Hoods in the Hood: A Robin Hood Variant

You know the tale.  Good King Richard was off fighting Muslims and his wicked brother, King John, took over in his absence, seeking wealth for himself at the expense of what in feudal times was already a very poor population.  John gathered up the properties of other nobles while they were off on the Crusades, and through his hatchet man, the Sheriff of Nottingham, levied heavy taxes on the poor, hard-working serfs.  Robin of Loxley returns from the Crusades, finds his lands claimed by King John, and gradually puts together a band of others who have lost everything.  They hide in Sherwood Forest and begin to steal from the rich.  What made Robin such a noble and lasting folk-hero is that he gave the wealth he stole to the poor people of Nottingham.  Once Richard returned, King John and the Sherriff were outed and peace returned to Nottingham and the surrounding fiefdoms.

The story could have been very different, however.

If King John were as astute as modern day politicians, he would have assembled criers, or spokespeople, to go from town to town, fiefdom to fiefdom, to convince the commoners that Robin was really a thief with no good merits at all.  John would enlist the help of clergymen like Friar Rush, Bishop Bannon, and Father O’Reilly to provide a steady stream of misinformation about Robin.  Among the claims made by John’s henchmen was that Robin was out to do them in by importing Muslim labor.  Not at all true, but a source of fear and concern to the locals.  They argued that the only way life would improve for the poor was to allow the rich to maintain their wealth so that they could support the poor.  Again untrue, but widely promoted.  And finally, that Robin was only interested in helping those who were not willing to help themselves so any support Robin received meant less support for the hard working poor of Nottingham.  Again not true, but because it connected with the fears of the poor, uneducated serfs, was widely believed.

Sadly, more and more of the poor began to believe these liars and friars.  Anger began to grow against Robin.  His deeds, once seen as heroic, were now viewed as promoting the wrong causes.  Many poor hardworking people came to believe they would be better off supporting King John.  King John’s priests even claimed that Robin was not of noble birth and that he was in fact a Muslim.  Robin clearly had some converted Muslims and Africans among his band and racial tensions were used to undermine Robin’s support.

Eventually, John’s PR efforts paid off.  More poor working serfs supported John than supported Robin.  Anglo Supremacists arose to stop Robin.  Wealthy clergy continued to bash Robin from the pulpit.  Rush, Bannon and O’Reily continued to harp at every public meeting.

New groups formed to stop Robin.  They went into Sherwood to root out Robin’s band.  They were hoods in the Hood.  They attacked Robin on every front and gradually Robin’s ability to steal from the wealthy to support the poor came to an end.  John argued that Robin should go to prison and many of the poor agreed with him.

Finally, Robin was vanquished and John took total control.  The poor who supported John seemed glad.  Until a year or two later they realized that no one was stopping King John from taking all their wealth again and that the richest in the land grew richer while the poor were suffering more and more.  Too late, they gave control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches to John who simply used all this new power to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. 

Robocare ended and the poor suffered even more.  As Robin was marched off to prison he cried, “Follow the Money!  See who benefits!” and he was not heard from again, defeated by the Hoods of the Hood. 

Fireable Offense?

So Jemele Hill, an ESPN Black female sports anchor, tweeted that Donald Trump is a white supremacist. Then Sarah Huckabee, the White House spokesperson, calls Hill’s behavior a fireable offense.  I find this interesting, amusing and scary on so many levels.

So, are those the rules by which we play?  If you say good things about the President you remain in his good graces.  If you say bad things about the President you should be punished.  That is absolutely absurd and contrary to any sense of the right to have one’s own opinion and share it.  What sort of freedom does that promote?  Trump freedom from verbal attack and ridicule?  Please.  If we followed the same rules for everyone, then Trump should be fired for labels he placed on Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, Glenn Beck, Joy Behar, Ruth Ginsburg, and on and on.  (Check out the 365 people, places and things Trump has insulted since becoming President:  https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html?mcubz=1.)  The truly ridiculous part of all of this is that Trump’s insults are not backed up by facts.  Hill’s are.  And, Sarah Huckabee should be fired for her comments about Hill.  This kind of circular logic only works in a state where the leader is immune to questioning and second-guessing.  Such a state is not free.  Such a state is not a democracy.  Such a state does not have the Bill of Rights. 

The problem is bigger than that.  We appear as a nation to have devolved to a position that simply states think like me or get out of here.  I find that horrifying.  Why isn’t Colin Kaepernick an NFL quarterback this year?  He thinks differently than the owners.  He protested during the playing of the National Anthem.  Imagine:  A professional football player legally protesting and he becomes a pariah in his profession.  Yes, he upset a lot of people, people who think differently than Kaepernick.  So?  The majority perspective rarely needs to protest, that is why protest is protected in the Constitution.  But because Kaepernick does not think like he is supposed to think he is unhireable, which is tantamount to fireable.

Brooke Baldwin, a CNN commentator, ordered the microphone turned off and ended an interview with a panelist who said he believes in the First Amendment and Boobs.  Brooke was horrified.  How dare he say such a thing on her show and in 2017?  She totally disagrees with his attitude toward women, so she kicks him off the show.  Brooke entirely missed the point.  She violated the First Amendment by removing a person with an alternative view.  Even more interesting to me is when I did a search on Brooke and found an entire series of pictures of her clearly flaunting cleavage.  That’s fine.  But to take offense when a man says “boobs" while displaying your own is pretty hypocritical to me.

Fans at Fenway displayed a banner that read, “Racism is as American as Baseball.”  They were kicked out of the park.  Should people have the right to express what they think?  I think so.

I do not agree with Colin Kaepernick.  I do not agree with the panelist on CNN.  I do not agree with the insults Trump has thrown around at almost everyone.  I do not agree with the fans at Fenway.  I do happen to agree with Jemele Hill.  Does not matter.  Is it safe for me to have an opinion different from the opinion of those I work for or wish to work for?  If it is not safe, then I am not truly free.  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say I am a Christian as it is to say I am an atheist?  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say “Impeach Trump” as it is safe for me to say “Support Trump”?  Is it as safe for me to stand on a street corner and say that I think women are inferior to men, should obey men and exist as sex objects for men as it is for me to stand on a street corner and say I believe women are equal to men and in some ways superior? 

In a free society freedom of speech and freedom to protest are hallmarks of freedom. 

I remember a school board member telling me that the superintendent of schools should reflect the community values.  That sounds reasonable, but it isn’t.  Suppose a professional educator is in a community that does not value academics?  Suppose a professional educator is in a community that wants to punish kids for looking different?  Suppose a professional educator is in a community where there is no vision for students after high school?  Suppose a professional educator is in a Republican community that supports charter schools, vouchers, increases accountability, decreased funding, etc.  Should a real professional educator reflect those values or should he or she serve as a catalyst to question those values. 

When “right think” rules the day, liberty and freedom get fired.  I disapprove of what you say, I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.  (Probably Voltaire)

Liberal Assumptions

Just did a piece on the false assumptions that underlie the conservative agenda in the US.  I missed some, I know.  I will miss some in this piece as well.  My effort is to state as clearly as possible the basic tenets of my liberalism.

So, I’m a liberal.  A lot of people are liberal, but we tend to be less vocal than conservatives in church or leaning on the back of a pick-up truck.  It has been my experience that conservatives do not respond well when their thinking or beliefs are challenged.  I live for the day when a conservative turns to me and asks, “So Bob, what do you think?”  So in the event that may happen someday I should be prepared to answer.  This is what I think:

Human beings on planet earth have historically been ruled by tyrants, those tyrants identified by lineage and/or birth, or by force of arms when one army conquered another army.  Tyrants had the habit of acting tyrannical, that is they insisted that everyone should think like them, have the same religious beliefs they have, look like them, act like them, totally support them, and hold the tyrant in some sort of special esteem, sometimes even worship.  Punishment was swift and sometimes fatal.  What is the fun of being a tyrant if you are not the boss and can say “off with their heads” if someone disagrees with you?  By definition, tyrants tend to be the wealthiest people in their fiefdom because they simply take what they want.  Not all tyrants have been evil and many attempted to better the life of their subjects.  But even in such a benevolent tyranny many were at risk if they were not sycophants; brown-nosers or boot lickers.  So for the thousands of years of human history people have lived under the heel of military or birthright tyrants and religiously believed whatever the tyrant believed.  Some tyrants set themselves up as a god, some simply said god was a turtle or a cow.  Whatever, human lives were dictated by the dictator.

Then along comes Rene Descartes, an amazing French philosopher and Mathematician.  In the simplest terms Descartes said human life should be grounded in reason and science. "Cogito ergo sum," I think, therefore I am.  He was a brilliant mathematician, but his lasting impact is that he is the founder of modern day western philosophy.  Influencing Hume, Spinoza, Leibniz, Hobbes and others, he initiated the age of reason.  Tyrants should have trembled everywhere.

Especially when John Locke came along.  Locke was born in 1632, just 5 years before Descartes published his first philosophy.  Locke expanded Descartes thinking to include the notion that human beings are born free and equal, therefore, monarchs and kings have no justification to rule.  Wow.  He argued that individual consent should be the bedrock of all governments.  Read that to say, Democracy. 

I cannot stress enough that Locke’s philosophy promoting reason, science, individual human equality, and consent of the governed as the only legitimate form of government was the most radical, liberal thought of the day.  Nowhere was there such a government.  Everyone was ruled by a tyrant.  The simple thought that humans are equal at birth and that each human should participate in granting consent to the government was way out in left field.  Only the most liberal scholars of the day were willing to take his notions seriously because such notions meant replacing tyrants with individually selected leaders and policies endorsed by the governed. 

Among those who took him most seriously were Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.  These men crafted the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the US Constitution in 1789.  Both documents are firmly grounded in Locke’s philosophy.  Both documents stress the rights of every person, the equality of every person, the requirement that government governs only with the consent of the governed and that democracy was the fundamental form of such a government.  It is hard to describe what a shock it was to the world that a nation would be born following these premises.  It was so left-field that no one suspected it would work, much less last.

All of this is simply to say that the USA began with the notions of equality, the notions of democracy, the notions of seeking the consent of the governed, the notion that neither birth-right nor military force can be the basis of legitimate governments, and guarantees that the government would never infringe on the citizens’ rights to believe what they want to believe, say what they want to say, protest against the government, never be at risk of the government falsely accusing them or falsely imprisoning them, nor could any citizen be forced to testify against himself, and against the government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures of properties.  The colonists had experienced all these things and more under British rule and wanted to ensure that they would be safe in their person and property under a new government.  The very notion that government should be limited is profound.  The notion that individual human rights should be sacrosanct is groundbreaking.  The US of A began as a liberal bastion for the world.

So, what are my liberal assumptions?  First, all people are created equal.  Rich, poor, Anglo, Black, Christian, Muslim, atheist, men, women, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc., etc.  We are all created equal.  None of these identifiable groups holds a birth-right superiority to any other group.  When a liberal hears anyone proposing discrimination against any identifiable group, the liberal is outraged.  That is how it was before 1776; that is not how it is meant to be since then.  Our history is a march toward more and more civil liberties protecting every group from suppression.  At least, that has been our history until very recently.  We regress if we hire or do not hire people based on whether they think, believe or look like me, or of we hire people because they share a similar lineage.  That is old school.  The American school is we hire people based on the quality of their performance.

Secondly, there must be an impenetrable wall between religious beliefs and the government.  Never, ever should the government imply that one belief system is superior or inferior to another.  The inherent right of each human to decide what he or she believes regarding gods, afterlife, holy texts, etc., is purely an individual right and the government must stay out of it altogether.

Thirdly, government officials and governmental policies must be based on reason, rational thinking and our best science.  To base policies on antiquated or self-centered belief systems is not meant to be a part of this democracy.  So, evolution is real, climate change impacted by human behavior is real, a woman’s right to control her reproduction, etc. etc. are all liberal beliefs based on science.  Anyone who would argue that those beliefs should not form the basis of policy are arguing that their own religious beliefs should be held in higher esteem than someone else’s beliefs.  Such an argmument o a liberal is un-American.  Asking for your 10 commandments to be erected in governmental spaces, and asking that governmental employees lead others, much less children, in a prayer that is clearly supportive of one belief over another is a horror.

And finally, that while the government must protect individual liberties it must also protect the safety and well-being of its citizens.  That is a governmental function, not a free market function.  Monitoring and regulating production is the same as maintaining a standing army.  Both are government functions.  Maintaining a free public education is more important than providing entrepreneurs the right to siphon off tax dollars for private sector education as in charter schools and vouchers.  Liberals do not believe that the free market, free enterprise, or whatever, is a good way to promote the equality of all.  In fact, as the gap between the rich and poor in this nation grows and grows it appears it is a terrible solution from a governmental perspective.  Is health care a way the government should protect citizens?  A liberal would say absolutely.  The private sector has made some very rich while so many go without the protection of health care.

Those are for me, at least the big 4 liberal assumptions.  It remains hard for me to understand discrimination, especially government sanctioned discrimination, against any group.  It remains hard for me to see a difference in our military protection, our health care protection and the provision of public education all of which are fundamental foundations of a democracy.  And I am deeply, deeply concerned whenever I hear a follower of one religious belief system advocate that everyone should follow their belief system.  Individual rights are not measured by majority vote, if so, all of us in Texas would have to be Catholic.  In a democracy, the majority may feel empowered to act as tyrants and that is blocked by the Bill of Rights.

I bet there are more liberals out there than you imagine.  At least if you are a conservative you should be able to argue that you are not biased against liberals, and the proof is you know one.

The False Assumptions of Conservatives

It is highly likely that this post is merely a report on my own self-inflicted angst.  After all, I live in Texas, the home of grand illusions, and I actually read Facebook and watch Fox News.  All in all it appears to me that as a nation we have arrived at a position where history and science are ignored and false beliefs form the foundation of our national goals.  I fully recognize the risk in milking the sacred cows and pointing out that the emperor is in fact naked, but there is so much poppycock and balderdash floating around out there that I cannot live with myself if I do not protest.

Many of my friends and acquaintances are conservative.  They vote Republican.  They placed the leadership of Texas and the US in the hands of conservatives and they still lament government action or inaction.  It surely must strike them as at least odd to awaken to a world where conservatives control government and the world grows worse each day.  If not, then they are among those conservatives who would rather not think, would rather not review what we know versus what we believe.  I think the conservative angst exists because conservatives operate on a foundation of false assumptions.  We hear those assumptions from a host of conservative leaders, articulated in ways that imply these are some kind of bedrock truths.  Not so.  So, here I go:

There is an assumption that the United States of America was founded by conservative Christians and based on Christian principles.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Those who left Europe to come here were either fleeing religious persecution or seeking economic opportunities not available in the caste system of Europe.  Nothing scared our founding fathers more than a government attached to a set of religious beliefs.  They railed against it.  They placed that right up front in the Bill of Rights.  Never again should the state persecute citizens based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.  In Europe Anglicans persecuted Catholics and vice versa.  The colonies were populated by French Huguenots, Catholics, Jews, Dutch Calvinists, German Reformed Pietists, Scottish Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, and other denominations all of whom were fearful that the state would declare one of these beliefs as “the” belief.  Add to that widespread belief in astrology, alchemy, and witchcraft and the US was a hodge-podge of pilgrims seeking a safe place to believe what they wanted without state interference, without the state telling them what they should believe.  The very best evidence of this beyond our Constitution is the philosophical statement the Treaty of Tripoli, the earliest statement we have from an act of Congress regarding the relationship of our government to Christianity. This is Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, a Muslim state, in June of 1797, passed unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams:

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Washington, etc., all wrote in clear language that the government should never be based on one religious belief system nor should the government ever act in ways to support one belief system over another.  The assumption that the USA was founded on Christian principles is just flat false.

There are economic assumptions that persist despite the fact they have never, ever worked.  The worst of these assumptions is that if we reduce taxes on the wealthy and on corporations there will be more economic growth.  That has not ever worked.  In fact, every time it has been tried the results have not only been negative they have been nearly disastrous.  Hoover argued that in the 1920’s and we got the Great Depression.  Reagan argued the same thing in the 1980’s and triggered a national debt beyond anything ever seen.  Bush 2 tried that in the first decade of this century and we got the Great Recession of 2008.  Trickle-down economics, supply side economics, whatever moniker is used, does not work.  It does not work for anyone but the wealthy.  Why so many lower and middle income people still believe this is beyond me.  Only those making more than $400,000 per year will benefit from the Republican proposed tax plan.  In simple terms, if one wants the economy to improve and jobs to be created the simple thing to do is to put more money in the hands of more people in the lower areas of our income brackets.  They are the ones who then go to stores, buy homes, etc. and stimulate the economy through increased demand.  The producers will not increase production if no one has money to buy their products.  This assumption is false.

Akin to the supply side nonsense is the government regulation nonsense.  Reagan laughed at the phrase, “I’m from the government and I am here to help.”  That is sarcasm if the government rep is talking to producers.  It is the truth if the government rep is talking to producers on behalf of consumers.  Maximizing income and profit is an incredible motivator and producers will reduce costs if they can to increase revenue.  Safety is expensive.  If you are the only producer working to keep your employees in a safe environment your costs will be higher than every competitor.  If the government requires all producers to practice occupational safety the playing ground is even and workers are safe.  The same is true for securing the safety of our food.  The same is true to protect us from pollution.  The same is true to protect us from harmful ingredients like lead and asbestos.  On and on.  If producers did all that voluntarily there would be no need for regulations.  Producers won’t because it adds to their cost.  Only if they are all required to do it will it happen and be fair.  The same is true of regulations regarding banks, hedge funds, stocks, etc.  If the regulations disappear consumers are put at risk even though those in the financial industry will make more money.  Government regulations are a good thing.  Seat belts, smoke detectors, monitoring pesticides and fertilizers in our rivers, ensuring the safe packaging of our food, etc., etc. are all good things.  To stop any or all of these regulations helps producers make more money and threatens the safety of consumers.  The same false assumption that providing more money to the wealthy and to the producers via taxes proves false for reducing regulations.  Yes, regulations are expensive and a pain to producers.  But reducing birth defects and other societal ills make them worth it.

Wrapped up in all this poppycock is the corollary assumption that the government that governs least, governs best.  Or again from Reagan, “Government does not solve our problems, government is the problem.”  Never has a bigger load of horseshit been dumped on the American public.  So, Harvey hits Texas and Irma hits Florida.  Who do we turn to?  Government.  First responders, FEMA, National Guard, NOAA, Coast Guard are all governmental agencies.  The very conservative governor of Florida was on the television this morning assuring Floridians that the he was from the government and he was there to help.  He talked about all the resources he is bringing to bear, yada, yada, yada.  In times of conflict and times of crisis we always turn to government for help and solutions.  When the economy crashed in 2008 the very first people standing in line at the government trough were the very corporations who contribute to candidates that want to reduce regulations.  They were not shy about accepting government support when they needed it.  They just oppose government support for others when they themselves do not need it.  The more we reduce government regulations, government programs to help the needy, the more hypocritical this assumption becomes when the wealthy need governmental help.  In fact, the only reasons to actually oppose government help is that it costs money, generated by income tax, and these folks are not willing to pay taxes for services they do not need to help people who are in need. 

And finally, for me, the conservative assumption that what I believe to be true is true despite all the evidence to the contrary.  It is anti-intellectual.  It is anti-science.  Such a believe is at best medieval and at worst pre-historic.  I am so sorry, but climate change as a result of human behavior is real.  No matter how much the fossil fuel industry wishes it was not real, it is real.  I am so sorry, but evolution is real.  It is verified over and over and over.  I am so sorry, but the earth is not flat and is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000 years old.  I would argue that if you believe climate change is a hoax, evolution is not real, the earth is in fact 6,000 years old and Donald Trump cares about anyone other than himself, you should be required to forfeit air conditioning, internal combustion engines, cell phones, computers, microwaves, etc., etc.  To taste some of the fruits of the tree of science and then deny the existence of the inconvenient fruits is so hypocritical lightning should strike.

The evidence for everything I have listed above is public knowledge.  It is available to anyone who seeks to find it.  How the wealthy have talked so many working poor, so many hourly workers, and so many Christians into buying this bilk is beyond me.  I remain astounded.  But I also remain convinced that the conservative philosophy is self-serving for the wealthy and is grounded on false assumptions.  If this is a shock to you, I am sorry.  Get your information from somewhere other than Fox News, the pulpit, Brietbart, Rush Limbaugh and the like.  Those folks all have a self-serving, not a people serving, agenda.  Until we become the liberal nation we were set up to be we will continue to struggle.

Perhaps next I should address the basic assumptions of liberalism.

Don't Hate Trump

This is such an interesting political time I cannot sit idly by and watch it unfold sans comment.  The Trump Corollary is in high gear and the impact of the presence of this man in our White House transcends simple models of conservatism and progressiveness.  He has via his own mouth and tweets diminished his possible positive impact on our country and accelerated the impact of base yearnings from those groups who are organized to hate other groups.  Undoing kindness, tolerance, understanding and unity he has poured gasoline on the fire of prejudice, hatred, intolerance and ignorance.  His staff and his party are abandoning his positions not right and left, just right, (the left never supported him).  Most interesting is his loss of support among CEO’s, the military and congressional Republicans.  There apparently is no group Trump is not capable of alienating, and unless your last name is Pence or Conway there are no individuals immune to his attack, including the mother of a murdered protester.  I know it would be safer to deal with loftier issues like Ann Coulter’s leg room on airline flights, but the effect of Trump is like the reverse of the great asteroid impact of 65 million years ago:  species we thought were long extinct have now re-emerged on the political landscape wreaking havoc in a world not prepared for their carnivorous appetites.

I believe the simple phrase, “Make America Great Again” encapsulates what we are now observing.  That phrase carried much meaning to many people in our country.  People who were discontent with progress and change and fearful of where they might stand when the smoke cleared were emboldened by that phrase.  It simply meant we are not great anymore.  We were, but we are not now.  And it means there was a time in our history when we were great.  The theory is we should return to the values and policies of those times and we will be great again.  Sadly, nowhere in our past were we as great as we were in November 2016.  The phrase has also come to mean that nothing done in the previous 8 years has merit and no one of the party of the previous 8 years has any sense.  There are two things Trump prays for at night, a Kenyan birth certificate and Clinton criminal activity verified in emails.  Neither will ever appear.

When were we great?  It appears we were great during Ozzy and Harriet, My Three Sons, Leave it to Beaver and Father Knows Best.  We were great when Anglos married Anglos, slept in twin beds, every household had a working father and a stay-at-home mom, and kids never went without a good school, good clothes and good meals.  Women knew their place.  Blacks knew their place.  Everything was fine. 

Frustrating to me is that so many things were horrible in those days.  Movies and TV did not depict real Americana.  Prejudice was institutionalized.  Women were kept under the thumb and chained to the kitchen sink.  Women were limited to clerical roles in the work place.  Bright women went to college and became nurses or teachers, service roles, not leadership positions.  Black Lists, casting couches, and separate racial bathrooms and water fountains were the realities of those days.  Children and adults with special needs were kept at home.  Pregnant women who were not married went to stay with a relative until birth.  Pregnant school girls were expelled.  No movie studio would cast a Black as a lead, nor a woman.  It was all about the handsome men and the starlets on their arms.  We were sick as a nation and blind to the notion that the phrase “all men are created equal” meant all men regardless of race and religion and gender identity; and all women. 

I think that is the America Trump wants to return.  He Rumpelstiltskinned the last 5 decades.  He awoke as Archie Bunker.  In reality, he is laughable as are the goons and family members surrounding him.  We can never return to those days and I think he must know it even if he longs for it.  I remember science fiction movies of that era and the scientists were all evil.  It was the regular guy who saved the day.  So Trump does not like science and would rather have people with no knowledge, experience, training or skill run the show.  After all, those are his characteristics.

When I think of human civilization over the past 4,000 years I recognize we have come a long way in the technology department, but not so far in the social department.  Early scientists were persecuted for announcing that the earth was round not flat, that the earth orbited the sun, not vice versa, and that life evolves.  It is only in the past 100 years or so that women have gained the right to vote and own property.  154 years ago slavery was legal in this country.  Around the world we still see women forced to cover their heads and faces and denied education, we see an active human trafficking trade, we see blatant racial discrimination and religious persecution.  We have not come so far that we cannot remember those days.

But here we have come far from the days of persecution to arrive at the days of reason and respect.  We must resist the return to those former days with everything we have.  We must confront the dinosaurs who are now apparently roaming free and let them know that their cause is not just immoral, it is extinct.  There are always those who long for what they perceive to be the good old days, but they do so with simple minds and antique memories.  Everyone who believes our best days were in the past should forfeit their cell phones and computers and Novocain.  Our hope is not in the past.  Our hope is in the future.  Don’t hate Trump.  Resist his rear view mirror vision.  Pity him.  Or better, just laugh at him.  Our future is does not lie in racism, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism.  Our best future lies with pushing the boundaries of science while expanding the civil rights of all human beings.

Hi French Readers!

Bonjour lecteurs français !

Si fier que vous lisez mon blog. Je vous remercie. Veuillez envisager après moi.

oneeyedbob

Great Again

It has taken me a while to discern what Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” really means.  Now, 6 months in, I have a better picture of our return to greatness.  Here are some attributes:

Every cabinet position filled by someone who either has no knowledge of the responsibilities in their area or has an ax to grind against the department they now head.  Appointment probability is improved based on familial relationship, blind loyalty and accumulated wealth.  It is a new swamp, but a dumb swamp without expertise or experience.  And, if Rick Perry overseeing our nuclear arsenal doesn’t scare you to death, there is little chance you are upset with the other appointments.

Loyalty to the President is more important than loyalty to the nation, the Constitution, the law.  Heads will roll if appointees are not mind readers or blind supporters. 

A free press is not a safeguard in a democracy, it is an enemy of the President’s agenda.  All news that is critical of the President is “fake news.”

Control of the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress is no guarantee that policy and programs can be passed.

Attacking Obama and Clinton is much more fun than defending chaos, failures and tweets.

If there is good economic news, even if it is good news because of Obama’s actions, claim it as a success.  If there is bad economic news declare such news to be “fake news” or Obama’s fault.  Same holds true regarding foreign policy.

Become the only nation on the planet that does not endorse the Paris Accords which the US initiated in the first place.

Allow gross prejudice and discrimination to return to policy level values, especially regarding immigrants, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, women’s rights, and walls.

Eliminate all the safeguards that were put in place to avoid another great recession. 

Eliminate as many safeguards as possible for workers and the environment.

Demonstrate affinity for dictators and anti-American rulers, and demonstrate discontent with our allies.  Withdraw from a world leadership role as quickly as possible.

Abandon civility. 

Abandon tradition. 

Abandon science. 

Abandon economics. 

Abandon civil rights. 

Abandon public schools and public health.

Abandon support for those that need it the most and provide benefits to those who need it the least.

Abandon transparency.  Refuse to release tax returns and reduce press conferences and briefings.  Rely on Twitter for policy and personnel announcements as well as personal quirks and interpretations of reality.

I may have missed some, but this is the new, Great America, a return to a time before we recognized that the nation was not all white, wealthy, heterosexual males and that a sense of responsibility for our fellow human beings means more than pursuit of wealth.

Too much more of this return to greatness will end us.