies which they approve of and support, and prefer authoritatianism or even dictatorship when they conclude that democracy has failed them by making popular choices with which they disagree. That is the poistion in which the conservative Republican community presently finds itself. The Americna people, by a significant majority, support a woman's right to choose, within reasonable limits, and conservative pro choice Republicans are aware of this, despite any of thier claims to the contrary. Even the myopic evangelical Christian community knows, or sould know, that they are in the minority on this an many other issues. For decades their strategy,formulated by the Heritage Foundation and other right wing organizations, have successfully implemented a strategy of packing the court system, state and federal, with conservative judges, to implement their agenda, on abortion and everything else, implementing it from the bench rather than the ballot box, bypassing the democratic process. My father once said, strangely but astutely, that, counter-intutive though it might seem, the best, most efficient form of government might well be a benevolent dictatorship. True enough. Dictatorshps "get things done", to paraphrase a quote from the late Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner.Democracy is inefficient,cumbersome, messy, and requires effort on the part of many people, with the presupmtion and unrealistic expectation that the general population has the capacity to govern itself. The founders of the United States knew full well that it does not, and thus, established a representative, plutocratic republic, rather than a more direct form of demoracy. Kansas, among the most conservative states in these United States, voted by a huge majority to legalize abortion. If the same choice were given to all the other states, it would almost certianly yield the same result, and abortion would once again be legal nationally, effectively restoring Roe v. wade. Trump and his fellow gangsters, with their nefarious "Project 47", and "2025 Plan", or whatever they're called, clearly lays out their agenda, an authoritarian one, with Trump the authority, governing by executive decree, installing the far right wing agenda without any trace of democratic process. Its alarming. Trump, as president, in their more perfect world, would have the power to fire all government bureaucrats, dismantle the meritocracy, and replace it with a government of federal employees chosen based on one qualification; loyalty to Donald Trump. Trump would want and maybe gain the power, with the stroke of a pen, to eliminate federal agencies such as the EPA, OSHA, and numerous other federal regulatory agencies. Authoritarianism, fascism, Hilter-ism. The conservative Chrisitian community would encourage Trump to install the Christian religion to the status of official, the official national religion. Freedom of religion, gone. Der Fuhrer, Herr Trump, would gladly accede to this heinous scheme, since religion is of no ocncern to him one way or the other, other than as a tool for his personal advancement. AS film maker Michael Moore pointed out, America is fundamentally a majority progressive country. A majority of the American people support equality for LGBTQ people, abortion rights for women, and higher pay, benefits,and workplace democracy for workers, governemnt regulation of the economy, and socialism in general, among other progressive values. Trump and the conservative evangelical community want to criminalize homosexuality, detain undocumented immigrants in concentration camps, and summarily execute drug dealers, without due process. All this is cearly written, spelled out on Trump's website. Thus we the American people are presented with a choice between fascism and democracy. We must trust that the American people will choose democracy and an emmpowered elecorate, and cast the fascist conservative agenda into the proverbial dust bin of history.

Digging For Gold

I WAS sitting in front of the computer screen in the nook and cranny kitchen, doom scrolling, as I often do, trying to figure out how to pay the rent, feed the cat, pay the water and elecitric bills (losing both heat,light,and water at the same time is a real bitch - showerng at the homeless shelter is inconvenient), and have a little cash left over for the casino, when, yet again,a message popped up on the Facebook screen. In our trailor park, the toilets don't always flush, and holes in the ceiling often go unpatched for weeks, but, we have internet service available, which most of us have, even though our "neighborhood" houses people most of whom can afford neither cell phone nor broad band. America's forgotten underclass. But most of us find a way. The Mexican lady in the unit next door turns tricks on weekends and cleans the houses of the wealthy elite during the week. As for myself, I can move a kilo in less than a day, providing good smoke to my fellow welfare recipients in our state where there is neither legal medicinal nor recreational marijuana. When I noticed that the message was from still another young, attractive, lady, I suddenly morphed, as if by divine providence, into a billionaire living in Holmby Hills. I quickly, almost automatically checked, and soon discerned that yes, yet again, the greeting was from an oatensibly very attractive, probably nineteen or twenty year very young lady. The usual scenario ensued, predictably. First the flattery, then the interview. "Hi handsome! I notice on your profile (I don't have a profile, never have,and don't want one) that you live near me. (There is no information available about where I live) Do you mind chatting? Here's my picture. Can you send me yours? How old are you? Married? Single? What do you do for a living." I have no picture, I reply, because I am rather well known, and prefer not to attract even more attention. I tell the truth about my age: sixty eight.That's where the honesty ends. Instead of saying "retired custodian, current drug dealer, living on Social Security and food stamps, never married", I inform her that I am approaching my retirement, from the Chairmanship of a fortune five Hundred company, separated and in court, frequently traveling, when not at the country club or corporate headquarters. Due to national security concerns, I am not at liberty to divulge the identity of the corporation I chair. I can sense, as usual, that we are inching closer to the actual purpose of her message, which is, of course, moeny. She springs it on me even faster than they normally do. Can you do me a favor,sweetie, she inquires? Maybe, I retort. Sensing an easy mark, she plunges straight ahead. "Can you send me some money, so I can buy a new phone card, so we can keep talking? And, since we know each other better now, would you maybe send enough to buy me a plane ticket to come stay with you?" Amazing, their brazen hustling, which they inevtibaly seem to think well concealed, being thinly, transparently concealed, couched in conspicuously feinged romantic interest. I never met a twenty year old lady online who didn't proclaim her enduring interest in older men, and, after all, age is but a number. Oh, and then too, our love connection is so plainly obvious. We,says she, are clearly a match made in heaven, All the tired cliches. I would love nothing more than to wire you a few thousand, I say, but, my girlfriend, with whom I might soon split, must not find out, for she would try to milk me evern more than she already do just for starters But their are complications. But if I can pry a few thousand loose from my disretionary account without notice, we're in business. Be patient. And don't call me,I'll call you.

History, Rhyming And Repeating

"HISTORY REPEARS ITSELF" is a phrase often used by intelligent people untrained in the social science of history. It is always well intentioned, intended to speak truth and elucidate reality. The word "trope" might describe the phrase, because presumably it is used, at least to a certain extent, figuratively, metaphorically. We can be assured that nobody who is mentally healthy actually beleves that the world is a perpetual "Ground Hog Day", consisting of a single day, repeated infinitely. Nor most probably do people mean to imply that we are born again and aging into the same world, reliving our lives with precision. What they really mean, perhaps, is that patterns of human behavior can be gleaned from historical events and trends. Wars follow periods of economic depression and instability. Technologically primitive civilizations are conquered and supplanted by those with more advanced technology and weapons. Religions begin as small cults, and, those which fulfill emotional needs increase in popularity, a critical mass is reached, and they proliferate in votaries to include millions of people, taking their place on the global stage, becoming one of the world's great faiths. Nations start small, grow in territory and population, overextend their resoureces in their expansion by attempting to govern and provede the needs of too great a geographical area, and then begin a slow decline which leads ultimately to their downfall. I remember an econoimcs professor, himself a serious student of history, telling me that the United States in the early twenty first century reminded him of the late Roman Empire in the third century A.D. I agreed with him completely then, and still do. The vast expansion of empire geopraphically, the projection of military and economic power far beyond the nation's borders, huge expenditures of resources in military procurement, a crass culture addicted to vacuous entertainment and vicarious violence, rampant, extreme economic and social inequality, social fragmentation and atomization, religious cults emerging locally in almost every corner of the country, dividing people, sapping the patriotic enthusiasm of the population, enticing people away from the dreary reality of everyday life, and luring them into spiritual realms of their own invention, further fragmenting energies, loyalties, and endeavors. Indisputably, drawing comparisons between the late Roman Empire in decline and contemporary America has validity. We can only hope that this analogy is false, that our beloved America is indeed not in decline, and that we, with sustained, dlilgent, collective effort, can sustain our national health and vigor..indefinitely. We have it within our power to do exactly that, we must trust. But one must be careful in making the coparisons, lest one overextend one's intellectual empire of the mind, and arrive on distant shores, stranded amid a murky sea of untenable praadigms. In essense, such comparisons have strict limits of efficacy. Above all, such comparisons do not fall within the realm of history, but more properly, sociology. History is the study of the past. The past concists of a seemingly (but not actually) infinite number of unique events. The united States is not "repeating" ancient Roman history, simply, precisely because nobody alive today was alive then; and nobody alive then is alive today. Its that simple. Whatever I do today wil never happen again, Somebody else may well do the same thing, but, different person, different location,different day. History is an enormous succession of documented, and interpretation of those events, large and small, involving millions of unique people, times, and places. Or,as a prominent historian once eloquently articulated: "One damned thing after another"... Wasn't it Mark Twain who said that history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes? Try telling a well trained professional historian that "history repeats itself", and you're likely to get a negative response, a dismissive shrug, a clarification, or a voluminous tome hurled in your direction. If you're lucky, the clarification will suffice, and germinate understanding. One can only hope, because you will never have the same opportunity to say the same thing to the same historian and receive the same precise response in the same precise way, ever again.

Getting Busted For Failure To Buy

LIKE MANY MEN, I don't like shopping, especially in crowded stores. But when I know exactly what I want or need, I brace myself, and dig in. And, like many men, I have a sense of independence, stubborness and determination which deters me from asking for directions or help. (Life is a highway, and a road map). I can waste gas and time finding my destination, and even more time and footsteps wandering around a store, looking...looking. Then too, people in low wage retail jobs often seem rude,annoyed, or unable to render assistance. Sometimes they're harder to find than what I'm looking for. Determined to buy some new Christimas lights and a new drinking mug with the name of my favorite college athletic mascot emblazened upon it,I entered a "Dollar General" store, convinced that said items might be or would be in stock,and that,at length, I could find them. No such luck. I don't give up easily, and thirty minutes later, I still had an empty basket. Belatedly I became convinced that no such items were on the shelves, and I noticed that not only was the Christmas stock depleted with empty shelves, but that the plastic kitchenware, drinking and eating items, included no collegiate motiffs. Five days before Christmas, the store was obviously going to sell all its Christmas themed merahandise,and not restock it. Disinclined to purchase something that I don't currenty want or need merely to be a good, paying customer,I replaced my shopping basket,and left the store,empty handed. On several occasions over the past few months, the same scenario has played out in the same store: Into the store, unable to find my cat's favorite brand or flavor of cat food, a T shirt with my college team's name on it, a pair of cheap sandals, or some other item, and after a prolonged stay of fifteen or twenty minutes of failure, back out to my car, empty handed. That's not normal. Ninety nine percent of shoppers in dollar stores enter the store, pick up a few items quickly, pay, and get out rather fast. But they always buy something. Apparently my stubborn, parsimonious, unusual behavior either angered, frightened,or aroused the suspicions of somebody, and they took down my license plate number, called the police, who sent a very pleasant young officer to my home to inform me that I must not enter the store ever again. Unorthodox behavior is not allowed! I assured the pleasant officer that I would gladly, fully comply. I can understand the store's point of view, and I can understand mine even better. We Americans are a nation of preferred conformity. One's behavior must be kept within a certain of options to avoid suspicion. You don't want to be guilty of being black, for instance,and walking or jogging after dark in fashionable neighborhoods inhabited by affluent "white" people. If you are, you may be arrested, shot, or both. Once, long ago, a lawyer told me that banning someone from a store which serves the public merely on grounds of suspicion is illegal. Who knows? Maybe I'll try a test case... My red ball cap which says "Make America Greta Again", a reference to both Greta Thunberg and Donald Trump, invariably inspires glowering, glaring looks from the liberal side of the political spectrum, and unwarranted, unwanted approval from the Trump right. I assume that nobody in America has one except me,and nobody but me likes it. Now, I only wear it at home, although I paid twenty dollars to have it specially made. I think its rather clever. But, alas, it fails to conform to societal expectations. (If only people would take the time to read closely!) Instead, they presume what it says, wrongly. Often, when people ask me the obligatory question, online or in person, "How are you"? (I am convined that nobody really cares, and that the question is nothing but habit, because most people pay no attention to my often creative, unusual responses)...so,I respond as tersely as possible, to got to the point and avoid elaboration. I say one word: "well", meaning, I am doing well". Evidently, that's the wrong thing to do,the wrong thing to say, because almost invariably it confuses people. Sometimes they say:"well...what?". I never respond to that. I think I'll continue giving my one word answer, because its honest, to the point, and reasonable, if incomprehensible to the mind of one who is unable to grasp any behavior contrary to normam expectations. ( should say "fine", but won't)... But I think I'll do less shopping,and, never again in Dollar General. They never seem to have what I want or need anyway.

Purging Trump

LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR, tens of millions of Americans witnessed the prevaricating president of the United States stand before an angry, violent, well armed mob, its anger deliberately stoked by the prevaricator in chief, and commit what is among the most severe and heinous crimes against constitution and country, incitement to insurrection. "Go to the capitol and fight like hell" were his exact words. This is precisely what the violent mob did. The result was that seven people were killed and dozens more, many of them police officers, sustained permanent debilitating injuries. Every act performed by a person or a people is, due to varying perspectives, subject to interpretation. Bias is always present. History is subjective, not objective. Historians always have axes to grind. Thus, the unending complexities, difficulties, and frustrations of historical scholarship. Trump supporters have offered varying explanations, all heavily biased, to the point of inanity. No bias has ever been greater, or more morally and intellectually indefensible, than that displayed by Trump supporters. The events of January 6th, 2021 was nothing other than a guided tour of the Capitol building which got slightly out of hand..It was perpetrated by Democrats, FBI agents, and extraterrestrials in disguise... Every contrived explanation is more inane than the last; all are attempts to justify and defend the indefensible. So it goes with Trump supporters, who are no more moral, honest, or worthy of respect than their cult leader, Trump himself. The ruling handed down yesterday by the Colorado Supreme Court is, on its face, a slam dunk. Trump is guilty of incitement of insurrection, and therefor, according to the U.S. constitution, ineligible to serve as president. If one witnesses a crime being committed, one needn't await a formal verdict in a court of law to conclude that a crime has been committed, and to identify the criminal. Or so it would seem. It seems probable, however, that, legally, no American citizen can be excluded from serving as president under the fourteenth amendment without first actually being convicted of so doing in a duly empowered court of law. The ruling has already been appealed by Trump's lawyers, predictably, and will undoubtedly be heard eventually by the U.S. Supreme Court, or "SCOTUS", as we like to acronym-ize. The likely resut, at least so it seem,s is that the conservative largely Trump appointed court will overturn the Colorado ruling, and restore the insurrrectionist to that state's ballot. With an expidited ruling, Trump could and probably will be back up and running in Colorado before and on election day. Similar lawsuits to the one filed in Colorado which resulted in the Colorado ruling have been filed in other states, and are pending, making their way to their state's respective Supreme Courts. If they reach similar verdicts, and if the Colorado finding is overturned by SCOTUS, the overturning will of course pertain to all the other states. However, notwithstanding our sacred American principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, merely being accused of and formally charged with a crime seriously taints the defendant's reputation. When Reagan Secretary of Labor Ray Donovan was exonerated of white collar crimes in 1981, as he left the courtroom, he asked, rhetorically; "where do I go to get back my good name"? Well, its far too late for Donald J.Trump to ever get back his good name. His "good name', if it ever existed, has long since been tarnished, soiled and besmirched beyond any possible cleansing. That has had no impact upon his cult MAGA following, who revere him all the more with each of his heinous words and deeds, like Jesse James. But among intelligent, reasonable Americans of high moral character, it certainly won't help his reputation, and may, if karma adheres, cost Trump the election, and result in his eventual incarceration.

Starting From Faith, Unfaithfully

FONDLY I RECALL many years ago listening to an interview with a very young Hasidic Jewish rabbi, stating his point of view concering the establishment and existence of the modern nation-state of Israel. The Hasidic movement,if memory serves, is a subset of the Jewish faith, which might properly be described as "religious conservatism". It originated in Ukraine in the eighteenth century, as a sort of Judaic revivalist movement, a backward looking ideology steeped in mysticism. Hasidic folks adorn themselves in black attire, and the men do not trim their sideburns, which grow long down their their faces, with long hair length and their distinguishing black hats. Traditional, ancient Judaic beliefs and values are their characteristic religiosity. This young man in particular, speaking perfect English but with an accent with seemed to indicate that English was his second language, offered to his intrviewer only the unvarnishded truth. The establishment of the modern Israeli nation was, in his firm opinion, a mistake. When questioned as to his reasons behind this view, his answer was disarmingly forthright. Because, he said, Judaism is not a nation state, it is not a political movement or entity, it is not a superpower or military organization. It is, he stipulated, a religion, nothing more, and nothing less. I found his words thought provoking in the extreme. The "zionist" movement, predicated upon the belief that the establishemnt of a new Israel, or Zion, was ordained by God, promised by God, and thus,inevitable, right, and proper, gained ascendancy throughout international Judiasm in the late nineteenth century, and Jewish immigration into Palestine, then a British colony, gained momentum, as increasing numbers of regufees, fleeing the periodic anti-semitic purges which had always swept across and contined to sweep swept across Europe, resulted in the cumulative creation of a large Jewish population east of the Mediterranean. AS the twentieth century proceeded, the immigration continued, and, for the most part, Jews and Palestinian Arabs lived side by side, among each other, harmoniously. The declaration of a Theocratic Jewish homeland, a formal nation officially sanctioned and mandated, occurred in May of 1948, largely with the support of both the British empire and the United States, the American empire. The birth of Israel was of necessity accomplished only with the unavoidable suffering of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, who lost thier homes, having been diven from them, and, in many instances, lost their lives. All this is indisputable history, well documented, which nobody can deny. Nobody denies the Palestinian suffering, but many choose to ignore and forget it, for presumed political and ideologocal expediency. The culmination of Jewish persecution was of course Hitler, but Hitler was only the exreme, disastrous culmination of centuries of normal Christian European behavior; Jewish ghettos,ostracized in nearly all European cities, Jews themsselve treated by law as second class citizens. The founders of the United States strongly believed that theocratic societies do not function well, that they tend to devolve into religious based tyrannies, that the establishment of an official church, such as the church of England, was entirely undesirable, and that therefore the new nation would be born in the principle of freedom of religion, freedom from religion, and a complete seperation of church and state. As Jefferson and Madison both articulated, with an impenetrable, impregnable wall between church and state. That's why, when devout Amcerican conservative Christians delcare that the United States was founded upon "Christian values", and that America is a "Christian nation", or that the U.S. should formally declare itself a Christian nation with laws based upon biblical legal concepts, they are not only teaching false history, they are espousing ideals in direct opposition to the intentions of the founders. This is demonstrated not only by the first amendment to the constitution, but by the simple fact that the United States was founded as a democratic republic, and the Christian religion, far from being a democracy, is, quite simply, a dictatorship. America's Christian conservative "dominionists", who pose a gave threat to American secular demoracy, would do well to learn from the message of a brave, clear thinking young Hasidic rabbi, in an interview long ago.

Messaging, For Love Or Money

I SIGN ON TO FACEBOOK, and notice that there are several messages in storage, waiting for me. In no hurry, I do a bit of feed scrolling, and the usual cavalcade of cute kittens, Arkansas Razorbacks, if you love dogs press thumb, scenic vistas, traitorous Trump, Monet, Cezanne, anti-religion posts flow down and out of view. I actually like Facebook, although I tell people I don't, to make me seem intellectully superior. ("When one respects nothing, it is no trick to be brilliant", as Goethe said). I like the way that your personal feed content matches your personal interests on Facebook, the tailor made algothmatic made to order avalanching cavalcade of squares, intended to seduce and conquer. Whenever I see something I like, which is constantly, I click on "like". Whenever I happen upon somebody's comment post, and I agree with it, which is often, I type in the word "precisely". I have nearly the maximum number of friends, because I have many former students who find me online, and because I accept almost all "friend requests". I don't like to reject invitations, and i like to accumulate people to whom I can advertise and promote this website. Finally, I get to the stored messages. Suddenly a new one pops up, with a small picture of a young, beautiful female face in the upper right hand corner. At the bottom, she says "Hello". I type in "howdy". Then begins the standard interview, which rarely varies. They open with: "How are you"? Everytime, I respond with a single word: "well", meaning, "I am well". (I don't like to typewrite, and do I it tersely. Shakespeare said: "The best men are men of few words")... My one word response "well", always seems to confuse the young ladies, whih I find srange and amusing. Sometimes they ask: "Well, what?". I never respond to that. Often, I "hear" nothing further. The young lady cannot resolve her confusion, and has fled, I suppose. If she (or he) makes it past "well", the interview proceeds, with complete predictability. Your location? Age? Single? Married? What do you do for a living? When I say "nothing", rather than "I am retired", again, the confusion. And then, of course, the incessant, inevitable "do you have a pic"? Everytime, I answer "no", because I don't. I have no profile, and I take no pictures of myself. That,I think, clearly indicates my limited interest in Facebook. My pictuelessness seems to annoy them. "Take a selfie right now", they often demand. I decline the order. When the information they seek is expressed in the form of an order rather than a request, I tend to bow up. Sometimes I suggest that they use the word "please", and that they refrain from issuing orders. This also seems to confuse them. When they type in truncated, incomplete sentences by using only the first letters of words, "np","tgif",that sort of thing, I get confused. Most amusing of all is that when I reply "68", answering the age question, their response is always: "age is just a number". Yeah, sure, oh hell yes! Sometimes, although not always, I retort; "the hell it is", or "Maybe, but a very important one". Usually, I don't bother with that. It only further confuses them. Whenever I make a simple, direct comment, and the rsponse is "what?", I either repeat my comment verbatim, or say nothing. (I do the same thing in person) When one of them asks: "What are you looking for?", I always reply: "nothing". That always throws them, without exception, Often, it ends the interview. To a lady, without exception, they notify me that they themselves are looking for a relationship, true love online, a forever mate to love and cherish them, until death do... "Good luck with that", I say. Sometimes I say that their chances are better if they turn off the computer, go out in public, maybe to church, maybe to a bar, and mingle, in real life, real space-time. That, of course, is probably not true. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they seem confused. But they always ensure me that by messaging me, they believe thay may have found what they are looking for. Can we be friends? We already are, you're on my list. If the conversation lasts long enough, they always, eventually, get to the point, and ask for money. They need gas money to drive from California to Arkansas, to meet me in person and begin our perfect life together. My responses to this vary. Sometimes I claim to have no money, or that all my available funds are tied up in the stock market or my small business, or that I give it all to charity or that I am not allowd by law and by my parents to touch my trust fund until I turn seventy, or that I am naturally reluctant to send money by electronic transfer to a perfect stranger. That seems to confuse them. They are always looking for an older man, and age is a number. At sixty eight, I am a super hot catch for a twenty year old bikini clad beauty. I know that, and I'll keep trying. There are about twenty messages still to open. They all come with pretty faces and perfect bodies, and hope for a wonderful future, together.