A Grave Indictment: What Khashoggi's Death Says About Us

Another journalist has been murdered.  The murder of journalists is nothing new, of course.  Journalists sometimes live very dangerous lives, dodging bullets on battlefields and all.  Sometimes, their deaths are collateral damage.  Sometimes they are killed for exposing, or trying to expose, corruption.  And the more unsavory the truth, the more dangerous it is to report it.

Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi did not die on a battlefield.  He was not blown up in a car, as was Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles.  He was not shot six times at a stoplight, as was Sunday Independent reporter Veronica Guerin.  No, Jamal Khashoggi died in the ultimate bureaucratic setting - his native country's consulate.  He was trying to get a marriage license.  As his fiance waited outside in the car, it seems that he was hacked into pieces.

So what was this Indiana State University-educated journalist doing that would incur the ultimate punishment?  Surely he must have been writing incendiary pieces aimed at overthrowing his native country's white-robed government?  Nooooo.  His written voice was gentle.  By exposing human rights violations in his native country, though, he could not help but offend the violators - all of whom happened to be wealthy and powerful.  But sometimes, he simply wrote about normal government corruption - things like sewer covers without sewers underneath.  Bridge-to-nowhere-type stuff.  You know, the kind of stuff that big-city reporters used to report here decades ago.

But, no matter how gently expressed, unpleasant truths sometimes cannot be made more palatable.  And, now, no rose-colored glasses can hide or disguise the appalling nature of this journalist's murder and the even more appalling implications of its aftermath.

Khashoggi was killed in a Saudi consulate.  It was a Saudi government hit job. Period. Yet, the current W.H. occupant says that the Crown Prince may or may not have been responsible - as though the Crown Prince's personal role matters or would need to be proved.  That's just spin, though.  Smoke and mirrors.  Look here, no look there. And to show how hard he's working for the American people, this same W.H. occupant adds that he won't screw up a 110-billion dollar arms deal with the Saudis because of something so insignificant as a non-American journalist's murder in their consulate. Sharing Al Capone's entrepreneurial philosophy, he says we might as well sell them the goods since they're going to get them from somebody.

Regardless of current reporting that the Saudi "deal" is no deal at all, W.H. defenders point out that we are simply doing what we've always done, that we trade with many horribly corrupt and murderous dictatorships, and that the man who currently carries the title of "President of the United States" is simply "telling it like it is."   This time they are right.

So, this holiday season, whether scurrying through the underwear-strewn aisles of a Walmart or wandering leisurely by the elegant displays in a Nordstrom, take a moment to think about those who may have given their lives, in one way or another, for better conditions in those countries that produced that shirt, that coat, those slippers, that television set, and those earphones.  And think about why those items are so inexpensive.

And when you pump gas, remember Jamal Khashoggi.

One Fallen Marine

A country nightclub in California.  Students drinking, chatting, laughing – a simple night out in one of America's safest towns.  Suddenly gunfire, screams, scrambling, blood, death.  A madman.  A fight for survival that many would lose on that night.

Just as the attack had been unexpected, the hero status of the shooter may also have been unexpected. 

Ian Long will always be remembered for one thing: his madness.  He will not be remembered for his heroism or for his many awards for service to his country in Afghanistan.  He will not be remembered for what caused his madness, either.  He will not be numbered among the war’s fallen, though fallen is probably exactly what he was.

He was the kind of person who gets a parade in small-town, flag-waving America.  The list of his commendations was as long as your arm: two Navy Unit Commendations for “outstanding heroism in action against the enemy,” a Combat Action Ribbon, a Marine Corps Good Conduct Medal, two Sea Service Deployment Ribbons, an Afghanistan Campaign Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, a National Defense Service Medal, and the NATO Medal-ISAF Afghanistan.

He was a hero... until he wasn't.

Was it PTSD that caused his murderous actions?  PTSD is just a condition, though; most people with it do not shoot up nightclubs.  Was the cause guns?  Lots of people have guns, but they don’t go around shooting one another.  Should we blame it on Afghanistan?  Many have served there, some nobly and perhaps some not so nobly, but they don’t shoot up public gathering spots of celebration. 

The events of a few nights ago will lead some to call for gun control.  Others will call for more and better mental health treatment.  Others will blame Afghanistan.  And still others will blame war itself.  They will argue with each other, calling each other names, as they defend their assumptions.  For a week or two, there will be a lot of fake sympathy expressed for the victims, too.  Eventually, perhaps too soon, the events of that night will shrink in the rearview mirror.  After all, the United States is now experiencing mass shootings (defined as shootings in which there are four or more victims) on a daily basis.  Most get nothing but local coverage in the media.  Only very deadly shootings with unexpected backdrops become national stories.  Most mass shootings are simply not news - and besides, it wouldn't be practical to cover every mass shooting that comes along.  The United States is not Canada, after all.  Or Britain.  Or Ireland. Or most other countries.

We will never know why Ian Long decided to go to a nightclub and start shooting strangers.  Any possible explanation will be superficial.  Somewhere along the line, Ian Long began to hate people - and maybe we should ask why people hate people.  If we could answer THAT question, we might begin to understand the Ian Longs of the world.  But that question would require a national introspection, a collective soul-searching - and a lot of evidence suggests that this nation generally doesn't do a lot of soul searching.  So expect more shootings.  A lot more shootings.

Is Arizona Really Red?

Is Arizona really a red state?  

There are plenty of reasons to assume that Arizona is a red state.  After all, isn't it a haven for old people living "active lifestyles," zipping around in golf carts by day and playing pinochle at night?  We all know that old folks vote, and we all know that they're conservative, right?  RIGHT?  And of course, there are all of those rich people wandering the artificially quaint streets of Old Town Scottsdale, looking in shop windows and saying things like, "Look, honey, wouldn't that look lovely on the mantle?"  The stereotypical Arizonan has white hair, white skin, perfect white teeth, white shorts, black socks and white shoes - and looks like he/she stepped out of a Viagra commercial.  People like that would obviously have much to fear from of hordes of poor people coming across the border to cut their grass, trim their oleanders, lay their Saltillo, deliver their enchiladas, and then return to their barrios far, far away- right?

And Arizona's politicians are almost all Republican, so that certainly cements the stereotype in the minds of Americans.  

Yup, Arizona is definitely a red state.

Or maybe not. It is hard to tell, since so much of what we "know" is what we glean from words and images fed to us from elsewhere.  In reality, only a teeny-weeny minority of Arizonans ever get interviewed by the press or shown on TV.  Bernie Sanders attracted thousands of supporters to his rallies in Phoenix.  The rallies were almost completely ignored by the local media, but enthusiastic Bernie supporters stood in line in the hot sun until they almost sank into the gooey asphalt.  If they hadn't been so peaceful, perhaps the rally would have been covered by the press.  Maybe a few thousand people at a Bernie Sanders rally, though, just really aren't enough people to deserve media attention.  Compare Bernie's thousands to the President's massive support.  As President, Mr. Trump drew 15,000 flag-waving, cap-wearing, friends to the Phoenix Civic Center.  That's a lot of supporters.  The Phoenix metro area has a population of about 4.5 million people, so the fact that a sitting President's rhetoric could draw a whole one-third of one percent shows just how massive his support is.  And those thousands just must be the tip of an enormous iceberg.  His supporters were far greater in number than those who protested outside and were tear-gassed by police.  But Phoenix, 2017 was no Chicago, 1968.  You'd need a Vietnam to get those kinds of protests.

And we shouldn't overestimate the importance of the 70,000 underpaid teachers and their friends who showed up to protest the fact that Trump ally, Governor Doug Ducey, offered only a 1% raise after funding cuts a decade before had decimated their incomes.  That's only 70,000 teachers and sympathizers - nobody important.  And besides, Arizona state government workers (excluding political appointees, of course) have not received a raise in ten years, but you don't hear them whining (at least not on television or radio) despite the fact that rents have skyrocketed to $1,400/month in the Phoenix area.  "But what about the unions?" you ask.  Well, unions aren't allowed for government workers.  Arizona is a red state.

Some say that Arizona is turning purple. They point out that Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will probably be the next Senator from Arizona (over the strong objections of the state Republican Party, which filed a lawsuit to stop the vote count).  What does Sinema stand for?  Nobody knows, really.  As a Congresswoman, she voted with the President 62% of the time.  Her opponent, a really distasteful woman by the name of McSally, as a Congresswoman, voted with Trump 97% of the time.  So Sinema certainly isn't blue, but she's not as red as McSally.  That MIGHT indicate that the shade of Arizona's blush is changing.  

But given Arizona's slave wages and human rights history, one does wonder whether Trump's support and the consistent election of Republicans really reflect the will of the people.  The Democratic Party routinely puts up lackluster candidates for major offices and then doesn't seem to fund their campaigns well. Often, these candidates seem to be watered-down, lukewarm Republicans whose only positive attributes are that they aren't angry and they don't spew hatred.  Sinema seems to be that kind of Democrat, and the fact that she now appears to be winning the vote count might only indicate that McSally was just too vile, too inarticulate, and too unsympathetic.  McSally tried to ride the President's coattails ("border wall," "invasion," "border wall," "terrorism," "border wall," "aren't you doing better now?"), but she may have fallen off.  We'll know when the votes are counted (and probably recounted). 

Here's a theory:  Arizona isn't blue, but it might not be very red.  Perhaps the Republicans have been winning by default for all of these years.  Perhaps the Republicans who, until recently, were counting the votes were not counting them accurately.  Perhaps the cause of Arizona's redness is not conservatism or even apathy, but despair.  Perhaps all of the above.

An American Warning to Canadians

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL CANADIANS....

Many years ago, one of your nation's greatest singers, Burton Cummings, sang these words: "Stand tall.  Don't you fall. Don't you go do something you'll regret later."  The time has come for Canadians to stand tall, not fall, and not do something you'll regret later.  Sure, politeness is nice.  But there is a difference between politeness and apathy, and bartering away your freedom to a bully for a temporary prosperity will not go well for you in the end.

The problem, as many of you know, is this:  The U.S. Government is demanding that Canadians give up control of their media and financial support of their own arts.  Doing the bidding of what Trump calls "the fake media," Trump's own administration is insisting that Canada open its media markets to big American media companies, which would then set up shop in local Canadian markets.  Eventually, as Trudeau knows well, Canadians would have no control of their airwaves.  This fact would lead to the filtering of relevant and necessary content, and this filtering would lead to Canadians eventually having access only to the information deemed appropriate by the foreign media giants.  In the United States, the "news" deemed appropriate by the media giants consists of gossip,  political snickering at the mention of certain ideas, virtually no real investigative reporting, constant hype, the use of buzzwords designed to instill fear and divisiveness, and a lot of sensational weather-related broadcasting (e.g., Florence, "a storm of biblical proportions").  Then there is the non-coverage of  certain politicians and issues.  News broadcasting in Canada would shrink to a small percentage of its current time allotment.  Gone would be the reporting of anything that really matter to Canadians.  Pretty much, everything that makes Canadian news reporting good would be gone.

Control of information would then naturally lead to control of thought.  Next to go would be Canadian health care - which would be juicy booty for American health care companies.  After all, the hospitals and equipment would already be there, having already been paid for by Canadian taxpayers.  American health care companies would move in, smiling and promising the world, but people currently covered under Canada's system would find themselves uncovered.  Canadians might even welcome the new privatized system at first, having heard such wonderful things on the American-owned stations.  But once in need of health care, Canadians would find that their costs would skyrocket, coverage would be reduced, and insurance companies would deny their claims time and time again (many years ago, an expose revealed that one American health care company's practice was to deny a claim eight times before paying).  Canadian taxes might decrease slightly, but insurance costs would more than eat up any tax savings.  Currently in the U.S., many Americans would rather risk dying than be bankrupted by medical bills.  Crazy?  Exaggeration?  Consider this: Children's Hospital in Phoenix charges more than $25,000 for a single dose of scorpion anti-venom.  Eventually, of course, many Canadians would go bankrupt -- but how likely would the smiling faces on the American-owned stations in Toronto or Calgary or Montreal be to report this story with all of the detail necessary to convey the scope of the tragedy?  Not very likely, especially since their programs would be sponsored by those very same health care companies.  Of course, most healthy Canadians would be blissfully unaware of what's going on unless they have personal experience.. and even that personal experience would likely be considered "bad luck" and not indicative of the larger unreported problem.  That's life.  That's what Canadians can expect if Canada gives in to this idea that American investors with yachts and jets should profit from the sickest and most desperate of Canadians.

Give the U.S. and inch of Canadian sovereignty, and it will take a yard.  Canadians, get tough!  Stand tall!  Don't you fall for it.  Don't go and do something you'll regret later.

5:21 p.m.

Something strange happened. Something really strange.  Something impossible.

If it had happened on any other day in any other city, we might still be demanding an answer.  But because it happened at 5:21 p.m. on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the impossibility of it all has dissolved in the pulverized rubble of our collective subconscious.

The entire day had been full of impossibilities, after all.  We were in shock.  There was so much information being thrown at us.  We were running on instinct, adrenaline, and a macabre fascination with watching the human drama associated with that morning's events.  It seemed like the movies that we had paid so much money to see in theaters.  Only this show was free.  And it was real.

The events of that day are now a blur in the rear view mirror.  And, along with our consciousness of it, Building 7 of the World Trade Center (WTC) disappeared into the ever-darkening shadows of history.

Building 7 was a massive 47-story, steel-frame structure.  It was taller than the tallest buildings in some major American cities.  It was the kind of building that, if it were almost anywhere else, people could not help but notice.  But in lower Manhattan, on that particular day, it disappeared in just seven seconds.  Seven seconds of impossibility.  It was there, and then it wasn't.

Some did notice, though.  It's disappearance was immediately mentioned on news broadcasts as an "oh-by-the-way."  Dan Rather observed that its collapse looked like a controlled demolition.  As did New York's local anchors and reporters.  Even over a few years that followed, some celebrities added their voices to a chorus of thousands of architects and engineers who just could not believe that the laws of physics and chemistry could be completely usurped by the government.

Earlier on that day, WTC Buildings 1 and 2 had collapsed after being hit by planes.  Thousands had been killed.  Firefighters and police were busy trying to save lives.  Many of them died, too.  And many more would die over the following years from exposure to hazardous chemicals while begging the government to help them.  Those two buildings, people covered in powder running for their lives, and a haboob of debris rolling down Manhattan streets is what we remember.  Building 7 was just an "also ran."  It could not compete for our attention with the human drama that had begun to unfold eight hours earlier.

Even though the collapse of Buildings 1 and 2 defied scientific explanation, there was a least the structural damage and the jet fuel to make their collapse somewhat plausible to the uninformed and unscientific armchair patriots who comprise the vast majority of people in the United States.  After all, we saw what we saw. The planes were the cause.  Planes that, we were told, were flown by people with strange names from strange places who did it for strange reasons.

Building 7's collapse was different, though.  There was no plane to make a big hole.  There was no flaming jet fuel to melt steel contrary to the laws of science.   According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), it simply collapsed because office furnishings caught on fire.  There had been, and would be, worse fires in steel-frame skyscrapers, though.  In 1970, a 50-story New York building had burned for six hours on five floors; it did not collapse. In 1988, a 62-story Los Angeles skyscraper had burned for 3.5 hours on five floors; it did not collapse. In 991, a 38-story Philadelphia building burned for 18 hours on 8 floors; it did not collapse. In 2004, a 56-story building burned for 17 hours on 26 floors, and even it did not collapse.  On 9/11, the world had never experienced the melting of stuff that could not melt.

As they say, "only in America...."

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of over 3,000 architects, engineers, and people with expertise in related fields,  continues to call for a new investigation - but to no avail.  Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act doesn't seem to apply in this post 9/11 America.  Agencies paid for by the taxpayers will not cough up the information for which the taxpayers pay.  We probably don't care, though.  We may not really want to know the truth.  Maybe we can't handle the truth.

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to admit that the collapse of a 47-story building in defiance of the laws of nature deserves some serious investigation.  The federal government has some explaining to do. Why can't the information be revealed?  Why aren't ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN pursuing the story of Building 7's collapse?  In a democracy (or whatever you want to call what we have), shouldn't we, the people, demand an explanation that makes some sense?  After all, what's to stop this kind of thing from happening again?

But even though we Americans have our suspicions and would like more accountability, we are busy with other things.  Like making a living.  Like home-grown Nazis.  Like immigrants.  Like tweets.  Or so the faces on television tell us.  But we don't know them.  They are just faces.  And Building 7 was just a building, a footnote to the events of that terrible day that are now just blurry memories.

It has often been said that "America lost its innocence" on that day.  Every time something tragic and suspicious happens, Americans lose their innocence.  Is there no end to the innocence that we can lose?  If we ever lose it all, we may unleash a torrent of anger that will lay waste to everything in its path. Maybe that is why we can't get answers (and why we never will).

Remembering Labor on Labor Day

Most people alive today can't remember a time when the history of American labor was actually covered in high school history classes.  But, yes, there was a time when the people who actually worked hard for their measly wages were considered important enough to mention in history classes.  And it wasn't so long ago, either.  Only a few decades.

Labor was recognized back then because it was a known fact that the American worker made things and then turned around and bought things.  And that movement of cash and goods was what put money in the pockets of the business owners.  Back then, the myth of the self-made millionaire was recognized as being a myth.  After all, who became rich without relying on the people who made the stuff and then bought the stuff?  It was all common sense, of course.  How could labor be written out of the history books of America?

That recognition, though, was a long time in coming.  There was a lot of suffering along the way.  It wasn't easy... not by a long shot.  It's hard to gain recognition when you don't have enough money to buy it.

The labor movement in the United States arose from a need for people to live safer, healthier, and somewhat pleasant lives.  Before the labor movement, which spanned the better part of a century, people worked in horrible places and lived, often ten to a room, in dirty hovels and tenements.  They worked six, even seven, days each week from sunup to sundown.  Children worked.  Women worked.  Everyone worked (except the rich, who did relatively little except complain about the people doing the work).  It was grueling.  It was dangerous.

Back in those good old days of unbridled capitalism, there was no OSHA to tell the bosses that their workplaces had to be safe. As a result, people were getting killed at work all of the time.  In mines.  In foundries.  In dressmaking factories.  There were lots of people getting killed.  Some were killed quickly when their workplaces would collapse on their heads.  Some were killed slowly by breathing in all sorts of stuff that they shouldn't have been breathing in.  Some were killed in fires because the buildings weren't safe.  But most of the rich resisted any attempts at reform or .regulation because it would cost them money (and regulation was anti-capitalist), of course.

But workers persevered and eventually organized themselves into labor unions and came to dominate a political party called the Democratic Party.  No, that Democratic Party was not today's Democratic Party.  It had the same name, but that was about the only similarity.  But back then, even the Republican Party was drawn along different lines.  Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican who signed anti-trust legislation!  That would never happen today.  Poor Teddy couldn't get elected dog-catcher nowadays.

Labor had to stand up for itself because the greed of the greedy knew no bounds, but any attempt at organizing meant things were likely to get pretty ugly.  And sometimes, even supportive politicians couldn't save the workers from the murderous wrath of the business elite.  If you'd like an example, consider the 1886 Haymarket riot in Chicago.  Even Chicago's mayor had attended a mass meeting and given the meeting his blessing.  But somebody threw a bomb after he left, and everything went to hell in a hand basket.  Eight were convicted of conspiracy, even though there was no evidence that any of them had thrown the bomb.  Seven were sentenced to death.  Of those, four were hanged, one committed suicide, and two had their sentences commuted by the governor.  It didn't matter that none of them had thrown the bomb.  They organized the meeting, and that was enough.  It didn't matter that the mayor had been there and had blessed the event, either. Again, they organized the meeting, and that was enough.  The people who lived in rows of mansions on lush tree-lined streets, and the newspapers, insisted on the executions.  You just can't have that sort of thing going on.  Violence was never acceptable, even if all the workers wanted was an eight-hour workday and that their co-workers not be killed.

The Haymarket riot was just one event in a continuum of unpleasant altercations.  Just a few years before it, there had been the Molly Maguires in Pennsylvania, who were fighting for their rights to be treated like human beings.  Many of them were executed, too, of course.  Mind you, not all of the rabble-rousers were pleasant people.  Desperate people do desperate things, after all.

One of the most deadly disasters in labor history was the fire at the Triangle Shirt factory in New York in 1911.  It killed 146 garment workers, almost all of them women and children who worked 52- hour workweeks.  Many were forced to jump out of windows from the ninth and tenth floors of the building in which the factory was located.  They couldn't escape because the doors had been locked to prevent unauthorized breaks.  The disaster was so horrific that it spurred union membership and legislation in New York that required certain safety features.

Is it any wonder that such things used to be covered in high school history classes?  So this Labor Day, let's remember labor.  Let's treat Labor Day with the same respect we give to Memorial Day. Let's remember the sacrifices of the workers who went before us. Let's remember that a living wage, safe working conditions, and a bit of free time are basic human rights.  And let's not assume that today's business leaders are somehow less greedy or more compassionate than those of previous generations (there is no reason to believe that they are).

John McCain's Real Legacy

John McCain is dead.  At a time when we're all looking for honesty in our politicians, Democrats and Republicans are singing his praises... now that he's dead, of course.  No politician from either party in Arizona dares to say anything critical about the man ...now that he's dead, of course.  And very little bad was ever said publicly when he was alive, either.

John McCain was the son and grandson of admirals, and he was captured and tortured... much like Jesus, of course, regardless of the motives of the military-industrial complex that profited so wonderfully from that war in that puny country - a country that no American had ever heard of until people started coming back in flag-draped caskets.  Yes, he was an American hero... just like everyone else who went over there.

And he was lauded for "reaching across the aisle." That was nice, wasn't it?  Despite his famously salty language, he was relatively civil in an era of increasing polarization.  Somehow, he could find that middle ground... or so the legend of the maverick goes.

But what was his real legacy?  Frankly, he really didn't have much of a legacy.  Despite the eulogists on radio and television, there simply wasn't much positive that could be said for what he actually did do.

Clean Elections

He verbally supported clean elections and "taking the money out of elections," of course. He even sponsored a bill to that effect.  Sounded good, didn't it?  So who could blame him for taking so much money while the getting was good?  And the getting was very good (and still is, although he no longer has need of it).  Let he among you who is without  since reject the first buck.  Big donors loved John McCain just like they loved Hillary.

Minimum Wage

The lion of the Senate was extremely wealthy, so who can blame him for not doing anything to improve the lots of the working poor?  Time after time, he voted against increasing the minimum wage.  The only time that he voted for increasing the minimum wage was when it was tied to a defense spending bill.

Military Spending

He was very much opposed to waste in the military, but that didn't stop him from repeatedly supporting increases in the military budget. In fact, he didn't simply support the increases; he advocated for them.  He was all for throwing money at the military... as long as it wouldn't be wasted (and probably even when he knew it would be wasted).  It would take a lot of money to support U.S. involvement in so many wars all over the world.

Equal Rights for All

Being a red, white and blue 'merican, McCain supported equal rights, except for the gays... of course.  And the working poor, of course.

Healthcare for All

He verbally supported better healthcare for the veterans, but if you weren't a veteran, you couldn't expect him to care much about your healthcare.  Yes, he famously broke with his party and voted against getting rid of a horrible healthcare system for a return to the pre-Obama chaotic money grabs... but he really wouldn't know what it's like being part of the working poor, having seen so few of them.

There were times when he seemed not to object to socialized medicine, though.  He certainly didn't vociferously oppose it for those in Congress or those who ever were in Congress.  It's a wonderful entitlement that the taxpayers afford to their Congressmen.  Maybe we should all have it.

Rest in Peace, John McCain

May John McCain rest in peace.  We wish him only the best in the next life.  We harbor no malice.  Maybe if we could have met him, we would have understood why he didn't want to help us. But we didn't run in his circles, and he certainly didn't run in our's.  He lived in a different America, a fairyland that we will never see.

Jesus to U.S. Christians: "Cut it Out!"

Dear U.S. Followers,

I have chosen this humble venue for my open letter because, frankly, nobody else would publish it.  I considered sending this to all of the churches so that my message would be read in churches from sea to shining sea, but my words would be viewed as heretical and offensive to the oh-so-easily-offend flocks – and no pastor wants to offend his flock.  Similarly, I considered radio, but people have the attention span of a gnat and the memory of a locust.  So I settled on this tiny blog.

It seems to me that after two-thousand years of bad arguments based on bad premises, I should clear up some misconceptions.  I am mad.  Furious, really.  I intend here to turn over a few tables in your sacred temples.  Unpleasant, but it must be done!  That said, here are some clarifications of my expectations of you church-going Christians.  I number them here for your convenience.

I.  Don’t say, “I know Jesus!”  You don’t.  So, cut it out!   You wouldn’t know me if I came up to you on the street and slapped you silly (and believe me, if I wasn’t so enlightened, I would).  You can bet that those who say they know me don’t know me at all.  Even atheists don’t do that!

II.  Don’t say, “I love God” or “I love Jesus,” when what you love is the creation of your ill-informed imagination, which is inaccurate at best and a cesspool at worst.

III. Don’t praise me.  I’m not a dog or a young child.  I don’t need my ego stroked or my self-esteem built.  And besides, it doesn’t impress me favorably.

IV. Don’t worship me.  Worship is what people do instead of doing what they should do, which is following the path God has provided, loving one another, and cherishing the good.

V. Don’t get “washed in the blood of Christ” confused with “washing the blood of Christ off your hands.”  Focus on the second, and the first will take care of itself.

VI. Don’t say “God wants to see” or “God is testing.”  The Creator is not an idiot or a mad scientist.

VIII. Don’t trust any politician who uses my name; it will always come back to bite you.

IX.  If you must paint a picture of me, paint me as someone from the Middle East.  And don’t forget the scars of torture and the headdress.

X. Do not say the Bible is a “manual.”  It is NOT.  If it were, it would be no more than two sheets of papyrus long and would read like a soup can.

XI. Don’t be mad at people who only come to church for solace and a service when they feel the need; they have chosen the better part.  They have no obligation to take part in your pot lucks, bake sales, and the thousand things that you all do to convince yourself that you’re doing something very important for God.  Not everyone wants to spin their wheels the same way, and some have better things to do.  So stop attacking them.

XII.  Do not adorn your vehicle with bumper stickers that say, “Jesus Loves You” and then cut people off in traffic.  It almost seems as though you are trying to ruin my reputation (and, besides, someone might get killed).

XIII.  If you’re going to pray, do it alone.  I may have said, “When two or more of you are gathered in my name…” but I didn’t say, “Build a big church and contribute to the building fund.”  I was thinking more along the lines of friends talking about my teachings over a pitcher of beer.

XIV.  Don’t say, “I am a Christian.”  Say, “I am your friend” (and mean it).

XV.   If the only thing that keeps you from killing someone is a Commandment or “Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone,” get a clue, because you really need one.

There, I’ve said it.  I know that those are hard truths, but it doesn’t do anyone any good to ignore them.   We are not amused by what we’re seeing done in our name.  Let those who have eyes see.  And let those who have ears hear.   Straighten up, American Christians.  Right now, I’m feeling a lot better about the atheists!

Regards,

Jesus, Nazareth

Climate Change: Discerning the Hoax

If you keep telling people what they already know enough times, most will believe you when you tell them what they can’t know.  As any successful, confidence man, politician, business leader, preacher, and radio commentator knows, once you can build that confidence, you can lie about almost anything.  It’s a fact of life.  And, as Hitler argued in Mein Kampf, the bigger the lie, the more it will be believed.

To understand why people take different positions regarding climate change, then, we need to understand how the believers and deniers think.

We all have one thing in common:  We weigh the truth of what we hear against what we see or experience. We dismiss what doesn’t “compute.” We tend to believe what we see in our own neighborhoods over what is reported about distant places on the news.  We respect our own experience more than we trust the reporting of others.  

Similarly, we tend to trust people who seem to have something in common with us.  Those of us who express honest opinions in vulgar or crass terms tend to believe that people who use the same terms are simply “being honest,” even though style and honesty are two totally separate things.  We see this repeatedly in diverse groups.  Religious people will believe almost any religious person (of the same faith tradition) over an atheist, even when it comes to non-religious topics.  Those who believe that research is necessary will tend to believe research over casual observation, even if the research is manipulated.  To some extent, we are all sheep looking for support from other sheep.

With such a diversity of groups, each getting its information from different sources and filtering out information that contradicts their personal experiences, it is easy to see why the country is so divided.  And anyone who taps into that division can use it to his/her advantage.  Add to this bubbling cauldron the belief that opinions don’t have to be related to fact and ... tick-tock, tick-tock, KABOOM!

Which is where we are now... about two tick-tocks from KABOOM.

For those who don’t base their opinions on facts, only a radical change in their experience will change their minds. 

Keeping these things in mind, we should ask ourselves WHY we believe what we believe about climate change.  In areas hit repeatedly by unusual and terrible weather events, educated people may be easily convinced by the climate science data.  However, in those areas where the changes are more subtle, less-educated people may be less likely to believe in climate change.  Each will gravitate toward the evidence that seems most believable, most consistent with what they are experiencing.

Now here’s the rub:  Somebody is right, and somebody is wrong.  You can’t average out the opinions expressed in a poll.  And the opinion of the majority does not change the facts.  So maybe we should be asking the following questions:

• Who profits from inaction regarding climate, and by how much?

• Who would profit from acceptance that climate change is a reality?

• Is it likely that 97% of climate scientists are wrong?

• What are the arguments on both sides, and what evidence are they NOT including in their arguments?

• How could the burning of fossil fuels NOT impact the environment?

I don’t mean to imply a false equivalency of positions.  Reality is reality, regardless of what we think of it. I absolutely believe that the climate is changing rapidly.  The evidence confirms my own experience.  I believe the 97% of climate scientists who have come to same conclusion.  I do not believe these scientists because I’m a fan of Al Gore (I’m not a fan).  I don’t believe them because the position seems to be embraced by many Democrats (who cares?). I don’t even believe them because the fossil fuel industry has a lot to gain from debunking the scientific arguments and a lot to lose otherwise.  I believe that climate change is real because the propensity of the evidence, the logic of the scientific arguments - and my own two eyes - compel me to believe it.

White Lies Matter

It’s tough out there for honest people, isn’t it?  It’s so hard to maintain any personal integrity when the entire system relies on lies.  Downer, huh?  If you’re honest, you may wonder why you can’t succeed when so many around you seem to sail through life.  You might wonder whether you’re just a loser.  You may wonder… but perhaps you shouldn’t.  There are reasons why good guys finish last and why honest people find life so hard.  And often no amount of cleverness will part the sea for you.  One thing is certain, though:  The only thing that you can take with you when you die is your soul, so don’t lose it in a blizzard of white lies.

White lies are socially acceptable lies, and they are everywhere.  We usually think of white lies as harmless, undeserved compliments or defensive lies that we tell to people who had no right to ask in the first place.  Those white lies may not be so white, but those are not the kind of white lies that are damaging society beyond its ability to repair itself.

No, there are other kinds of white lies, and they do REAL damage.  They don’t rise to the level of criminal perjury, and they aren’t punishable under the law, but they are as malignant as the blackest of lies.  They are everywhere, but they are perhaps most common in any field related to employment, because employment affects our personal economic survival.  From resumes and interviews to being a “team player” in the workplace, white lies are required by most employers.  Of course, employers would never admit it (another white lie).

After the economic bubble burst, many found themselves looking for work.  The process often began with outplacement counseling.  The counseling used terms like “strategy,” of course – since no self-respecting outplacement counselor really wants to admit to offering courses on “how to fluff your resume” or “how to lie to get that job.”  The newly depressed and desperate were told how not to look so newly depressed and desperate … even though they were newly depressed and desperate, and it would be quite natural to be so.  They were told to tailor their resume to each recipient… even though it would be impossible to tailor the resume for every potential job.  They were told that key words were important, since company computers would only kick out resumes that had certain words.  They were told to grab the attention of the reader in just a few seconds, because readers will spend less than 20 seconds to judge your whole life and determine your fitness for the job.  They were told that, if you don’t hit every single expected buzz-word in a few seconds, you won’t get the call.  .

These messages were elaborated upon by a flood of experts, often associated with job fairs, on TV.  They claimed to know what “employers look for.”  From the shine of your shoes to the trim of your nails and hair, there were rules.  From the firmness of your handshake to the twinkle in your eyes, there were rules.  Never let them see you sweat.  Never appear nervous.  Look confident but not too confident.  Stand up straight.  When sitting, lean forward.  And if they ask you why you want to work there, NEVER say, “Because I need a job” (never mind that it might be the only honest answer). 

Now, what if you’re a very competent but shy person, as many are?  Too bad.  Lie.  Fake it.  What if you’re creative, have some tattoos or jewelry?  Cover the tats up, and take the jewelry out of your ears (unless you’re a woman, of course).   Show the human resources judge how well you can lie.  If you can lie well, the company can probably trust you not to make waves.  Let that conformity SPARKLE!

In recent years, some human resources departments have even added the psychological test to their arsenal of “tools” to filter out people who might think too much.  You might be given a test in which you are asked general questions and given a choice of vague answers.  If you are in the habit of thinking, you will want greater clarity in the questions and potential answers.  Case in point:  A very qualified applicant for a position in a medical device company applied for a job.  He had done the job for 15 years in a different company, and his old boss would be his new boss in the new company.  He had jumped through all the hoops except the psychological test, which was administered by a chirpy young human resources representative.  She asked, “Are you a big picture person or are you detail oriented?”  The man answered that the big picture is made of a lot of little details.  She then asked, “Would you rather have a purely professional relationship or work with friends?”  He answered that most of his friendships started out as purely professional relationships and that he guessed it depended upon the people.  After several silly questions and thoughtful answers, the woman told him that he would be contacted by the end of the week.  After a few weeks without the promised call, the man called his old boss.  “I haven’t heard from H.R. yet,” he said.  “Well,” said the old boss, “you apparently didn’t do too well on the psychological evaluation.  They thought you were evasive.”  The man then said to his old boss, “So I should have lied?”  Yes, lying was required. 

Anytime someone asks a question and tries to make you choose from answers that do not reflect what you believe, they are requiring that you lie.  

When people find work, though, a whole new set of white lies is required.  To refuse to play ball is to refuse to be a “team player.”  What used to be called "go along to get along" has now been re-termed in more positive nomenclature as "teamwork."  Annually, one state agency gives a computer survey regarding job satisfaction.  The answers can all be traced back to the individual computers, and everyone knows it.  Very few questions allow for a negative answer, but most employees won’t take a chance on being perceived as negative, as a non-team player.  Generally, the employee is only given a way of saying that he/she is happy or very happy and that management is doing a good job or a very good job.   In fact, many state workers who have taken the survey will admit privately that they lied on the survey because they want to keep their jobs. Your tax dollars at work….

The agency's annual how-extremely-happy-are-you? survey is not management's only attempt to coerce statements of happiness from the workforce.  Employees were recently asked to select, from a list of about 50 positive descriptions, the five or six that best describe his/her boss.  Even an ax murderer would come out looking pretty good.  The exercise is presented as a "something fun to do," and the employee is not forced to take part in this "fun" exercise - but who dares not to?  Again, lying is required.

White lies occur every single day in almost every cubicle across the country.  When a birthday card for someone whom you detest crosses your desk, what do you write?  You write, “Happy Birthday,” don’t you?  You want to be pleasant, after all.  And what would happen to you if you were honest, after all?  And so the card, and everything written in, ends up having little or no meaning to the person who receives it.  Because kind words are a political requirement, they mean nothing.

White lies do matter.  People have come to accept lying, expect lying, and require lying.  In this vast white wilderness where truth is buried under six feet of white lies, the honest person shivers and struggles to survive. Although we seem to be forced into expedient lying, maybe we need to push the envelop to the point of discomfort.   Honesty is still worth the grief.  After all, we can only take our souls with us. 

Welcome to Hard Truths America!

The chances are good that, if you’re not crazy, you think that most of the world is.  You’re probably upset with the loonies on the right and the loonies on the left.  You may know a few of them.  They are the bane of holiday meals, the spoiler of parties, and they are completely incapable of reasoning.  They are the brainwashed ones, the Kool-Aid guzzlers.  But, unless you’re in certain geographic pockets, you probably don’t know many such people.

Most of us would consider ourselves to be slightly right or left of center.  And most of us would prefer not to be lumped in with the loonies.  Unfortunately, many in the corporate media would have us believe that we in the vast middle abyss are all lonely and isolated, that we have no support, that our voices cry pointlessly in wilderness.  We often hear from the corporate media how supposedly polarized our countries are.  We may be polarized, but we are not polarized along the lines that are so commonly and sloppily drawn by so many in the corporate media.

The corporate media seems to make a lot of money from sloppily lumping together different sets of ideas, labeling them as “right” or “left,” and then pitting us against one another.  And as we are manipulated into believing that “the other side” is the enemy, somehow the real news, the real issues,  and the real travesties aren’t reported.  On the right, the churches, which too often have replaced honesty and compassion with reasonless “faith,” have become the propogandists of that tightly bundled set of ideas called “the Right.”  And to make matters worse, they claim the right is the CHRISTIAN right.  On the left, we have news people who smirk at the name of Bernie Sanders or report endlessly on Trump’s divisive non-issues (e.g., abortion, affairs) while ignoring the fact that so many people are being victimized by the crushing disparities in income.  

The truth is that most of us can, and do, sit down with one another and discuss issues.  We are the silent majority, and we’re getting pissed off.  We’re becoming radicalized.  We are becoming subversives, finding that the political establishment has no moral authority.  We wish nobody harm.  We do not want violence, but our illusions are quickly being dispelled.

Ultimately, we want the same things:  personal freedom, a safety net that is there but not abused, peace, prosperity, an educated population, economic justice, safety, and a certain amount of mercy.  In short, we want “life, liberty, and the American way.”  We want the American dream back; we sometimes just can't figure out the best way to get it back.  Once we do figure it out, though, there will be change for the better.  But we’ve got to unite.  The reasonable middle MUST become the radicalized middle.

Imagine a country without corporate media manipulation.  Imagine a country where big business can profit without oppressing the workers and where the workers are paid justly.  Imagine a country where crooked politicians of any stripe go to prison.  Imagine a country in which the poor get the same healthcare as the rich (as is the case in other civilized countries).  Imagine a country where respect is based on the honesty of the job and not on economic affluence or political influence.  Imagine a country in which memes are replaced with reason and compassion. 

We can unite.  We must unite.  We can build a new country, a new world.  But we will have to fight.  And if we lose a battle or two, we must keep fighting.  The war never ends.