Does Circumstances Make Morality Irrelevant?

I have been engaged in an interesting conversation with an individual in regard to the war between Israel and the Palestinians (actually more akin to a slaughter than a war due to the huge disparity in power).  During this discussion the individual refused to condemn any of Hama’s actions.

Their reasoning was that due to what the Palestinians have suffered, not just now but for decades, and due to the almost hopeless situation on October 7^th, 2023 in regards to finding other ways to receive justice, correct wrongs, and make their voice heard, that the those of us who were not in that same situation were therefor not in a position to pass judgement on what Hamas did.  When I brought up the immorality of some of Hamas’s actions their response was that because of this oppression and hopelessness morality does not matter in this case.  They would neither promote nor condemn these actions.  My impression of the argument is that if the oppression is so bad and so long then it is in a category by itself and it is not for anyone outside to pass any moral judgement on the actions the oppressed think necessary. 

I was rather struck by the idea that in certain situations morality does not matter. Or perhaps, it is not as relevant. It is the first time I have ever had someone seriously argue this.   After some thought and research – for which I am grateful to this person for motivating me to do –  I found that both my thoughtful consideration and my initial reaction were in accord –  I disagree.  While understanding why an action was done is important, the why does not shield it from being evaluated for its morality.  Nor should it.

The reason why I disagree is because we are highly social creatures.  In fact, this is essential to our nature.  It is one of the two reasons why our species has survived and flourished, our ability, indeed our need, to form groups.  Coupled with our high intelligence and our ability to form not just groups but very large groups, morality is an essential part of forming and maintaining any and all groups.  It helps provide the guidelines and standards necessary for the formation of any group.   To disregard the morality of any given action is to ignore an essential part of being human. 

Some will say that morality is largely subjective, and dependent upon a particular culture and society.  That to view the actions of one group through the moral lens of another, especially that between an oppressed people and the oppressor, is wrong and flawed.  To which I would acknowledge that there is an element of truth to that.  But not the whole truth. Or even most of it. 

Morality is a fuzzy thing.  However, it is a fuzzy thing that has an objective basis.  This basis is twofold – the traits we evolved to cause us to be social creatures, such as empathy, reciprocity, a sense of fairness, etc.  And then those social structures resulting from these traits form and shape those traits and, with trial and error wind up promoting good societies that can survive. Something that is on always on-going project, especially given the size and complexity of our societies.  

I am not going to go into all the  intricacies of morality.  At the end of this blog there are some references for your reading pleasure should you wish to pursue further.

Instead though I am wanting to emphasize that it is our ability to form societies that has led to human survival.  Without that we would be extinct.  And our morality is an essential part of that survival trait.  To say that morality has no role to play in evaluating the actions of humans in some situations is to say that we cannot use our common humanity to evaluate human actions.  That seems nonsensical to me. 

I think this is clearly seen if we take this idea that no judgement can be made on the actions of an oppressed people who are fighting their oppressors to its logical extreme. 

Imagine that one of the many groups of Jewish partisans in Nazi Europe decided to start kidnapping German citizens who had no connection to the military, politicians, war industries, or law enforcement.  They kidnap whole families, including children and babies.  Then then they stripped them, make them labor on short food and water for weeks with frequent beatings before packing them all into gas chambers.  Would their actions be moral?  Should we avoid condemning these actions because the Jews were most definitely oppressed during this time, to the point of being almost rendered extinct in Europe?

This points towards another aspect of the necessity of moral judgements.  Solutions are going to have to be moral, and just. Otherwise, the problem will continue on and only the veneer will have changed.  In trying to atone for their treatment of the Jews over thousands of years, Europe and the US created another injustice and immoral act. Which is why we have our current bloodshed.

Two final points on this. 

First, immoral actions never make other immoral actions moral or right.  The immoral actions committed by Hamas on October 7^th do not justify the current actions of Israel.  Not in the slightest. 

Second, while saying a given action is immoral, understanding why it was done is just as important in deciding how to act and react to that immoral act.  In ignoring the cause of Hamas immoral actions – the decades long series of injustices being committed by the Israel against the Palestinians – no true solution will be found.  Only more pain and suffering and needless deaths.  Only more immoral actions and immoral reactions.

Some interesting reads on a very complex subject.

“Seven Moral Rules Found Around the World“, Oxford

“Is There a Universal Morality? Introduction and Overview of Responses“, Prosocial World

“Culture and the Evolution of Human Cooperation“, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

“The Evolution of Morality“, Evolution; education and outreach

Read Full Post »

What Protects Democracy

Being a citizen of the great state of Texas I have been following the impeachment trial of our Attorney General Ken Paxton.  In doing so I came across some quotes from the Texas Tribune coverage that struck me as pointing to something fundamental about our system and democracy:

Buzbee (one of Paxton’s defense attorneys) also argued that impeachment thwarted the will of Texas voters.

“Texans chose at the voting booth who they wanted to be their attorney general … but because of what this House has done, only 30 [senators] out of almost 30 million will decide if Ken Paxton is allowed to serve in the office he was voted into,” he said. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work. That’s not democratic.

In other words Buzbee and Paxton’s supporters are claiming that this trial is a treat to democracy and to the power of a citizens’ vote and right to chose who represents them. 

Now, I totally agree that one of the checks on government power is citizens voting. It is one of the most critical ones even. However, it is only one such check.  The reason that the creators of the US government, the writers of our Constitution, felt comfortable with creating a more powerful federal government is because there were several checks on abuse of government power within the Constitution, not just one.  Checks that have also become part of each state’s government too. 

One of those checks is impeachment.  Or more broadly, legally holding elected officials accountable for their actions not only through elections but through the courts and legal system.

As Andrew Murr, State Representative, Republican, one of the impeachment managers said:

“…saying the framers of the Texas Constitution did not believe elections alone could protect the public from abusive office holders.

“It’s too easy to use the powers of office to conceal the truth,” Murr said in opening statements. “The voters did not, and do not, know the whole truth” because Paxton went to great lengths to conceal his misconduct, he added.”

Many conservatives like to say that our “right” to own guns is the most important of our rights since it is the one that protects our freedoms from an abusive government.  However, it is not. It is not even close to being the most important right in protecting our rights and freedoms from our own government.  In fact, I would argue it is not a protection at all. But I am not going to go there in this blog.  Instead, I want to focus on a specific example of one of our most important protections. Namely the belief that our elected officials are not above the law. 

That is the basis for the process of impeachment that is written into the Federal Constitution as well as into each and every state Constitution except for Oregon.  And Oregon has a proposal to add such a procedure to their constitution, passed with the unanimous support of both Democrats and Republicans in their legislature. 

This idea that our political leaders are not above the law, are not free from being held accountable for their actions by not only the ballot box but also by our legal system is one of our greatest protections against abusive government.  That protection is what is playing out in the Texas capital now.  It is also what is playing out now on the national stage with trump’s four indictments. 

Yes, legal actions such as these are things can become abusive and are actions that despotic governments can and do use too.  But it is also a protection that can keep our government from becoming such a government, whether on the state or the national level. 

As for how to tell the difference between the two, between when it is being abused by the government to silence political opponents and when it is being used as a protection of our democracy, there are several indicators that can be looked at.  One primary indicator is that when those legal actions are carried out by despotic governments they usually have little to no evidence, and are solely carried out by just one political party. Neither of those indicators are true in regards to Paxton or trump. 

I have already quoted one of the impeachment managers arguing that Paxton should be impeached.  He was a member of the same party as Paxton, Republican.  He is one of seven Republicans impeachment managers.  Five are Democrats.  Do the math to see who which political party has the majority in regards to impeachment managers. 

Further, the ones who are testifying against Paxton, who took what they saw to the FBI to start this process are all Republicans. Further, their political views on issues such as guns and abortion and a host of other issues are the same or very similar to that of Paxton.  Or, for that matter, to Greg Abbott, our governor. 

Or consider the fact that out of 86 Republican Representatives, 60 voted for impeaching Paxton and only 23 voted against impeachment.  In the Republican majority Texas Senate (out of 31 members 19 are Republican), all 16 pretrial motions by Paxton’s attorneys to dismiss the articles of impeachment against him failed. Seven Republican Senators voted against all 16 pretrial motions. Most of the others voted for some of the motions, but not all of them.  In other words, it was a bi-partisan rejection of Paxton’s attempt to avoid being tried.  

Turning to trump, his indictments are from both states and the federal government (by the way, this federal system of government is another protection of our freedoms and rights from an abusive and despotic government).  Two state and two federal indictments. This is an indication that these actions are not the result of a despotic government or due to a political witch hunt. 

The New York indictments are from a blue state and so could fit the narrative of this being more politically motivated than real.  However, the other is from Georgia, a state that leans Republican.  Not to mention that the investigator or district attorneys are not the ones who decided to move forward with the indictment.  That was decided by a grand jury, as per our process. Another common tell of abusive and despotic governments is that they do not follow the processes set up. 

Further, in the Congressional hearings on the events of Jan 6^th, many if not most of the 1000 witnesses testifying were Republican.  This along with the public nature of the evidence are also signs that this is not the actions of an abusive or despotic government.

These actions against trump and Paxton are not the result of a political witch hunt. They are not inspired by partisan needs and concerns. They are not the signs of a despotic government.  They are, instead, signs of a functioning democracy and of one of our most important protections in action.  Instead of dismissing them as being politically motivated we should be celebrating them as signs that our democracy is still alive. 

Read Full Post »

A Future History Class – Again

This old post is even more true today, sadly. 

I first posted this on March 27, 2010.  Today, 13 years later, this history class seems even more possible, even more likely to become a reality.  Continual actions against libraries and school curriculums, against the LGBQT+ , against minorities, the war against women’s rights most prominently showcased by the recent Supreme Court Dodd ruling and the hard assault on abortion rights, and so forth are evidence that we are in greater danger of making this future history class a reality than we were when I first posted this 13 years ago.  Or first wrote it almost 16 years ago.  It needs very little revision for it to be fully applicable to today.  By the way, I did not revise any of it.

With the Republicans trying to hold on to power through changing the election process – gerrymandering, who can vote, how voting is held (what days, how long, and where), etc. – to make it much more difficult for those who would vote against them to vote the odds of such a history lesson happening are increasing. Not to mention the harmful effect of a small but definitely present and prominent strain of Republicans denying fair and honest elections that they lost has also greatly contributed to the odds of this history class coming into being.

To add a bit of light to this depressing thought though, let me say this is by no means a sure and certain future.  It is far from being set in stone. It is only one possible destination out of many. There are many people, groups, and politicians working to prevent this history class from ever forming, and actions and reactions are being taken that give some hope.  But we need to be aware of our possible futures and what leads to them in order to prevent the worst of those possible futures from becoming real. The times are always in flux, always capable of being changed, for better or worse. We need to work to make it for the better. And then work to make it even better still.   

Preshambles

This is something that I actually wrote a long time ago but never published.  I found it whilst rummaging through my almost forgotten writings, and with the Texas Board of Education’s recent actions on curriculum for social studies and history thought now would be a good time to dust it off and publish it.

Now I know we are still a long way away from having this little story become reality, but I do get concerned.  When you figure in the book bannings, the continuous creationist political assault on science education, the large number of far right religious advocacy groups, the largely religious based objections to gays and to reproductive rights, and the high-jacking of the Republican party by the religious right along with the Texas Board of Education’s shenanigans it can cause a rational person some concern. 

My concern is that someday the Christian right will get their way and turn our secular government into a Christian one and make their now false claim true.  If that ever happens then we will walk the same path of every other government which took a stand on which was the true religion (and this includes atheism).  Religious intolerance and persecution will become the norm.  Certain religious beliefs will be outlawed and suppressed at the very least.  At the very worse – well, just read a bit of history, both in the early colonies and in Europe. 

Shambles

Once upon a time our beloved and blessed country promoted evil and ignorance and was a great help to Satan in his war against God for the possession of men’s souls.  It did this not through malice, although there were many in the government then who knew what they were doing and took great pleasure in destroying the souls of their fellow men. Rather, our country did this because of a twisted, perverted line of reasoning that allowed a separation between God’s church and state and that allowed men to think for themselves on issues too complex and great for them. 

They believed, wrongly of course, that the state should not foster a religion or any group of religions upon its people.  They believed that each person should be free to believe as they please.  This idea was even protected in a document they called the constitution, one of the subtler works of Satan.  This damnable constitution of theirs even protected those whose beliefs ran counter to those of the Christian majority.  This constitution protected the rights of all individuals – ungodly as well as Godly –  so that the government, even with the will of the majority of a Christian nation, could not infringe upon those rights.

Satan had implanted in our ancestors the idea that there had to be limits to the powers of government.  According to this idea if there were not certain basic individual rights that were not protected from both the government and the will of the majority of God’s people then either a tyranny of one man, group of men, or the mob would develop.  Of course, in their own twisted and perverted way they were right.  Without the moral and spiritual guidance of the one true church, to allow any government absolute power would indeed be foolish.

Following this line of reasoning these deluded souls even went so far as to ban organized prayers and displays of the Ten Commandments in the public schools and courtrooms.  Their rationale was that this was a land of diversity containing many people with different beliefs and that the government was bound by this constitution to respect those beliefs no matter how wrong and blasphemous. 

They maintained that this diversity of thought and belief was this country’s greatest strength.  According to these people this obscene diversity allowed society to grow and mature, enabled it to find new and better solutions to problems, and let it adapt in an easier and better way to a continuously changing world. 

This satanic government said that the place of religion should be in the hearts and minds of people and not enshrined in government institutions set up to serve a diverse people. 

Praise God though that the people of this Christian nation finally saw through this twisted reasoning and elected responsible men who changed the laws and this constitution and put prayer back in schools, eliminated Darwinism from the classrooms, displayed the Ten Commandments in all the courtrooms along with enforcing all of its commandments and not just some of them.  Gradually, for Satan had invested much time and effort into building up this unnatural and evil barrier between the church and state, the separation between church and state was done away with. 

With the help of God these good men and women returned this blessed government of ours back to its Biblical and Godly foundation.  A foundation now protected against those who believe wrongly by laws against them promoting their errors.  It’s need is seen by the vast numbers of those in prison for violating those laws. 

We have much to be thankful for.  But we must be ever vigilant lest we once again let church and state separate and allow people to grope blindly through the darkness and arrive at their own misguided beliefs, for humanity is too easily led astray.  We truly are the descendants of the fallen Adam.

That is all for today class.  Remember that after the closing prayer there will be a book burning held in the football field.  All the works of the Great Heretic Thomas Jefferson will be consigned to the flames.  This will be followed by the witness of a newly outed and converted Jewish classmate of yours.   

I know all of you will show up.

Read Full Post »

The Greatest Threat to the US

We live in a day with an abundance of serious problems and challenges.  Existential ones that pose an active and on going threat to our democracy, our freedoms, our lives – a fractured political system with the threat of the US moving from a democracy to an autocracy; the threat created by a growing divide between those who have and those who don’t; the claiming of facts as lies and lies as facts;  China: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and more.

So, which of these do I consider the biggest existential threat to the United States, our democracy, and our lives?  Is it the Election was stolen crowd?  The religious crowd who are actively working to limit our freedoms starting with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and working out from there?    

For myself, I believe the greatest threat to the United States, to our freedoms, our democracy , and our lives is the one we share with the rest of the world, Climate Change.

I just finished reading Greta Thunberg’s book “The Climate Book: Facts and the Solutions”.  In this book she has collected the writings of over a hundred experts in various fields.  These include the ones most would expect – climate scientists, geophysicists, oceanographers, etc. She also though includes those from fields that are sometimes but not normally heard from on this topic – economists, mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, historians.  And then there is a third group whose voices are heard the least of all, the indigenous, what they see, and what they have to offer in regards to dealing with climate change.  Theirs are a very personal story because they, more than us in the more developed world are the ones suffering now from climate change’s effects. 

In this blog I am not going into the mounds of evidence and data showing that climate change is happening and is caused by human activity.  Even though we, unfortunately, still have to prove the world is round to too many politicians and people, we also need to be preparing ourselves for what is already happening and what is coming.  One of the main points of this book is that climate change and its dangers is not some future event, a nebulous maybe.  It is here. It is now.  And it is harming millions of people, and will continue to get worse.

“One of its biggest evolutions took place on the precise date of August 9,2021. This was the day when climate change officially arrived – the date when the IPPC working Group I …published their sixth assessment report……For the first time, they stated, ‘It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land’ and that, due to human -induced climate change, the global temperature has been raised by 1.1 degree C. We are no longer just anticipating or planning for climate change, it is here.  And its fingerprints can be seen on every region of the planet.  Every year now, across the globe, extreme weather records are being broken, be it a heatwave, a typhoon or a torrential downpour. Somewhere in the world, records are being broken. And every year that will continue to happen and every year it’s going to get worse than the year before.”  Dr. Saleemul Huq, page 157 – 158. 

In other words, now we can no longer avoid the consequences of climate change.  Not only are these consequences playing out right now, and getting worse, they are harming us not only in terms of money, but also in lives harmed and lost

Climate change is our greatest threat because they make each of the threats I mentioned above – fracture political system, increased wealth gap, etc. – even worse and more dangerous, they create new ones too.  Dealing with the consequences of climate change stresses our societies and governments and can do so to the breaking point. 

To illustrate this I am using an extended quote from the book by Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, Chadian environmental activities and geographer, about the climate change effects on Chad. 

“Thirty years ago, when I was born, Lake Chad was enormous. And sixty years ago, when my mother was a child, the lake was almost a little sea in the middle of a desert. But today it’s a small drop of water in the heart of Africa. Ninety percent of our water is gone. Our average temperature has risen. We are now living with temperature increases greater than 1.5 degrees C, meaning that my people already live over the threshold of the Paris Agreement. And this is just a preview of what’s to come…..

Over my lifetime, the face of Sahel will not be the same. Most of the rain is already gone. The land is often dry and infertile. Our cows used to produce 4 litres of milk each day, but now they barely produce 2 litres or even 1, because of the missing grass. And more and more often, rain, which had been our ally, is our enemy. Over the last five years, floods have repeatedly destroyed out lands, our houses, the culture of my people. We now live on the edge of climate wars.

People are fighting for the few resources left. When nature is sick in a region where 70% of people depend on it for farming, people lose their minds. The old alliance between farmers and pastoralists has been broken in the competition for nature’s bounty.  In Mali, North Burkina Faso and Nigeria we have seen villages burned by people who want to grab the land of their former friends.” Page 171

Climate change causes stress in resources and political systems within a country. As can be seen in Chad.  In fact, that stress due to climate change is one of the causes of the ever-going Syrian Civil War. Climate change caused farmers to move to the cities as their farms failed, the government did not have the resources to help and provide, and tensions that already existed, became much worse. 

This story is already playing out in many areas, especially among the poorer nations.  But it is also happening even in the richer nations, even in the United States. The Colorado River provides water for over “…40 million people across seven US states, plus 29 Native American tribes…It supplies US cities including Phoenix and Las Vegas and countless farms” (“Running out of River” by Chelsea Whyte in New Scientist 2023).  In 2021 the US federal government, for the first time ever, declared a water shortage at Lake Mead, a reservoir created by damming the Colorado River. This meant cutting water supply to farmers and is causing real concerns and challenges in providing water to those living in these areas.  This increases stress between farmers and those who use water for drinking and living, between the seven states on who gets the water and who does not.  Worse, Mexico also uses water from the Colorado River, adding an international stressor. 

This has not caused violence yet, but it has the potential to do so.  Especially as the years go by and the drought and heat gets worse.  The US is stable enough, for now, and has the resources, for now, to deal with this. But if it does not take action it will at some point not. All of which is made worse by all the other changes and stresses caused by climate change: fire seasons stretching and becoming year-round instead of seasonal, increased and longer droughts harming our nations ability to produce food, or even to provide enough water for many to live.  As catastrophic weather events – tornados, blizzards, rains, etc – become more and more common with the costs of building back becoming more and more frequent, with the costs and unsettlement caused by massive amounts of people moving to other places within the United States – the dust bowl writ large and caused by more than just drought, this stretching of resources and forced decisions on how to allocate increasingly scarce resources will become more and more prominent.

That’s not even including the stresses caused by the increased migrations of those who from poorer and less stable leave in hopes of finding a place to live.  Even here in the United States, which has the resources to assimilate those trying to migrate here (for now), this is true,  as witnessed by some groups in the United States playing upon the fears created by illegal immigrants and the supposed the threats they pose to Americans in order to limit and restrict rights, to get into and stay in power and to put into actions policies which will harm democracy but further their hold on power – election fraud anyone?

Climate change will and is already stressing not only the poorer counties, but even richer and more stable governments. And the stress will get worse, making other even minor problems and issues even worse. In such situations the possibility of a strong ruler, an autocrat, or group, can, and has in many places, come to power with the promise of easy and quick fixes, with the ability to stay in power by changing a democracy into something worse. 

This is why climate change is the greatest threat to the United States. It makes pre-existing problems worse, and creates new ones.  We must also realize that climate change is a global threat requiring global actions. No more of “well my country is OK you need to take care of our own”.  Climate change is impacting the world.  It is a threat to life, livelihood, and stable governments all across the world. 

Weather is not isolated by borders. Winds, waves, ocean levels, droughts, floods, changing rain patterns, snow – none are stopped by a country’s borders. Weather is linked together, and the impacts are global.  So too with CO2 emissions.  They do not rise and just linger over one country so that its impact is not felt in other countries.  The cause of climate change is global, its impact is global, and its solution will have to be global.

While individual actions matter in regards to reducing our carbon footprint, individual actions such as changing our diet, driving electric cars, and so forth, such actions alone will not stop climate change.  Or even slow it.  While such actions are necessary, they are not sufficient. One soldier will always lose against an army, and climate change is a very large army. 

Individual actions taken together to put pressure on governments and media to deal with this issue – that is what is needed.  Governments must change and for them to do that the people must put pressure on them with all available peaceful means – protests and demonstrations, petitions and letters, testimonies before city/county/ state/ and national government organizations, voting and running for office.  Actions taken together is what is needed if we want to preserve our liberties and country, and rights and lives.  As Greta wrote, “Start local, aim global.” 

Actions taken at the local level – towns and cities, counties, states – will help. But will not be near enough. Even actions taken by individual governments will not be enough.  It is going to take a world wide coordinated effort in order to limit the damage caused by our self-induced climate change and to prevent it from becoming worse.

What is also clear is that every country is not only low balling how much carbon they are emitting, their measurements and goals are rigged too.  For example, burning biomass is not usually included in the count of carbon as it is widely considered carbon neutral.  However, it is not.  Burning biomass increases the amount of CO2 emitted into the air by human activities.  But that is not counted in countries report cards.

There are other similar loopholes – outsourcing energy production and since it is not done in that country it does not count as part of that countries emissions is just one example – and unfounded assumptions about the ability of future technology to capture the carbon has even made our current dark outlook a rosy one compared to reality. 

Most who know this ascribed a conspiracy between lawmakers and business to hold onto power, to not inconvenience themselves, to not have to change their rather nice lifestyles.  And there is a great deal of truth to it, although I wouldn’t go so far as to call it a conspiracy. Not always.  However, this is also the natural result of unrestrained capitalism … and of democracy of whatever type. 

Greta Thornburg states several times that democracies are our best chance for making needed changes.  Getting the massive push of millions and billons of people to make the needed changes, and to make them now rather than in a future date.  And she is right, democracies offer out best chance of doing so.  In autocracies, dictatorships, and so forth there is no hope for the needed changes.  However, the same forces that make democracies our best hope for effecting change are also why this issue has been ignored and denied for so long, and why it so often continues to be so.  And why even politicians who are fully knowledgeable and wish to act on that knowledge are not able to act on the best science and advice. 

Democracies also can gather the voices of those who are against change, who are ignorant and wish to remain so for ideological or religious reasons, who have a vested interest in things staying as they are, and more.  And these voices are able to be latched upon and used by ideologues and demagogues to not only block needed change, but to take measures that will cause further harm.  Even when they don’t though, these often represent substantial voting blocks.  And, let’s face it, the changes needed had we started back in the 1980s would have been much less and more incremental than what are needed now that we have delayed for so long.  Now the necessary changes will be great and the costs great (although still much less than not doing anything).  Which means the battle to win hearts and minds, to make people accept what is needed is now that much harder to fight.  And those political leaders doing so have to be careful to not go too far or they may lose office and be replaced by one who would not fight at all. 

Americans have shown themselves able to sacrifice much and change much when faced with a crisis such as a war.  Witness WW2.  The problem though is that though we are in a war now, with stakes at least as high as any during WW2, the type and nature of this war is different so that most do not see it, or can more easily ignore it.

The difference is that this war is taking place over decades, and the initial advances were slow and minor and so easily dismissed.  Not like the German blitzkrieg or the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.  Although I will note that FDR saw this WW2 coming but could not fully mobilize in the way he wished due to public opinion.  Instead he acted in what ways he could, that although not as good, were at least some help. Perhaps something to keep in mind for those politicians who are in similar positions.

Now though the changes caused by climate change are becoming greater and the effects more damaging.  But here is where there is another difference between past emergencies and now that numbs too many to reality.  There is no nation declaring war on us.  It is instead Nature striking back at us for our actions against her; striking back without slogans, without words, without declarations.  Just with actions.    

Between the slow start of this war, and the lack of a clear focus or enemy, and the fact that in reality the enemy, in the words of the immortal Pogo, is us, made this a hard sell to the public from the beginning.  And means that this issue shows both sides of a Democracy, its flaws and its strengths, different sides of the same coin. 

For now though we, we the public, need to start to motivate our politicians and make democracy work not only for us, but for our children and their children.  I earlier referenced a Pogo cartoon, we have met the enemy and he is us.  The good news is we met the heroes too, and they are us too

Read Full Post »

Revisiting On the Limits of Atheism: The Limits of Labels

I first wrote this blog over seven years ago. After looking at it I decided it would be a good idea to update it a bit (very little actually) and repost.  In the interest of full disclosure, part of the reason I thought it a good idea is because two other blog ideas did not pan out when I started writing them and I really wanted to keep to my blog a week schedule as much as possible.  This was a quick and easy way to do so while I work on three blog ideas that, while they are good, are going to take a bit more work.  But, while true, this is only part of the reason. 

The other part of my reasoning is that it seems that we live in a time when labels are becoming more and more used as a substitute for actually knowing about a person.  While there is a valid and necessary reason for using labels when talking about others, we also have long had a tendency to misuse that need and turn it into a total substitution for actually knowing a person or group. And today that misuse seems to me to be a growing problem.  Which is why I thought this piece I wrote seven years ago on the limits of the term Atheist to describe me relevant today. Because although focused on the label atheism it applies to any and all labels – liberal, conservative, black, white, Asian, homosexual, evangelical Christian, and on and on.    

In my last blog (actually, now also over seven years ago)  I wrote about why I was an atheist. However, that is not really telling you much about me. In fact, it tells you very little about me; and the little it does reveal is among the least important aspects of me.  The reason for this is that atheism is a negative belief describing only a part of what I think and believe. It only tells you what I do not believe.

It does not say anything about my belief in both humanity’s and each person’s potential, about my belief that the world is actually getting better over time. The negative of atheism says nothing about my strong belief that a constitutional democracy is the best form of government, one that allows people the most freedoms, the best chance of happiness and fulfillment, while providing a needed structure for decisions, living and dealing with conflicts.

Young woman with a name tag on her forehead

Atheism does not speak to my belief that all people should be treated with respect first until shown that they do not deserve such treatment. Atheism says nothing about my conviction that all human life is sacred, even that of the most horrid and evil of humans. Atheism does not express the value that I place on love, on helping those in need, on treating people fairly   Atheism provides no reason for me to do any of this, to believe any of this.

I believe in the proven power of logic and reason in addressing many of the problems that face us today, both as a group and as individuals. I also, though, recognize the limitations of reason and logic. By themselves they cannot give us solutions and answers to all our troubles and problems. By their use alone we cannot find happiness, fulfillment, and joy. In fact, there are times and issues in which reason and logic are of only secondary importance. My atheism does not reveal any of this.

My atheism is not the reason why I love animals, enjoy walks in the woods, am an avid reader of everything from pure junk to literature to non-fiction.   My atheism says nothing about the fact that I hate ties and refuse to wear them (with one possible future exception), and that I enjoy watching movies and TV more than my wife, who is also an atheist, does.

Finally, I believe in mystery. Without it our lives would be poorer.

Atheism deals in none of this – no values, no ethics, no likes, no desires, and no hatreds can be extrapolated from the negative belief of atheism.   It is a comment on only one question, does God exist.  It is a comment; not a worldview, not a system of thought, not an ethical and philosophical system.

There are many religious organizations, and even more religious people, who hold similar beliefs and values as mine. However, where they and I differ is that I also believe that this world is all there is, that there is nothing beyond the natural. I consider our differences much more minor than our agreements. In fact, I  have at times found much more in common with these religious people and groups than I do with other atheists and some atheists groups.

This limitation of the label atheist to fully describe me also applies to any and all other labels.  And our overreliance on labels is why we so often get surprised by the actions of one labelled individual to act in ways we think contrary to what the label implies. Witness Liz Cheney’s recent actions.  Or why many progressives refuse to see how surprisingly liberal President Biden has acted so far. 

While a necessity in life, and a useful one at that, we need to keep in mind the limits of labels.  Otherwise we commit an injustice to individuals and groups, and miss opportunities for progress or, worse, wind up creating and/or magnifying areas of conflict.  There is more than enough of that today without us unnecessarily adding to it. 

Read Full Post »

I Had Thought Us Better Than This. But Then History Spoke.

I had expected better of America, of us, of our society.  Although the selection of trump as Republican nominee should have been my red flag moment signaling that my thoughts about America were not as well founded as I had thought. 

Despite his ignorance, his proud claim to never read; despite his mocking of the disabled, of war heroes, and of all who opposed him or annoyed him; despite his treatment of women, his grabbing of pussies and walking in on teens undressed, and his many accusers testifying to sexual harassment and rape; despite his narcissism and constant claims of being the best and knowing more than anyone about stocks, economy, computers, military, building and infrastructure, science and disease and anything and everything; despite his treatment of contractors, his stiffing of good and hard workers, his businesses that failed and collapsed; despite his charities that were merely scams  devoid of any good  work; despite all of this trump was elected. And that should have told me that my belief in America and the American people were gravely flawed.

Four years of lies so constant they became the norm. Four years of reducing every issue to only dollars and cents – civil rights, foreign relations, what is right and what is wrong, for all money is the standard.  That and how it impacts him. Four years of never caring for the American people. Four years of constant turnover, of appointments too often not only unqualified but anti-qualified.  Four years of cold and cruel policies.  Four years of making the rich richer doing little to nothing for the middle class and the poor.  Four years, a damning FBI report and two well deserved impeachments.  Four years tearing down a free press and of constant threats to those who say things he does not like. Four years providing  hope and support for white hate groups.  Four long years of America losing its place in the world and itself within its borders.

And then, the pandemic, COVID.  A year of ignoring, or taking too little actions, of downplaying and lying.  A year of providing mixed messages but no science.  A year of promoting disinformation and promoting that which made it worse.   A year and over 500,000 deaths; at least twice more than it should have been. 

And then, the election. The election in which the lack of fraud seemingly became evidence of fraud.  A constant stream of factless fraudulent claims of his having won and the election stolen. And then, the attack on the capital, inspired and sparked by the words of trump. 

But, despite all of this and more, the Democrats only barely gained control.  A ripple instead of a the more rational, moral, and well-deserved tsunami. 

And now. Now. Now trump grows more in control of the Republican party instead of less.  Donations to the Republican party are up. This despite many large corporations no longer giving money to them, the gap more than made up by a wave of smaller donors.  Now, Republicans are united more than in the past, united in becoming the lowest common denominator.  United in suppressing the citizen’s rights to vote.  United in avoiding even an appearance of doing the right thing, much less actually doing so.  United in still largely supporting trump.  United in saying that they will not mask, they will not vaccinate.  United in not caring about people, only politics; a politics comprised of smallness and meanness and selfishness. 

I had hoped for better, but should have not.  I was aware of McConnell and the Republican’s scorched earth tactics during the Obama years, political party over what was good for the country.   I know the history of race and racism in the United States; of the anti-immigrant fear and hatred that runs strong in this country; of the history of oppression and control of women; of the fear and hatred of gays, lesbians, trans, anything and anyone different than straight totally genital identification.   I know of the long running rugged individualism within America, individualism to the point of becoming regard only for their right to act as they want no matter if it harms others or harms the society they live in.

Although I should have known better, I still expected better.

The present teaching the past to me. Again. 

Then the past speaks back. 

America has never risen fully to the occasion.  It has always fallen short of its words and promise. Fallen short in treating all as worthy of respect and support. Fallen short in providing equality and justice for all regardless of race, religion, gender and gender identity.  For a few brief years after the Civil War, despite the attacks and blood, blacks could and did vote, they held elective and appointed offices, segregation in stores and transportation and schools was illegal.  We had started to rise against the angel of our worse instinct.  But, instead, that angel won.  For almost 100 years it won. 

But, and this too history shows, it did not win completely.  The spark was kept alive so that 80 years later we would try to rise again, and do so.  Although, still not completely rising to the ideals of our words, we did become closer to to making them real.

And so too today. Although I had expected so much better than what we got, better still happened.  We still have the opportunity to rise again and close the gap between our ideals and words, and our actions. 

Read Full Post »

Morality, Effective Action, and Hypocrisy

In this blog I plan to pose a question, one whose answer I am not totally sure of.  The question is one of long standing for me, but one which I had not thought on for awhile.  Until now, when reading the new biography of Jimmy Carter, “His Very Best”  by Jonathan Alter, reminded me of it.

In this biography Mr. Alter goes over Jimmy’s life and, more relevant here, his rise to political power in Georgia.  Throughout his life, Jimmy lived with blacks. In fact, early in his life, he live in an area that was much more black than white.  They were an integral part of his life, with him having many black friends. One black woman even became a formative influence upon him as great as his mother.  And while he was personally against racism in any form, for a long time he was quietly so, rarely speaking out or taking action.

Those engaged in racist speech and actions were often friends and family that he had grown up with.  Also, as he took over and grew his business, the continued success of that  business was dependent upon the good will of the community. A very small town one.  And then, of course, came his political ambition. An ambition that in the beginning would have died an early death had he taken an overt stand against racism and for the Civil Rights movement. 

During this time he would not join in overtly racist actions or join such groups, but he would also not speak out and denounce them either. While not condemning them, he also did not support a local mixed race community when they were being ostracized and the area refused to sell them food and necessities. His church, where he was a deacon, decided to ban all blacks and civil rights agitators from even entering and, while he voted against this policy (his business was boycotted for a short period of time for this), he did not stop attending the church when the vote when against him.  When MLK came to the area, he made no effort to attend any of the rallies or speak out in support of them. Nor any other Civil rights protests.   He was a good friend of a local sheriff whom many in the civil rights movement (Plains was one of the hotbeds of the movement) said was worse than Birmingham’s Bull Connor. 

Jimmy publicly supported George Wallace, the Alabama governor, without endorsing his racism.  In fact, when running against a former governor, Jimmy used his opponent’s decision to stop Wallace from speaking in the state against him in order to get the racist votes.  And while not explicitly endorsing racism during his campaign for Governor of Georgia he often used code words that his audience understood. 

But that changed when he was elected governor. Jimmy came out of the closet.  In his inaugural speech he let Georgia know his true beliefs. 

“The test of a leader is not how well he campaigned but how effectively he meets the challenges and responsibilities of his new office….. I say to you quite frankly that the time for racial discrimination is over. Our people have already made this major and difficult decision. No poor, rural, weak, or black person should ever have to bear the additional burden of being deprived of the opportunity of an education, a job, or simple justice.”

This took most of his racist supporters by total surprise. Many of the state senators who had supported him left during the speech.  Some called Carter “That n… loving bastard”.

Within days of being sworn Jimmy had hired Georgia’s “first-ever black woman senior state official”, “expanded the number of blacks serving on state boards and commissions from three to fifty-five”, appointed “Georgia’s first-ever black county judge” and named a black as “the first African American member of the Georgia Board of Regents”. Jimmy started meeting with and helping civil rights leaders, including the father of MLK and his wife.  He made it a point to bring black state troopers to country club events, forcing them to integrate since he would not force the troopers to eat outside.  And more.  On the environment, on ethics in office, and on many other issues he was ahead of his time. 

My question and quandary here is, does all of the good that he did and the causes he promoted since becoming governor justify all the times he was silent and did little to nothing in regards to race before becoming governor?  Does the harm created by Jimmy’s silence and actions outweigh the good done when he became governor? 

This is, of course, just a particular example of the more general question of “does the ends justify the means?” 

Many people strongly believe that abuses and wrongs should be resisted publicly and loudly whenever they are encountered.  That speaking truth to power, so to speak, is a necessity. Injustice needs to be actively resisted and opposed every time. 

However, in the context of the times and place – Georgia in the 1960s and early 70s – such people would not have been able to be elected.  Not even close. So, in that case, what would be the moral thing to do? 

To my mind this whole question is framed too simplistically.  And too short termed.

In this world there are few absolutes when it comes to human behaviors, actions, institutions, creations. In fact, other than my own statement here, I seriously doubt that there are any absolutes.  And that includes the question of whether the means justify the ends.  Which means that instead of a yes or no answer, a black and white answer, a true or false answer, you need an essay answer. An essay that looks at several factors in making a determination.  

• Do the actions or nonactions taken allow the continuance of the evil or do they actively promote and increase it?
• How evil are the evils going on? And yes, there are degrees of evilness. 
• How good are the ends? 
• Is the evil done a short term evil done in order to gain a long term good? 

Obviously this is all going to result in a large amount of grey, with each action/nonaction having to be determined individually. And with a great deal of disagreements on the conclusion of such. 

A consequence of this that is not often looked at is that we are all hypocrites.  Politicians especially so, but all of us too.  It is almost a part of the human condition in our large complex societies, and perhaps the smaller ones too.  Now, while hypocrisy is something that is wrong and should be avoided, it should not be avoided at all costs. The real question in regards to hypocrisy is are they, and us, hypocrites for the right reasons.   

One final thought here, this is not meant to imply that speaking out at all costs and every time against a perceived evil and injustice is wrong, or that those who do so are foolish or idealistic.  We very much need such in order to keep pressing ahead.  They are the motivators, the gadflies.  The calculating hypocrite LBJ needed the idealism of MLK speaking truth to power in order to pass the landmark Civil Rights laws. Without both, change would not have happened. 

Read Full Post »

Civil War?

Civil War? 

For the last couple of years I have seen many predictions and speculations about a possible Civil War again.  In broadest terms, this would be one based on those who support trump and liberals.   I had always downplayed it, and was very skeptical of such happening. So much so that I never really bothered to deal with why I was skeptical. 

Today though, after seeing how trump and his allies are setting up a narrative in which they can denounce the election should trump lose, and at the response from liberals and many independents in regards to the many difficulties being erected by trump and the Republicans on voting, both by mail and in person, I thought it worth looking at in a bit more detail. 

First off, let me state one thing that is exceedingly unlikely – a break up of the United States along regional lines, a la the Confederacy.  Yes, there is a divide between rural and urban areas. But, there is too much intermixing between the two for a clean break to occur. Look at the voting within each state and area, there is usually around 40% of more who voted for the non-winning side.  Often it is in the high 40s.   

However, even more importantly, during our Civil War, there was already a clear geographic division between the two sides, those promoting slavery and those willing to at least limit it.  This geographic division included political structures – executive, legislative, judicial – already in place, making a rebellion easier.  In other words, states. Further, other than some military bases there was very little federal activity – institutions, money, etc. – within those states.  Today though, this has obviously changed.

All of which make a Civil War resulting in a geographical break up of the what would then become the former United States very unlikely.  However, a Civil War resulting in a change of government might be a possibility.  A more real possibility than I had believed a year ago.  I had thought it possible, in fact, probably likely that we would see violence and rioting, along the line of what happened in the 1960s, but not Civil War.  Obviously I have rethought that. 

First though, a very quick bit about the differences between riots and Civil War and Revolutions. 

Riots are not really organized.  Revolutions try to overthrow the government.  Civil Wars try to control the government.  This is a short, simple guide that papers over the disputes and grey areas in defining these terms, but one that is adequate for the purposes of this blog. 

So, what has changed between a year ago and today that has caused me to think that the possibility of anything more dangerous than rioting  may be an actual probability now?  Mainly, trump’s actions, often with Republican support, at not only creating but acting upon a narrative in which the only way he loses is if widespread fraud occurs.  And his followers totally believe it. 

Now, such has always been an on going reality of American politics, but today it is much more comprehensive than before.  And, more importantly, you have a focus for it, one that has political power, trump.  trump, a president who is not only not denying such conspiracy building, but helping to shape and foster it.  A man, an unprincipled, egotistical, narcissistic populist  who is trying to subvert all the institutions of our government to keep himself in power.   A man who is very unlikely to give up the presidency. 

Instead, he will use the power of his presidency as he is doing now to try to claim fraud and deep state conspiracy and claim he is the winner and will stay on as president.  What’s worse, is that many republicans will support him and do the same.  Which means that there is very little possibility that they will accept any result of an election other than a trump win. 

Which means when he loses, his followers will support him, actively and, most probably, violently.  They will do so because they believe that:

Our election process is rife with fraud, not only in regards to mail in ballots but fraud of all sorts.

Our cities are rife with violence and carnage. So much so that even Afghanistan is now safer. 

The deep state is out to get the representative and defender of the people, and even using a not so dangerous pandemic to crash the economy to do so. 

So, I believe that there will be violence when trump loses.  And, that such violence may even wind up becoming a Civil War.  However, despite all of this, while I think the possibility of a Civil War uncomfortably greater than before, I still think the odds are against it.  Why?  Let me refer you to my down and dirty differences between a riot and Civil War – organization. 

The reason for this is organization. trump and his family cohort have neither the organizational skills nor the discipline and work ethic to create such an organization.  Exploit the media, yes. Create an organization that can coordinate, create objectives and goals, develop strategy – no. 

And the Republicans around him, while they might have such skills, are using it largely within the system.  The outside edges of it at too many times, but still within the system.  I do not see them taking the steps needed to be able to support a Civil War.  Especially since the Republicans will also be very divided on this.  They will obstruct, confuse and try to use the courts and other governmental organization to try to overturn this election  But, when they lose, I do not see the organization needed for Civil War coming from them. 

So, my bottom line prognostication – trump loses, a very good chance the Senate may flip, and the democrats maintaining a comfortable control of the House.  I see court challenges and violent rhetoric.  I see demonstrations and possible rioting on the part of trump’s followers, with likely counter ones by those on Biden’s sides.  Worse case, I see deaths and destruction, fire and blood which may continue on for years.  However, at the end of it all, come noon on January 20, 2021, we will have a new president.  And no Civil War. 

Read Full Post »

Friendships Among Differences; Ellen and W, Gays and War Crimes

Part 1 of a Two in One Blog

Gay Rights

The recent Ellen DeGeneres/Bush picture and semi-controversy has caused me to wonder something; when do the differences that divide us become so large that they require a severing of the ties that bind us? For myself, I have family and friends who are racists and against gay marriage, yet I enjoy and love them. Some even support trump.  Should I then cut all ties with them, or, start to berate them? When do I cut ties and spurn those I liked, was friends with, love? Where is that Rubicon? Further, let me consider a closely related but still separate question of when should we criticize those who tolerate those we would not? Let me note that I am not writing this from a standpoint of a society, but that of individuals, individuals who have friends who are not exactly like them.

Along with this is the question of why this seems to be applied rather haphazardly. Consider the fact that Michelle Obama and W. Bush are also friends. Yet, I have not heard this level of criticism of Michelle in regards to her friendship with Bush. Not even close. Why?

A couple of things of interest I have noted in the comments on the posts about the Ellen/Bush friendship is how some people attempt to explain this friendship. Some say riches and wealth overcome the differences in politics. However, I don’t see that. Are all rich people friends? From what I have seen they are not. No more so than all poor people are friends, or all atheists are friends, or all gays are friends and so in in whatever grouping you want to divide people up. Yet, that is what I am asked to believe with this explanation of their friendship.

Another phrase I have read, in various forms, is the Dilemma of Tolerance. This refers to the argument that too much tolerance can lead to the destruction of the tolerant society. Now, this has more truth to it than does the rich all hang together. However, it brings up the question of how much tolerance is too much?  And, does what apply to a society as a whole also apply to individual?

And then let me ask, what does it mean to tolerate?  Does it mean silent acceptance or can tolerance include speaking out on the differences and making your views known too?

Now, there are extreme cases where the argument that something cannot be tolerated is easily seen and widely agreed upon: encouraging and organizing violence up on a person or group of people for example. However, what about those far more numerous times when you are not being asked to tolerate something that extreme?

Some say it is when the beliefs pose an existential threat.  OK, I can see that. However, define existential threat. Does having racist views count as an existential threat? Such views are not usually about exterminating a group. Further, there are degrees of racist views, from believing that blacks are inferior in every way to whites, to believing that blacks are equal to whites but are more prone to violence, to being lazy, to not seeing the racism that is inherent in the structure of our society and blaming all the problems of blacks solely on black culture.

Further consideration in regards to my racism question and its existential threat – does the fact that the person not see themselves as being racist matter? Or the fact that in their day to day interactions with  everyone they treat each person the same regardless of race?

Some Christians  consider the fact that I am an atheist an existential threat. So, should they cut all ties to me (I do have some very right wing Christian relatives whom I am friendly with)? They haven’t. And I haven’t cut all ties to them even though I believe that were their views and positions to be fully implemented it would be a threat to me and my family.

To bring this back to Ellen and Bush, looking at Bush’s record, he was against gay marriage and did support a Constitutional amendment making marriage a thing between a man and woman only. On the flip side, he also supported state laws creating civil unions for gays. He also was against “kicking gays” and worried that his refusing to do so would lose him support among his evangelical supporters, but still believed that Republicans should not be “kicking gays”.  He has also done the most of any US President to deal with AIDS in Africa with his Pepfar initiative, creating one of the largest global health initiatives in history. And from what I see of him personally, he seems a warm and caring human being, a good man.

One other question to consider here. Does it make a difference in how that person holds that belief? Does the fact that they might bring it forth only when voting and in conversations when the topic comes up make a difference?  Or does the cut off come when they are very open about it and bring it up? Or when they energetically try to convert those who do not believe the same?

So, what is the dividing line, when are the political positions held by a person of such weight that they must crush any possible friendship that might once have been?

Surprise!  I don’t know.

I think for most issues and politics  it is going to be up to the individual. It is up to them based on their past history with that person, the nature of what binds them, the nature of what divides them, and their interactions. For myself, in the vast majority of cases, I am not going to criticize those who are friends with someone who holds a fundamentally different political belief and I am not going to say they are hypocrites. They are not. They are just friends.

Part 2

War Crimes

I had just finished this blog when I noticed that many were criticizing the Ellen/Bush friendship on the basis of Bush being a war criminal.  I had approached this based on the differences in regards to gay rights.  Feeling a bit irritated at the extra research and time I was now going to have to devote to this blog, and concerned that I might have to change my initial position, I started the research.

My initial plans were to look at what are war crimes, their nature, their scope, and if there were different types. Then I would take a look at the specifics in Bush’s case.  And after gathering all of this I would mix and stew and consider what it all meant, especially in regards to world leaders and the impact decisions of the powerful can have, both intentional and unintentional.

I started doing this research, and thought I was going to have to have two separate blogs. However, it turns out I had an epiphany, one that meant I did not have to finish all of that research (although I have done enough to have some initial and loosely held opinions, but those are not relevant now to this topic).  I realized that it is not so much the differences between the people who are friends that matter, but how those differences are handled.  This was something that was implied in my first part above, but now developed a bit more.

To me, whom a person is friends with and not friends with doesn’t matter. I do not want anyone telling me or criticizing me for my choice of friends. Why should I then not provide the same courtesy to others who have made different choices? Even if the friend is a war criminal, KKK, Nazi. Even if the person is Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.

What matters is how do those differences effect you and your actions.  Do you cease to speak up for causes and things you once spoke up about because they run counter to the views held by your friend? Do you cease to criticize those whose views you consider immoral and dangerous and wrong because they are the views of your friend?  Do you have to become someone you are not, or hide parts of who you are due to your friendship?

If so, then your friendship is wrong. If not, then that is your business and your business only.

So, it seems that I do have to modify part of my views in the first part. Even extreme views are not sufficient cause for criticizing a friendship.

One final thought. We have always lived in a divided country.  However, today is one of those times where the divide has grown larger than most, and when finding ways to move forward seems more difficult. One of the best ways to change hearts and minds is through friendships.  Consider the case of Daryl Davis, black blues musician and friends to hundreds of KKK members.

I acknowledge that such results are not going to be frequent. But, I think such provide a bit of hope for our future, and even if they don’t change minds totally, perhaps they can modify that mind and thus make the gap more narrow.  Or, at least, the conversation more civil with each side recognizing the other as human. That would be a start.

Read Full Post »

And Now For Something Totally Different

My last four blogs have been dissecting a particular conspiracy meme. It will take several more blogs to finish that dissection – in addition to being a very ugly frog, it is a big one too. Given the number of blogs this dissection is taking I thought it would be nice to give it a break and provide an intermission blog about something totally different.   When I started this blog, this paragraph, I knew in general what I wanted to do, and had hoped by the time I finished this paragraph I would have figured out the particulars.  Hmmm, it seems the teleprompter of my mind is blank.

 

 

 

That’s OK though, cause I know most everything. I have people that tell me that all the time, “Bill, you are a know it all.”.  I am well read and have a commanding vocabulary. As well as presence. And boy, have I gotten some presents in the past, some really wonderful presents, really really wonderful.  Big shoes for one.  It was a  really big shoe, given as a present, a wonderful present. Not like Obama when he had shoes thrown at him when he visited Tehran the capital of Iraq.  Wow, and he just took it. Sad. Really sad.  By the way, have I mentioned that I have really big hands.  Really big.  And crowds, boy do I get crowds. No one gets crowds the way I do. At the mall on Christmas eve or tax free days, I am in some of the best and biggest crowds.

 

 

 

Trump. Some, well many. At least a few, although it could have been many. Yesterday or somewhat before, I was told that I talk too much about Trump. Trump, Trump, Trump….Trumpity up Trump, Trumpity Trumpity Trump an orange skinned hair ran up the clock, Trumumpumlumpa,  Trumpster Dumpster.  That’s for those who say I talk too much about Trump.  Just say that again and there is more where that came from.  Persnickety.

 

 

 

I know it may look like I am aimlessly wandering but remember, not all who wander are lost. This is really just a wonderfully concise and well put together blog. With a big rack and fine ass.  Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, you got your feelings hurt.  Well, guess what, unless you agree with me you should get your feelings hurt.  They should be stomped on, trampled, stabbed and flamed!  After all, everyone knows I have the best thoughts, the best opinions, the best ideas and the absolutely best words.  Even God knows that. He comes to me for advice sometimes. But don’t worry. I believe in free speech. A great god given right. But, if you disagree with me, that is not free speech. That will cost ya.

 

 

 

Yeah, I know I mentioned God and that I have in the past claimed to be an atheist – and I am, I never ever have to change my positions cause they are always right, and always so comfortable with a soft young woman, the younger the better, or Ivanka. Although she has gotten old now.

 

 

No, it is not a contradiction.  That is a fake claim. There is not a Christian bone in my body, and I never refer to God.  Go back and read my words, I did not say God.  I’ll explain it to you later. Right now look over there. Is that Yucca tree?  I think it is. Look at the way the branches bend down and its green soft leaves and everything. The branches are almost touching the ground in fact.  Yeah, you don’t see Yuccas here much. Believe me, I know all about Yuccas.

 

 

 

What, you don’t think I know what that word means!  Hah. I know lots of words. And they always mean exactly what I chose them to mean, neither more nor less. It is a piss poor person who lets words tell him what they mean. And I am not piss poor.  Got plenty of piss.

 

 

 

Lets see. Over 700 words.  Good enough. Not good to have too much different. Everything should be the same as much as possible. That is when America is great – go to the past to go to the future?  White stands for purity you know. That is good. Lots of white left here at the bottom as it should be. The foundation of our great country you know.  Lots of white between the black above too.  Gotta keep them separated, confined and in their place you know.  And all those dirty snowflakes can just deal with it or melt away and go back to where they came from.

 

 

And that’s all folks.

 

 

Oh, don’t I wish.

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »