Trump, Ranting, Raving, Much Adoing About Nothing

DURING ONE OF HIS RECENT RANTING, raving rallies, Donald Trump laid out his basic agenda in simple, easy to understand terms. He would, he said, if elected, support the second amendment, protect the unborn, and fight to bring freedom of speech back to America. There you have it.Donald J.Trump's presidential campaign platform. Easy as pie, so to speak. Who could possibly argue against it? Makes you want to run right out, cast an early ballot, and help elect a man who just recently was convicted of thirty four felonies, should be convicted, if justice prevails, of many more in the near future, tried not long ago to violently overthrow the American government, stated more than thirty thousand proven lies while president, and has been identified by thousands of psychologists as a pathological narcissist, and criminally insane. However, he has the right values, liberty, freedom, honor, and truth. The American way. Guns, babies, and unlimited blather. Upon cursory examination, it all sounds great. A little more reflection allows us to understand a bit more; that, in all truth, the second amendment does not require special support or assistance, or defense. It is alive and doing quite well, thank you. There are more guns in America in private hands than there are Americans. Thousands of people own automatic assault weapons, AR15s, AK47s, the whole gamut. Since 2008 the second amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean all weapons for all people, anytime, with only a bare minimum of regulation, and only proven mentally ill people and convicted violent criminals prohibited from gun ownership. The very mention of additional gun regulation and control is sufficient to arouse a significant portion of the American people to pitch a fit, and to nearly rise up, take to the streets, and start spraying bullets at any and all liberal commie gun control freaks.. No, the second amendment is alive, well, and under no immediate or foreseeable threat. Similarly, The unborn seem to be enjoying enhanced protection these days as well. Roe versus Wade is dead on arrival. State after conservative state is passing legislation criminalizing a woman's right to choose, her right to control her own body. Certainly, many abortions still occur. They always will, one way or another, legal or otherwise. Most abortions in America, an overwhelming perentage of them, take place very early in pregnancy, and for very good reasons, as determined by the woman and her doctor. God himself does not seem to object, or if so, is doing nothing about his objections. Free will? Isn't that God's choice too? As for free speech, it is, arguably, freer than its ever been. All across America's fruited plain, American citizens, unconstrained by any government control, speak their minds, forcefully, freely. The only limit seems to be the limitations of the minds doing the speaking, which, it must be acknowledged, are often rather extreme. Ture, the current media environment is alarming; corporate media fills the air waves with generic, vacuous, fatuous drivel, just as American culture, we the American people, demand, accept, and enjoy. We the people of these disunited states determine our own speech, and we, by the consumer choices we make, make the media what it is, for better or for worse. These days, its for worse. It is up to us, not Donald Trump, to change and improve it. Whatever might be weak, wrong,,or inadeqaute about the strength of the second amendment,the proctecting of unborn babies, or our sacred American freedom of speech is far outweighed by the strengths inherent in their institutionalized states of being, firmly, deeply ensconced within American hearts, minds, culture, and law. Donald Trump can relax, straighten his iconic red ball cap, and rant and rave about other matters, perhaps George Washington's capture of airports, his own stable genius, or the problem of dark skinned immigrants from shit hole countries. His choice. His cult followers are ready to listen, as always, while foaming at the mouth and screaming their love of their Christ-like fuhrer. Guns, anti-abortion activism, and free outlandish speech aint going nowhere, and neither is Donald J.Trump, to the detriment of all lovers of sanity and simple common sense.

Bringing To Power the New Hitler

MY PREDTCTION, which is worth no more or les than anyone's, is that Biden will indeed be the candidate, will run, will win, and will begin his second term. Whether he survives it is less certain. Should he die in office, the United Stats will have its first female president, and second president "of color" as we say. Should Trump win, the country will be confronted with an entirely different set of possibilities and difficulties, as the Biden-Trump generation clings to political power,and refuses to "pass the torch" to a new generation, while the torch flickers and fades preariously, weakly, and more than one generation of would have been future leaders of America fade away, politically unemployed, unappreciated. The vast and very real right wing conspiracy has placed three Trump supporters on the U.S.Supreme Court, who have dutifully laid the groundwork and paved the way for a criminal wth dozens of felony convictions, and deserving of dozens more, to become president, and to enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution for dozens of crimes already committed, dozens already having been convicted of, and a potentially infinite number yet to be committed. These United States could easily elect a president who failed in his previous bid for reelction, falsely claimed that the election wass stolen from him, then organized, orchestrated,and implemented a detailed plan to overthrow the American government and regain the presidency through a violent insurrection. The United States could have a president who stole thousands of top secret classified documents from the government, refused to surrender them, and may have personally profited by selling tham to America's enemies, especially Russia. The entire judicial system, stacked with extremist right wing judges appointed by Trump, seems poised to render precisely the decisions necessary to again elevate Trump to the presidency, and to exonerate him, by judicial action, from any responsibility for his massive criminality, before, during, and after his previous presidency. Much of this has alreay occurred. The Supreme Court has affirmed what we already knew, for all practical purposes, to be true. There are indeed Amerians who are above the law, who can do whatever they please without fear of retribution or consequences of any kind from the American system of justice. I do not mean the very wealthy and powerful generally. I mean the president of these United States, now formally and officially immune from any and all acts of legal misbehavior committed while in office and in the conduct of his or her official capacity, doing the duties of the president, as enumerated by the constitution. Those duties, by the way, are now gradually being defined to incllude anything the president does while in office. All this is diametrically opposed to the constitution and the intent of its founders. The American conservative community, the Republican party, the Trump movement, and Trump himself, are turning America into a fascist de facto dictatorship, for the purpsoe of instituting their right wing extremist political agenda, because they cannot accomplish this democratically, in a country where a large majjority of voters depsie their agenda. This entire process is remarkably similar to that by which the NAZIs achieved their ends in Germany in the nineteen thirties. Conservative America, especially conservative evangelical Christian America, is the base of support. The Republican party is the analogy to the NAZI party, and Donald Trump is the new Hitler. Whether the new Hitler gains the opportunity to actualizes his fascist intentions remains to be seen, and to be determined by us the people.

Walking and Typing, But going Nowhere

I WAS WALKING ON THE TREADMILL at the senior center, which I do daily to pad my cardiovascular exercise minute totals. I am careful not to break a sweat, just before lunch. People often come through the backroom where the treadmill is. If they speak to me, I respond. If they do not, I trudge on in silence. The cute little ninety year old couple came through, looking for something. She said "hello", I responded. He didn't speak. He never does, because he doesn't like me. He used to like me so much that he sent me twenty dollar bills at Christmas to firm up our friendship. Then, one fateful afternoon, I made an unpleasant comment about evangelical Christians who support Donald Trump, and he turned on me.... They found what they were looking for, while I kept walking nowhere, and on their way out she spoke again, saying: "errands". Since the date happened to be July 11, I responded by saying: "Today is the day when the former president should have been sentenced to prison". Clearly she didnt expect me to say that, because she kept interrupting me with the word "yes" several times during my sentence, which I somehow managed to complete. She managed to glean my meaning, and said: "Oh? they postponed that again?" I just said "yes". I decided not to tell her that they (the judge) had only postponed it once, but that that was more than enough. Confusion happens when we say things that people do not expect to hear. As a new online friend of mine explained, we navigate social situations by relying on words and expressions to which we are accustomed. When strangers message me on Facebook, as they do all the time for some reason, they always start with "hello", and I respond with "howdy". Sometimes they ask me where I live, which they do by saying "your location?". They ask where I work, what I do for a living. When I say "nothing" (I am retired), the confusion runs rampant. They worry about my survival. They ask whether I am single or married, or have kids. If we make it past all that, they usually say "what's up?", or, "what are you doing?". To avoid excessive typing, I always respond with the single word "little", which, I have come to realize, confuses people. "Little what?", is the usual confused response. When I say "very little", a phrase to which people are accustomed, there is no confusion. The fact that I think people should be able to make the leap from "little" to "very little" is irrelevant. My expectations go unfulfilled. People will do, say, and understand what they will and will not, and my attitude towards it matters not a fig. Navigating social situations, as my new internet friend pointed out,is what its all about. The thought occurs to me that perhaps we are doing our navigating in kayaks, using dead reckoning. I am not cooperating. I keep typng in the one word "little",leaving out the word "very", almost as if I am looking for trouble, or trying to inspire confusion so that I can measure it and write essays about it. My aversion to typing is a problem. Maybe I should type in a nice, long, newsy paragraph detailing my recent and current activities, but the fact that I am talking to a stranger and have little, oops, very little interest in the conversation holds me back. I never message anybody, and I dont use the internet to meet people. I prefer doing that in person, in the town where I live, strangely. I respond to all messages out of courtesy, and because I am always aware of the potential for me to learn something, to meet someone who will improve my life. It sometimes pays off. But when they ask me "how" I am doing, and I type in the word "well", and they start asking.."well,what?', I feel the same confusion and frustration, all over again. Maybe I should just say "good". People seem to understand that.

Biden, Complicating Matters

THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION, if the rumor is not fake news, begins Monday. What can it possibly be, other than a celebration of Donald Trump's criminality, coupled with the presentation of an agenda no sane person could possibly approve of or endorse? They have now settled on the idea of letting all fifty states determine their own abortion laws, which, though quite dubious might well be the most intelligent plank in the rotten Republican platform. State by state, in every state, if we the Ameerican people are permitted to vote on it, Roe v.Wade would be reinstituted. Problem is, we the people will not be allowed to vote on it in most "red" states, unless petitions demanding the right to a citizen referendum containing billions of signatures are forced down the throats of extremist right wing state legislatures all across America's fruited plain. No matter, they would be thrown out anyway, disqualified on the grounds of some minor, fabricated technicality, as just happened in the great reprobate state of Arkansas. Republican state legislatures are not going to allow voters to get anywhere near the abortion issue, because they know what happened in Kansas and Ohio, when they did. Two conservative Republican states, where the voters voted, legalized a woman's right to determine her own bodily fate. Oh,horror. May the fond memory of Roe v. Wade forever haunt America's conservatives, and may the Democrats come to power, and return Roe to power. Fifty abortion decisions by fifty nifty states would result in a patchwork of abortion laws, some allowing it, most prohibiting it, thanks to evangelical Christian legislatures of the benighted kind. Otherwise, Project 2025,disguised and repackaged, will constitute the bulk of the Republican party platform, eliminating all federal regulatory authority for protecing the environment and addressing cliamte change (the "deeep state"),reducing or eliminating social welfare progrmans,including the gutting of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Also, the elimination of all government assistance for the poor and homeless. The evangelical Christian G.O.P. Christ, in the devil's garb. America first and only, turning its back on NATO and globally engaged diplomacy, abandoning Ukraine, sucking up to Putin. The Republican party of 2024, fascist Trumpist edition. As for the Democrats, they need to hurridly decide between Biden, who may or may not be able to deafeat Trump, and Kamala Haris, who could and most likely would, with tens of millions of women on board. Biden sould have promised to be a one term president four years ago, but got the impression that only he, of all people, could possibly beat Trump in 2024. The delusions of power too long held. Trump is nearly as old and twice as crazy as Joe Biden could ever hope or not hope to be. He thinks George Washington used airplanes, is apparently not aware that his son is not married, and thinks windmills cause cancer. Truly crazy stuff. His verbal gaffs outdo Biden's, by a factor of millions. But just today Biden once again confused two presidents, this time Putin and Zelensky, but at least, this time, he corrected himslf, just before walking off stage while telling the Ukrainian pesident to give Putin, or whomever, hell. Our current and perhaps four more years future ancient president might not be far behind Don the Con in mental inflexibility, but at least, if nothing else, he gives damned good advice.

Always Rising, From the Bottom Up

THESE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA did not begin its existence successfully. Violently conceived with the help of a four thousand mile barricade of water and the French navy, its first government, assembled on the principle that the central government must not be strong, and that power must be vested in the several (13) states, the Articles of Confederation were feckless, impotent, wholly ineffective, inadequate to the tasks it faced. It had no president, no Chief Executive. Its power consisted of a legislative body comprised of competing, not unified inserests. Its salvation was that its promulgators realized this soon enough, in only six years, to take corrective action. Hence, ths constitution of Madison and Morris and others, which we use today, anachronistically. It admitted that it needed a head of state, if a weak one. The president's primary duties and powers were the formulation of foreign policy, and the appointment of federal judges. There was never any doubt who the first president would be. Everybody wanted George Washington, if not to be king, to at least be the head of state. Nobody since has been unanimously elected, nobody ever will be again. They wrangled over the title, and everything else. John Adams would have had the office called "His Most Esteemed and Majestic Executive of the National Entity", or something equally awkward, arrogant, and pompous, like Adams himself. The word "president" was diminuitive, implying the chairperson of a Saturday night card club. "President" was appropriately weak and harmless. Washington ended up hating the job, as have most since. He wanted to leave after four years, they made him stay for eight, and he refused more. Two terms thus became a matter of tradition, until Roosevelt, who inspired a constitutional amendment. The idea of refraining from seeking political office lasted through Adams, was smashed to smitherenes by Thomas Jefferson, who sought the office desperately while pretending not to, and who should have been more careful what he wished for. He, like Washington, ened up miserable. The nineteenth century witnessed a string of weak, inssignificant presidents, with a brief flash in the pan powerhouse Andrew Jackson, until Abraham Lincoln bacame America's first true tyrant, at least partly through sheer necessity. Twentieth century presidents became far more powerful, and much more interesting. Its nearly impossible to access when America's grand tradition of corrupt, incompetant presidents began; we can with confidence say that it began early and often. Credit Mobilier, Teapot Dome, Watergate, with a comatose pretend president or two thrown in for good measure. The second president, Adams, forced a law making it illegal to criticize the president, an obvious no no in the land of liberty.(It didn't last). As far as ranking the presidents goes, its lonely at the top, quite crowded at the bottom. Your vote's as good as anyone's. I go Lincoln, FDR up top, Buchanon and Trump way down below. We havent'a always had the best choices to chose from; anyone wise enough to be president is wise enough not to want to be. So here we be; our choice between a man in decline and a criminally insane convicted criminal. It could be worse, although its hard to see how, arguably it has been, although its hard to say when. The declining man, or the career criminal. Your choice. As we like to say, good luck with that.

What Should Not Be, Being

PERSUASIVELY ARGUABLY, religion of any sort should not exist on Earth anywhere in our science fiction year of twenty twenty four. It should have been abandoned,as modern science over the past few centuries has steadily, inexorably revealed its paradigmical inadequacies. Religion describes a universe which has been disproven, and does not exist. Humans should have invented new, updated religions, or abandoned religion altogether,closely coupled with the amazing revelations of modern science. And yet, in places like Louisiana and Oklahoma, Christian Nationalism keeps rearing its anachronistic head. Other places on Earth are even more immersed in outdated thinking, but are not of concern here. The Ten Commandments are as outdated as the religion which invented them. Christian Nationalism, a toxic combination of bad history and bad theology, has managed to install them upon the walls of public schools - for the time being. Will the Bible be taught in Oklahoma public schools as if it is the inerrant truth of Almighty God? If so, human society may be doomed to imminent extinction, by idiocy, combined with climate change. In his seminal monograph, "The Kingdom, The Power; and the Glory", journalist Tim Alberta provides an excellent overview of this bizarre phenonenon. The book was reviewed on this website several weeks ago. To substantiate their demonstrably false beliefs, Christian Nationalists indulge themselves in a fantasy world of their own invention similar to that which political supporters of Donald Trump invent as a false reality to justify their embrace of a harmful, malignant political agenda. Accordingly, the United States was founded as a "Christian" nation, upon "Christian values", and would have remained forever a shining Christian nation of a Zionistic hill, but for an evil invasion and take over of American culture by secular humanist progressive liberals. The relaity that the Untied States was in fact founded by intellectually revolutionary intellectuals who ardently sought to esatablish a secular repressentative democracy devoid of all religious influence on matters of state is ignored by the radical revisionist Christian zealots. The bad theology is evidenced by the stated willingness of the Christian Nationalist movement to implement their absurd agenda by any means necessary, including violence, in the name of their remade, masculine Christ. The Christ of the Biblical gospels is pacifistic, and admonishes his followers to submit to secular state power, another fact conveniently ignored by those who seek to establish their primitive religious beliefs formally by making them the official doctrine of the United States. The salvation from this lunacy is the fact that less than twenty five percent of the American people embrace it, and that number is not growing, even as the voice of the movment becomes louder in the era of Trump. Trump is their empty vessel, into whom they can pour at will their toxic poisonous agenda. Institutions and individuals on the verge of death often lash out in one final gasp of violent self expression. This can arguably be postulated as what is happening now with regard to the Christian religion, as the perccentage of Americans who describe themseves as "Christian" approaches and sinks below fifty percent. The beast is terminally ill, injured beyond recovery, and will inevitably die, but not before it thrashes about and screams in desperation before sinking forever beneath the soil, into its eternal grave.

Reversing Racism

MERELY BY TURNING ON conservative or Christian conservative (they are essentially the same) talk radio for a few minutes, one can obtain adequate material for a brief but interesting essay. Even a few seconds will do. Evidently thinking himself quite clever, the man with the stentorian preacher qualified voice was saying something to the effect: "the radical left (anyone left of center is by definition a member of "the radical left") is always accusing conservatives and Trump supprters of racism. But, remember not so long ago when Joe Biden promised to nominate for the Supreme Court a person of color, and of the female gender?".. The not so subtle implication is that it is Biden and the "radical left" who are the true racists.That, as we like to say, is a lot to unpack. First, yes indeed, I and many on the progressive end of the political spectrum do in fact often accuse conservatives of being racist. I take it a step further: I assert, without equivocation, that not only is racism a core American value, but that it is, always has been, and remains a core conservative value. Conservatives, especially of the christian kind, are folks who prefer European-American WASPs, who tend to be opposed to immigration, but, on balance, prefer immigrants from places like, say, Norway, as Trump put it, to immigrants from "shit hole" countries,as Trump put it, in Africa. As Trump puts it, so American Christian conservatives put it. The racist accusation against Biden, who indeed succeeded in putting his female African-American on SCOTUS, is remindful of the argument used against affirmative action, that well intentioned and generally helpful program recently gutted by our current extremist far right wing radical Supreme court. The argument stated that affirmative action, by establishing racial quotas in an attempt to give all races proportionate access to higher education among other beneifts of society, benefts traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the white, is in itself a form of racism, since it it is a policy based on race. Obviously, conservatives still think that argument quite clever. That it isn't can be easily proven. Suppose you have a country in which half the population is "black", and half of it is "white". Suppose further that in this theoretical but easy to imagine country, all government positions, all high offices, all well paying jobs, are occpupied by members of the "white" demographic, and that all low paying jobs are held by members of the "black" demographic? All privileges and benefits of all kinds; the sole possession of the whites, the blacks denied access, completely. That would be a racist country, correct? Suppose that suddenly God decreed that henceforth all good jobs, all political offices, all of society's benefits must be available to both types of people? Would God's decree be racist, or would it be a remedy for racism? Affirmative action was not racism. It was a rememdy for exsting racism, a means of eliminating it. By choosing an African-American woman for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court, Biden was not practicing racism, he was using the only method of addressing the traditional racism inherent in placing all white male justices on the Surpreme Court. If women have been excluded from the high court, or from anthing else, the remedy is to change course, and to include women. The exclusion of women was sexist. The newly implemented inclusion of women is not sexist, it is the remedy for sexism. Reversing policy by including African- Americans because they are African-Americans is not racist, it is the only means by which racism can be reversed. Nothing could be more obvious, except to a conservative.

Refreshing

IN ENGLAND AND FRANCE, good things are happening. In England, the torpid, moribund corruption of the conservative "Tory" party, after a long decade and a half power trip, is finally out of power, at long last. A new fresh breath of labor party rule will now ensue. In France, nothing short of a miracle has transpired, as the progressive left coalition joined forces at the last minute to defeat France's version of Trumpism, much to the surprise of the polls. Conservative politics have dominated both countires for decades, despite the existence of strong progressive and socialist communities in both. Left wing parties rise and fall in both countries, but never really seem to gain the foothold encessary to persist in power long enough to bring about fundamental structural change. And yet, much like the United States, the inexorable march of progressive progress has given France and Great Britain strong, enduring progressive structures, including worker benefits, diverse multicultural tolerance, and thriving liberal art communites, log ensconced in intellectual and artistic society. Its almsot as if the natural historical trend in western civilization is for change, progress, and cultural evolution, but meets constant strong resistance from a deeply entrenched traditional establishment. Fundamentally opposite cultural historical forces, endlessly at odds, neither ever entirely surrendering or subsiding. All this may be seen as postive indicators for Americans who are even now pushing the panic button as Donald Trump and his regressive policies of racism, unfettered capitalism, government withdrawal from society, Christian nationalism, and acceptance and ignoraning of climate change shows a distinct lead in the polls. The fact that no president has ever won reelection who trails in the polls as much as Biden does now might be less meaningful than is being presented. Progressive ideals, including women's bodily autonmomy, highly regulated capitalism with a strong socialistic support system, awareness of the dire necessity to mitigate climate change, multiculturalism, including acceptance of all religions, all skin colors, all ethnicities, and all sub cultures, including the LGBTQ commuinty, enjoy an undeniable majority societal support. The problem is, too many voters whose self interest clearly lies in supporting progressive candidates instead chose to support regressive politicians like Trump and the Republican party, usually because of narrow views on single issues, like immigration, abortion, or misperceptions concerning the cause of inflation, the severity of it, and the policies and people responsible for it. Voters who should in their own self interest vote Democrat, instead vote Republican, to the delight of billionaires and rigid right wing ideologues and religious zealots. Resistance to positive societal evolution and change is always rooted in fear, and the attendant tendency to cling to tradition as a defense agaisnt the unknown future. Some astute political experts are saying that close analysis indicates that despite the currnt polls which have Trump leading Biden, the overall trend is for the decline and dissolution of the right wing populist Trump movement, and the defeat of Donald Trump. They point to the fact othat the largest voting segment of the Amerian electorate is independant, and that the policies of the Republican right simply run counter to the aspirations of a majority of the American people, a majority which supports women's reproductive rights, a balanced, mixed economy, diplomatic engagement with other countres, and religious and cultural diversity. One fact seems certain;that if by some sad chance Trump wins the presidency again, his malignant regressive agenda will be met with strensous, active opposition, and his supprorters be will hard pressed, will find it dificult to present coherent, reasonable arguments in its favor, and to show any tangible enefits to be gained by its implementation. That alone should give us hope, for ourselves, and for our future.

Taking Communion

I TOOK COMMUNION TODAY, for the first time in my life. I had long ago decided that I would never do this. But, as the bard Robert Burns said, "the best laid plans of mice and men, oft gang aglee". Mine seem to have ganged aglee. I, like Geroge Washington, consider communion a primitive barbaric ritual, like the Christian religion itself. Symbolic cannibalism, I consider it, again, like George Washington. I am a pantheist, Washington, like many founding fathers, was a deist. Notwithstanding what Trump said about Washington, his army did indeed not, repeat did not capture every airport in colonial America during the Revolutionary War.But he did in fact eschew communion, and always left his Episcopalian church before it was time for the congregation to take communion. As usual, I entered the church fully intending to so eschew, in true Washingtonian fashion. They have communion but once a month at this tiny rural Presbyterian church, and I had not yet attended on communnion Sunday. But I discovered that they do not consumate the ritual by having each congregant leave is or her pew seat and approach the alter one at a time,but rather, a "communion person" comes around to each individual congregant with wine and wafer pre-prepared in lovely, silver containers, the wine arranged in a circle in small silver goblets after the fashion of a "lazy Susan", each ensconced in its own tiny goblet holder, the wafers ornately symetrically positioned on a literal silver platter. Again, one need not leave his or her seat to partake. One need merely wait patiently, and communion will come calling, rather akin to a house call by an old fashioned doctor. I immediately found this arrangement greatly to my liking, and changed my mind on the spot. Surprised and pleased with this unexpected arrangement, I partook. When in Rome, as we say. I experinnced no harmful effects, but in fact felt and still feel rather pleased with myself for having done it. I can retain my status as an open minded, "When in Rome" sort of person, open to any and all religious traditions, willing to experience life from the point of view of other people, willing to step outside the comfortable conifines of my own personal beliefs, and to expand the range of my experience and knowledge. A good friend of mine who underweant a similar experience told me that he accepted communion as a free and refreshing snack. I cannot claim to be quite this open minded. Both my stomach and m soul require more. After the service I told the minister, a retired lawyer turned lay minister, who has become a good friend of mine, that this had been my first communion, and he expressed his approval. I told him that I liked the "in pew" arrangement, and that otherwise I would have eschewed, and he seemed to understand. Thus once again do I find myself stuck in the middle, alone, without spiritual or intellectual companionship, as doubtlesss I would be severely chastised by my fellow religion despisng progressive intellectual comrades, as, horror of horrors, a "closet Christian",and equally despised and reviled by my unfellow Christian votary devotees, who would excoriate me for my lack of faith, for my despising of all religion, and especially of the Christian religion, for my lack of being saved, my inevitable eternity in hell, blah blah blah... Adrift, alone, without a spiritual or intellectual home among my fellow human beings, as has always been the case with me, and always will be. My only response to this state of affairs is, glory be to me, long live me, may the good lord bless and keep me. My response to everyone else, to the atheists and agnostics and to the fervant Christians both of whom might dare to disapprove of me and my beliefs is, to hell with all of you, for you are the narrow minded despicable ones. I am at peace with myself, and with God, who wholeheartedly understands and approves of me, by beliefs, and my behavior. I love and am at peace with Jesus, who loves me, and shares this point of view. How do I know? I asked.

Drowning In Money

IN THE 1920s it started becoming evident that big time college football could make a lot of maney for big time universities, as college football stadiums filled up with tens of thousands of fans, and opportunistic administrators took their college football programs to bed with corporate America, a marriage which has only grown and intensified. Today, multi billion dollar television contracts between major athletic conferences and TV networks are now the norm, and getting bigger by the year. Tens of millions of dollars flow into the bank accounts of major universities, who then compete for the best talent in the county, paying millions of dollars a year to successful coaches, to administrators, and, now, as of the past several years, to players themselves. Athletic facilities, stadiums, fitness training centers, on campus dietery and health facilities, are gifted with millions of dollars of fancy upgrades; a big tie university campus now has modern, expensive facilites of all kinds, all feeding the monster of a billion dollar college athletic industry. A college football player receives fifty thousand dollars a year worth of assistance in the locker room to maintain his health and to deal with injuries, and two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year in value in meals, housing, edcuation, an assorted amenities. Each fotball player for a majour university is a huge investment, and a huge payback in terms of profit. Thus, after one hundred years of amateur status resulting in personal impoverishment and checks from parents back home to sustain the athletes, athletes, seeing the financial landscape, demanded to get paid, to share in the billion dollar bonanza. Their demands have been met, by universities left with no other choice. Now, its all about money. Money has always been important in "amateur" athletics, but traditionally took a back seat in an athlete's decision where to attend college, with academic standards, academic majors, distance form home, fan loyalties being of equal or greater importance. Now, its all about money. This is true of professional as well and college athletics. Ticket prices are staggering, as are salaries. Professional basketball players are making tens of millions of dollars a year. The first billion dollar contracts in professional baseball, basketball, and football are not far in the future. Money has always been a major factor. Now, its almost the only factor. A star high school football player is a free agent, and can consider offers from many schools, offers invloving hundreds of thousands of dollars. If a university offers half a million dollars in NIL (Name, image, and likeness) money, another university might offer a million, settling the issue. Billionaire benefactor-donars are courted like royalty by universities, hoping to be handed millions in NIL money with which to purchase the best talent in the country. University athletic departments send out thousands of letters to alumni, business people - everybody - asking for donations with which a stockpile of cash will be accumulated, to use for paying the players. What was intended as a system in which players were free to get payments for endorsing consumer products like professional athletes has devolved into a blatantly pure pay for play scheme. The love of money has turned ccollege athletics into professional athletis. How long will it be before the flow of manna will trickle down to the high school level, and then to Pee Wee football? A simple system of standardized remuneration, at a reasonable level for all college athletes, is the only solution, and will likely, after much wailing and teeth gnashing, be implemented. But until then, its the wild wild west in big time college athlteis, and only a few major universities will be able to afford to play the big money game. Everyone else will sink and drown amid the unrestrained financial rat race dog fight. In seven of the past eight years attendance at major college football games has declined. People are starting to lose interest. When fans start turning off their flat screens and disconnecting their cable television, the whole system will collapse. Until then,enjoy the gladitorial circus feeding frenzy.

I, Disappointing

MY DEAR FRIEND OF MANY YEARS informed me that he was disappointed in a remark I made. He told me that he had read several of my blog posts, and I informed him, in no unceratin terms, that I do not write and publish blog posts, but rather, essays. My words, my classification of them, is my view. He responded that the difference is minor, and that I had chastised him tersely for a minor matter, and that he found it disappointing. Not so minor to me, I thought, but didn't say. Having spent my life apologizing for minor matters, I have recently decided to abaondon the habit. My response to him was that I had no intention of chastising him, but that my intention was indeed to speak tersely, and that my intention is always to speak tersely. Furthermore, I asserted, so many people have been disappointed with me that I no longer care who I disappoint. (I could have added, but didn't, that I haven't the power to disappoint anybody, that other people's disappointment with me dervies from their mental processes, not my words or deeds.) "OK" he said. "OK" is my least favorite "word". People use it to mean "what you said I find unworthy of respect, but I condescend to allow it without opposition". Indeed I do get tired of people responding to my remarks with "OK" and "really", both of which I consider vacuous and unintelligent. But I told my friend I was glad to get an "OK" from him, which I took for approval. In fact I've been disappointing people my entire adult life, and perhaps somewhat as a child, atlthough as I think back I got more approval and less disapproval, even from my parents, during my childhood. Maybe I would have served myself better to never have grown out of it. I'll start from recent disappointments, and work my way back through history, through the mists of my lifetime. At my local senior center, which is heavily populated by eighty year old conservative Pentecostal Christians, mostly Trump supporters, I don't dress properly. I often wear my Jimi Hendrix T shirt. Somethimes I wear my Rolling Stones lips and tongue T shirt. Their glaring Pentecostal gazes convey distinct disapproval, "disappointment". I wear my New York Yankees choker necklace. Less objectionable, but still not good. The piece de resistance is my red "Make America "Greta" Again: ball cap, an obivous insult, as intended, the object of barely concealed contempt, disapproval, disappointment. During the pandemic year 2020 I particpiated in no fewer than seven "Black Lives Matter" protests, here in my small southern red state. Again, the disapproving disappointmentmost notably among those with a conservative political ideology and fair skinned pigmentation. Out from beneath their moss encrusted rocks,out of the woodwork, come slighering the good ole white boys, in all their disgusting inevitability... In 1991 I marched in college town with hundreds of other protestors protesting the War in Iraq to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's grasp and make Iraqi oil safe and available for American corporate exploitation. Out came the pseudo patriots, angered, disappointed by a true American patriot, me. I think I disappointed most of my family in the nineteen seventies by becoming the first and only Democrat in family history, and opposing the Viet Nam War. I have also always believed that my rooting for the New York Yankees was a disappointment to my circle of family and friend Cardinal fans. While in my teenage years two of my "friends" told me that unless I changed the way I wore my hair hey were done with me. No problem, I got done with them before they with me. As I enter the final portion of my life, my pantheistic religiosity, leaving me unsaved and at risk of eternal damnation, is, I am well aware, a source of great disappointment to the sanctimoniously righteous, concerned more about their lack of power over me than about my salvation. Get in line, join the ranks of those disappointeed in me! If you're waiting for me to conform to your preferences, you'll be there a long time, but you will not be wasting mine.

Jane, Unfriending Me

FINALLY, AT LONG LAST, its over. The most inadvertant "friendship" I hope to ever have. I joined Facebook seven years ago or so for the purpose of opposing Trump and conservatism, and promoting this website. Both projects have worked out rather well. I've made and shared a large amount of unpleasant comments and negative but factual information about both, and I have increased my readership through posting advertisements. I never intended to engage in discussions or relationships with anyone on the platform. For me, Facebook friendships are not friendships, words typed and pictures shared on a computer screen do not result in getting to know someone. I never take and post selfies, I don't photograph my lunch or mixed drinks, and I post nothing, except the website advertisements. But, as they say, dung happens. My comments posted on other people's posts led to interaction with one person, only one person, Jane. For several years we liked each other, then ended up not liking each other. We had in common progressive politics, including Trump hatred, a love of cats, and...little else. Cats and Trump only went so far. Jane joined Facebook after I did, and immediately embraced the culture. She never let her lunch, dinner or cocktails go unpictured or unposted. The photos added up to expensive restaurants, expensive menus and meals, expensive mixed drinks. Her affluence was evidenced by her daily posted pictures of her lovely swimming pool. She seemed to want to make sure that everybody on Facebook knew that she had a swimming pool, a very nice one, with a framework screened in insect protector. My impression was and remains that the constant, daily pictures of her pool, redundant beyond my tolerance, were her way of flaunting her affluence. I told her so. She was a mystery lady, careful about what she showed. She showed everything she ate and drank, but she never showed her face. The only pictures of her on her profile were decades old, when she was young and attractive. She is now a senior citizen, and her looks have faded, turned into the looks of a mature, older person, a fact which she chooses to conceal. Never ask a lady her age. I consider that vain, and deceptive. Her proflie says that she's married, but she never mentions her husband, although she mentions every yoga class, zumba class, pilates class, all the fashionable classes. So far, no pickleball. No picture of her house, wisely. Just enough hints to convey an image of upper middle class home affluence. She mentions that her son is a lawyer. I sense in the background a corporate attorney husband, making all the affluence possible. She is evidently a retired nurse, a profession which by itself does not provide upper middle class affluence. She called me a "know it all: the penalty for having the audacity to correct someone's nonsensical notions and statements. She stated that weather is an abstraction. When I pointed out that hurricanes do very real damage and kill very real people and that heat waves and droughts which kill thousands of people every year are very real, not abstractions, she argued about it, which told me much, as much as I need to know. The many pictures she shared of her cat endeared many, myself included. Now, I will never now when my little girl dies, only that she will. Facebook friendships are like third grade friends; we make a list of them. I took Jane off my list, tired of the arguing. She brought me back, and I apologized. When she complained about having trouble with her cell phone, and I mentioned that I had gotten rid of mine and didn't miss it, she gave me a brief lesson on the beneifts of having a phone in one's car. When I told her that I already knew about the practical benefits of having a cell phone, she told me that she wishes me and my cats the very best, and took me off her list. I told her that I felt a sense of liberation. I still do.

Einstein, Making A Rare Mistake, About Jesus

EINSTEIN SAID some of the most intelligent, indeed brilliant things ever, enough to fill a good sized volume. As Casey Stengal said: "You could look it up". Although his professional field was theoretical physics, Albert Einstein possesed a rare intelligence and wisdom across an extremely wide range of areas, from history to philosophy, to religion, political science, and nearly all areas of science. Although he said that he never bothered to commit anything to memory that he could look up in a book, he possessed an immense factual body of knowledge, straight from his abundant brain. He did, however, make a few head scratchers. For example, he evidently said that the description of Jesus Christ given in the four gospels is so compelling, so realistic, so convincing that Jesus could not possibly have been a myth. This comment leads undiscerning folks to make the false claim that Einstein was a "saved" Christian. This, of course, is simply not true. It may be that Einstein did not read enough good fiction, if he read any at all, to fully appreciate the ability of a great fiction writer to make fiction come alive, and seem as real as reality itself. Shakespeare, Joyce, Faulker, Steinbeck, are but a few of the seemingly endless number of great writers who have inspired millions to see reality in fiction through their excellent quality of writing. The four gospels are all that we have or know about Jesus, and their unknown authors never met him. Nor are they especially persuasive writers. They don't make for good fiction.They use virtually no literary techniques of a good fiction writer; imagery, adjectives, adverbs, allegory, metaphor; their recitation of the life and acts of Jesus are little more than a bare, ostensibly factual list of events. Their factual reliability is in fact quite in question, since all four of them contradict each other; there are far more internal contradictions that corroborations. In fact, all four depict an entirely different version of Jesus, with a different Christ personality in each one. The best scholars of the gospels have often pointed this out, along with their unknown authorship, and the great frequency with with subsequent writers and editors have amended and altered all of them, to the point where they are quite different from the originals. Again, this is according to scholars in the field. There is nothing convincing or persuasve about the four gospels. Good fiction can be convincing, can become defacto fact, because of its quality; bad history can seem like fiction, can arouse suspicions as to its authenticity, for the opposite reason, for its lack of quality, for its lack of external verification, its lack of primary source material, for its lack of confirmed attributed authorship. Such is the case with all four gospels. Rather than providing a convincing argument for the actual existence of Jesus, the gospels do precisely the opposite; they, with their serious shortcomings, invite any discrning scholar to question whether Jesus was indeed a myth, whether he actually existed, or whether he might have been a composite of many different people, mingled together with the passage of time and poor editing and record keeping. The Christian religion, built entirely upon the Jesus story, is called a "faith" for good reason; it utterly lacks independent, critical, scientific, historical confirmation. Making such an obviously profound leap of faith was not something Albert Einstein, who had a religious devotion to the scientific method, often did. It may be that he made his remark attempting to assauge people. His Jewish background, progressive political ideals, including his embrace of democratic socialism, and pantheistic personal religiosity were not popular among conservative Christians, in his adopted country of the U.S.A. His many detractors made their objections to Einstein's heritage and beliefs well known. On this basis, his departure from critical scientific rigor may be forgiven. Then too, even the great genius Einstein was capable of arriving at incorrect, unfounded conclusions when venturing too far afield from his primary area of expertise.

Choosing Between the Lesser of Two Insufficiencies

ALMOST BEYOND BELIEF, we the American people are confronted with a choice which really leaves us little real choice. We might wish to comfort ourselves by pretending that we deserve better, and that this dire set of circumstances has been forced upon us by forces beyond our control. That, however, would be dishonest. In reality, we deserve no better, we deserve our dire situation, because it is we who created it. The choice we have is between two too old men, both too old to be employed, arguably, both too old to serve as president of these United States, indisputably. Arguments against age discrimination are valid, but only to a point. We have reached and exceeded that point. During the first twenty or so years of one's life, one enjoys one's youth, and prepares for one's career. During the next forty years, one pursues one's career. Then, one retires, to allow the next generation to take over the responsibilities of making society function, and to enjoy the benefits of long years of preparation and productivity in an all too brief late life retirement. One gives up one's active employed place in society, and lets someone else, someone younger, have and benefit (as well as suffer) from it. We must take turns, from generaton to generation. Both Biden and Trump have had their chance to serve, to be productive, to govern. It is past time that they both retired, and leave the governence of the nation to the people who will be living under their own future governance. Arguments against Trump go far beyond mere age, and have been enumerated incessantly. He is a career criminal, criminally insane. He has no redeeming personal qualities, not a single one. He is and has always been unfit for public service. Again, the arguments are endless. They are more than arguments; they are facts. Arguments against Biden are several, having to do with his age, mental capacity, and length of public service. The two sides of the Biden mental state dispute are both using exaggeration, as people tend to do when trying to forcefully make a point. Those who say that he is mentally still fit and describe his debate performance as a fluke, an outlier, a mere matter of fatigue and a head cold, are ignoring reality. Biden is in fact cognitively diminished by age, as many people become. Those who insist that he resign as the Democratic candiate for president are exaggerating his mental decline. A friend of mine declared that his "brain is gone", and vowed to vote for nobody. Thus my friend is exaggerating and aiding and abetting Trump, even if unwittingly. No, Biden's brain is not gone, he merely suffers from the early stages of what used to be called "senility". His mind has slowed considerably, his ability to "think on his feet" seriously diminished. For what may or not be te first time in American history, we are confronted with a choice of two men neither of whom is qualified or competant to be president. Arguably, nobody is qualified, and we the American people have never been, nor could ever be, given an adequate choice among mere humans for president...Arguably, well educated academicians with extensive knowledge of political science, law, sociology, and history, among other academic areas, are the only people qualified to serve in this highest, most demanding office. The irony and paradox is that the more intelligent and well educated one is, the less one generally tends to be inclined to want to endure the nightmarish circumstances inherent in seeking and serving in the presidency. John Quincy Adams, arguably the most intelligent, best educated president ever, was ultimately in ineffective president. Thomas Jefferson, whose brilliance and education are beyond question, described the presidency as "splendid misery", and had a poor second term, as most presidents do. Geroge Washington, alone in his Wall Street office as president, was evidently even more miserable in the high office than his Secretary of State Jefferson later would be. He said: "I had rather be in my grave than in this room". The conclusion is painfully obvious; the American presidency requires of human beings abilities which, seemingly are beyond the reach of, not possessed by, human beings.

SCOTUS, Going Fascist

FOR ALL APPEARANCES, the United States Supreme Court, as well as the entire federal judiciary, is bending over ass backwards in its desperate attempt to get and keep a certain former United States criminal president out of hot water. The circuit courts, by finding one excuse after another to postpone due process and interminably delay proceedings in the nation versus Donald J.Trump until such time as the former scoundral-in-chief either gets, horror of horrors, reelected, or, the lord blesses us with his death by natural causes, the nominal republic becomes a fascist dictatorship, or, as a last resort, hell freezes over. Of the above alternatives, the one involving the U.S. of A. devolving into a fascist dictatorship seems far and away the most likley, particularly considering SCOTUS's latest fantastical, science fictiony, deluded ruling from the bench from hell. The ruling, as by now everyone not living on Mars knows, is that the president of the United States, any president of the United states, past, present, or future, enjoys absolute, unconditional immunity from criminal prosecution for any and all alleged crimes committed during the performance of his or her constitutional duties as president. In other words, the king, newly crowned, can do no wrong. England's King Charles I must be turning over in his grave in his zeal to sip celebratory champagne, albeit without his head, which he lost in 1649, for proclaiming precisely that doctrine, which was unacceptable then, but back in high fashion as of now. The question of the hour, and the century, becomes; precisely what are considered to be the president's official duties of office? Everything he or she does while in office, it almost seems. The constitution evidently provides a good place to start finding the answer, but, apparently, not the only or final place. It turns out that everything Richard Nixon did criminally while in office, including wire tapping, gang of thugs assembling, organizing, and instructing, breaking into the DNC national headquarters, and the infamous cover up of said activities, he might have been spared legal exposure from, if only he had waited until today to do it all. Nixon, off scott free, sans Ford's infamous pardon. Go figure, as they say. It may even be that Donald Trump won't be put on trial for anything, no matter what, ever again, and that his thirty four current felony convictions will be reviewed and overturned, being as how some of the hush money checks he wrote to Stormi Daniels were written while Trump was sitting on his fat orange ass in the Oval Office. Paying off a porn star thus becomes an offical act of the president of the USA. A right wing extremist legal expert assures us that not only is presidential immunity from criminal prosecution inherent in the constitution, somewhere, and that thus the constitution does not after all, enshrine any such nonsense as "nobody is above the law", but that, much to our relief, should the president, any president, order Seal Team Six to knock off a political rival, he would indeed not be immune to charges of murder. Oh, what a relief it is! In reality, a realm which seems unfamiliar to no fewer than six of the current Supreme Court members, there is nothing in the constitution protecting the president against prosecution for criminal acts, official or unoffical, and nothing which elevates the chief executive to the status of authoritarian dictator, which is precisely what conservative ideologues,especially those sitting on the nation's highest court, aim to do. They have abandoned democracy. But,all is not lost. After all, all else failing, and all else indeed seems to have officially failed, we the people of these United dictatorial States have left one last recousre; we can still, through our duly elected House of Representatives, bring impeachment articles against, vote in the affirmative for them, put on Senatorial trial, try and convict in the Senate, by a two thirds majority, and remove the Nixonian Trumpian son of a bitch from executive office. Breathe a sigh of relief.