Kurt Vonnegut

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have been using the Chester County Library System a lot these last few months. Last week I withdrew three books, two by Toni Morrison, and Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five.

Not exactly sure why I decided to read Vonnegut's book, although I suspect his name may have appeared in one of the articles in the August Atlantic about nuclear weapons.

But first, interesting story. When I searched the adult fiction section for "Slaughterhouse...", I didn't find it even though I had checked before going and knew it was on the shelf. After easily locating the two Morrison books, I asked at the desk where I was told that "Slaughterhouse Five" was in the young adult section. I was intrigued. When I asked why, I was told that it was there because it was included on a the local high school reading list. In retrospect, I guess this shouldn't have surprised me as I am sure I was assigned to read it in high school.

While also at the checkout desk, I asked if they had a banned book section yet. Working on it, was the response When I commented that all three of the books I was checking out would most likely be included when they did establish such an area, the librarian agreed. I told her I would make sure to return them all soon.

Now, of course, as an adult, I would certainly be able to access any of those books, I assume, even in the most backward/aggressive of states which are actively banning books. What is sad however, is that they would not be available to young adults in those places.

Just another reason why it boggles my mind that so many Americans embrace the current surge of ideology that results in ideas being censored. And so the decline continues.

Anyway, as I read "Slaughterhouse...," I was taken back to Mr Topper's English class in high school. Or was it Mr McCabe? I guess it doesn't really matter who lead the discussions, just that it was discussed, although I can't recall any of those classes and analysis.

As I read the book this time, I must say that I was getting a bit tired of the phrase "And so it goes", which Vonnegut uses throughout the book. I actually googled the question, how many times...., and found one answer to be 106 times. Of course, who am I to critique Kurt Vonnegut, but I felt it started to lose its effectiveness after a while. Although, perhaps that was the point.

Anyway, I was most struck by the invention of the Tralfamadorians in the book, especially as it relates to their ability to see in 4D, where the 4th dimension is time, and their perception of death, which is that, for them, there is no death, only experiences, and in no definitive order.

The character Billy Pilgrim, who claims to have been abducted by the aliens, and to have traveled in time many, many times, illustrates the advantages of this concept. While many of us may be adverse to knowing when we are going to die, Billy knows precisely when, and in fact seems to have experienced it, but not as the finale of his life. He even predicts that he is going to die while giving a speech, which leads to him being offered police protection. He declines. And so it goes.

Of course, many people believe that death is not final, believe there is an afterlife. That our life force will go on without the body. Sometimes I wonder how many people actually believe that, despite the high percentage of people who say they do.

I say this because of the plethora of ways humans attempt to lengthen their lives, certainly their youth. I mean the search for the Fountain of Youth is as old a tale as tales themselves. Not to mention the obsession we seem to have for accumulating wealth. Do we forget that you can't take it with you, or do some people really believe that the afterlife has a yardstick for possessions, and that the more you die with, the better cloud you get assigned to?

Perhaps it is the fear of death that makes us scramble, lie, cheat, long for, even sacrifice our morals and principles to gather more and more money. 

I recently expressed my surprise at boomers whose goal is to spend every single dollar they have earned, to purposefully leave their children nothing. Seems a bit selfish, but then again, at least it reflects the understanding that money will not buy one's way into eternal bliss.

Throughout the book, the character Edgar Derby is mentioned. He is found guilty of stealing a teapot in the aftermath of the fire bombing of Dresden which killed more people than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and is shot by a firing squad. 

I imagine the irony of such an act was discussed in those high school classes I attended, and perhaps in today's classes as well. Or is the correct word sarcasm?

The United States military recently blew up a boat traveling from Venezuela to our borders, allegedly carrying drugs. While there may be proof that there was a crime about to be committed, it seems that whomever was on that boat was guilty until proven innocent. Except there was no chance to prove that innocence. 

For a country that values freedom, and the rule of law, and our alleged superior system of justice, there was remarkably little coverage in the media, and very little outrage. A national shrug.

Yet today, a conservative firebrand, someone who has openly expressed anti-LGBTQ and transgender views, who has called for a reversal of gay marriage rights, who considers the passing of the Civil Rights Act to have been a travesty, who supported unproven claims about the 2020 election being stolen, etc, etc, was assassinated in Utah. Since then, he has been lauded by no less than the president as a fine person, loved by ALL (his caps). 

I would imagine that the majority of people he believes (his) God hates didn't love him. Nor should anyone who believes in the phrase "all men are created equal", or even the advice "love thy neighbor as yourself."

Yet, even on MSNBC there are laments that we must not allow political violence to take hold, that there is no place for it in a country such as ours, that all must condemn such barbaric actions.

Unless of course, it is directed at people like those in that boat that was blown away. 

Or against the Capitol police officers who were brutalized on January 6th.

Or against the tens of thousands of Palestinians that have been slaughtered, a large percentage by American bombs. 

Or against any of the "others" that are so easily identified by people like Charlie Kirk, or Donald Trump. People who are now denied medical care, are being kicked out of the military, and who are bullied to such a degree that upwards of 40 percent of them have tried to kill themselves. 

Oh, and by the way. Two students were shot at a school in Denver today. There have already been dozens of shootings in schools and it is only September, but again, a national shrug. 

I don't know if Charlie himself said this, or just agreed with the sentiment but more than once he chided those trying to restrict 2nd Amendment rights, stating that it was ludicrous to think that in a country with such rights there would be no children deaths, or deaths of any innocent person. And that it was worth those sad but inevitable deaths to guarantee those gun rights.

Perhaps we should chalk his death up to that very same belief. Or just shrug, as we do at so many other senseless deaths.

And so it goes. 

 

 

 

Klaatu

 A few days ago, I watched the original "The Day The Earth Stood Still" released in 1951. It was quite different from the more recent version starring Keanu Reeves.

In the original, Earth was visited by Klaatu and Gort to tell us that our foray into atomic weapons was dangerous, to us, but will not be tolerated by the other species of the universe who fear we will expand our use of such weapons beyond our own planet. 

In the remake, Klaatu fears that we are destroying our home planet, and that given Earth is relatively unique in the universe, it must be saved from us.

In both cases, humanity is threatened with destruction if we don't change our actions.

Interestingly, the original ends with Klaatu, having been killed by man yet revived by his robot, after issueing his warning that should we not change, we will be destroyed, flies off in his ship with that ominous warning ringing in the ears of all who were present. 

It is a far less hopeful ending compared to the remake where Klaatu sacrifices himself once he is convinced that humanity is worth saving, is worth being given a second chance.

The other glaring difference in the versions is that the Earth actually stands still in the original. Klaatu is asked to perform some kind of miracle that will demonstrate his power, and he literally stops the flow of energy for thirty minutes. All cars and trains are immobile. Phones don't work. There is a scene where a secretary tells her boss that the phone is out, and he tells her to call the phone company to get if fixed. Not sure if that levity is supposed to indicate the lack of reasoning that humanity has shown to Klaatu, or just the typical attitude of a male boss who expects his woman secretary to provide him with what he requires to conduct business, but regardless, it is a scene of levity that stood out to me, considering the gravity of destruction that Klaatu was trying to convey.

Interestingly, the point is made that energy still flowed in hospitals so that real people did not suffer. 

One similarity between the two versions is that in both, a woman is the first to understand the importance of Klaatu's message. I easily believe that this was purposeful in the remake, but have to wonder about the thinking behind those who made the 1951 version when women were not exactly valued for their logic and intelligence. Still, perhaps that was the point. That humanity needed a burst of understanding, perhaps empathy, to counter its headlong path down the sometimes sterile world of technology, and its advancements, for good and bad.

In some ways, I like the original better. We aren't left off the hook like in the remake. We are presented with the choice, and even though the choice is to change or die, it is our choice, and not the choice of Klaatu who stops the destruction of Earth.

Of course, were there any reality to the premise of the original, those who had sent Klaatu would have returned by now. Whether to reward us for not having sent any atomic weapons into space, or to punish us for continuing to build such destructive weapons, and for using the threat of their use against other citizens of our planet is certainly debatable.

I wrote my own version of this concept, a little over three years ago. Here is a link to that story. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-universal-guild.html 

-----

By the way, if you google Klaatu, you will find a reference to a Canadian band specifically named after the lead character in "The Day..." Apparently for a hot minute there was speculation that the albums they released were actually recorded by the Beatles as the style was similar, at least to some. Of course, there were many who wished the Beatles would reunite, especially in the 1970's, so it is no wonder that so many fans would respond to rumors and innuendo. In fact, the promoters of the band did not deny such speculation, at least until it was definitely proven otherwise.

 

Empathy Revisited

Someone told me recently that I was not as upset as she is about the attack on women's reproductive rights because I am a man.

Initially, I was very hurt by this statement. While I know that I can be condescending to people at times, and that I often use (or try to use) humor to offset difficult or stressful situations and experiences, I was of the opinion that I possessed a fairly advanced sense of empathy for others. That I recognized that "do unto others..." was not just a nice moral guideline, but a trait that advanced society as a whole, or at least did not allow us to easily descend into depths featuring such horrific events as the Holocaust.

However, the fact remains that I am a white male and that I have had the advantages of that simple description (other than the occasional prejudices in the labor market which I experienced when I had mid-back length hair) throughout my life. 

I have won the birth lottery by being born in a country with as much opportunity built into its systems as any other, and being born a white male to boot, a two word category that includes a virtual lock on the power and resources of this very fine country, especially during the first 150 years of its inception. 

Even today, the percentage of the rich and powerful white man, whether in politics or business, exceeds by many times the actual percentage within the entire population.

So, is she right? 

Before answering that question, I thought I would provide links to the other times when I posted about the Birth Lottery. The original, in spring 2010, the revisit in May 2013, and a commentary about indigenous children in June 2023.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/04/birth-lottery.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/05/the-birth-lottery-revisited.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-birth-lottery-and-native-americans.html 

--- 

So, I think the answer is that she is right, but also wrong. 

I think that in the aggregate, history shows that it is possible for white men to have empathy for other demographics. After all, the 19th Amendment, which recently celebrated its 125th anniversary since passage, was passed by white men in America's Congress. As was the Civil Rights Legislation, although there were some women and people of color representing the electorate in Congress by then.

Do those accomplishments erase the decades of suppression, the years of brutality? Certainly not. But perhaps those actions, while tacitly endorsed by the majority by the power of not seeing, were only perpetrated by a small percentage of individuals. That in general, white men were able to empathize, to improve life for people not like themselves, despite the actions of some very horrible individuals.

Sadly, that would have been my answer in the past. Perhaps even the recent past, but past nonetheless.

Now, however, I believe that the script has flipped. With the advent of Trump's white man victimization tour, it no longer feels that in general we are capable of putting ourselves into the shoes of our fellow Americans who are non-white and/or non-male, let alone the vast populations across the planet who are also deemed less than human. 

There are certainly specific white men, millions of them in fact, who have not lost touch with their ability to empathize. But whereas I believe it was a small set of men who were responsible for the rampant prejudice and withholding of opportunities for women and people of color, too many white men today accept that undocumented immigrants should be rounded up and incarcerated, and that women should not have the choice to carry to term or abort their pregnancy. 

We should know better, but have chosen to fail to recognize that what is going on is the exact opposite of what our alleged Judeo-Christian ethic teaches, what Christ's sermons instruct us as to how to behave towards one another.

Men who otherwise love their families, have worked hard all their life, pay their taxes, go to church, yet are seemingly incapable of accepting that part of the reason for their success is their race and gender, and the advantages that have come there way, through no effort on their part, but just simply because they won the birth lottery. 

And then discount that advantage when opining about those who didn't.

Now, of course, they don't look at it that way. They prefer to believe that all their accomplishments occurred due to their work ethic, or intelligence, both of which could also be included as traits we inherit, that we are provided by the randomness of the birth lottery. 

The funny thing is, they are right, to a degree, as not every white male achieves success or fame or wealth, so they do deserve credit for "making it". I don't begrudge them that, even congratulate them for their accomplishments.  

But that doesn't change the simple fact that for most of history, men have enjoyed greater benefits simply due to their gender, and that white men in particular, for all of America's existence.

And that the failure to recognize this edge equates to a severe shortage or empathy. 

So, where do we go from here?

Is this just a temporary swing of the pendulum away from the progress that has been made in the last 100 years? 

If we consider the whole of history, the ebbs and flows that have transpired during the course of humanity, then it seems obvious that this is just another blip. 

That, like the horrors of WW1 and WW2, when soldiers as well as civilians were just so many pawns in the struggle for power, and the goal of victory, no matter what the cost, we eventually ended those conflicts, and now countries that were once enemies, are now friends.

That, like the atrocities of the various genocides that have occurred throughout the globe, the killings ceased, just as we hope that they might end soon in Palestine and Ukraine.

That the slow progression of humanity's spiritual growth will somehow get us through these crises, so that one day we might look upon today's horrors with the same rational that allows us to consider past human against human violence as part of our communal growth.

Maybe.

The Atlantic devoted much of the August edition to the history of nuclear weapons. We recently celebrated (is that the right word) the detonation of two atomic bombs over cities in Japan. Since then eight other countries have developed and possess these weapons, and are far more powerful than the ones used in 1945. 

One of the articles discussed a sort of malaise that the writer believes has evolved about the possibility of an actual nuclear war taking place. That, since the days of practicing an attack by diving under our desks at school, and the proliferation of backyard bunkers, there seems to be a belief that since it has happened yet, it won't happen at all. 

Or perhaps it is because there are so many other doomsday scenarios in the public consciousness that seem so inevitable.

Regardless, the articles together remind us that our weapons of mass destruction are vastly more dangerous than in 1945, that the rhetoric of us vs them is no less vitriolic than 80 years ago, and that the time allotted for a president to decide to launch or not is minutes, which means that such a decision about whether a perceived attack is real or not requires an even stronger understanding of the specifics of the widespread destruction that will occur. 

It certainly needs more thought than how can I show how strong a man I am, as the current lodger in the White House seems obsessed with. 

When the leader of our country expresses very little of this trait, it can embolden those with none themselves to lash out at the "others", while tempering those who possess even a modicum of empathy to question whether such a trait is weak, or woke.

Empathy.

For the record then, it is certainly possible that the critique that I am not as upset about the attacks of women's reproductive rights as a woman might be is valid, not because I am not upset, after all, I have a daughter of reproductive age, but because I am not a woman. 

While I can still advocate for pro choice policies, I will never find myself in a position where I have to decide to carry a fetus to term, or abort it. 

Which means that all I have is my ability to empathize; and to assume that such a decision should be left to the person/people most involved.

Similarly, I have never left my home country, traveled hundreds if not thousand of miles to a new land with limited understanding of its language, customs, laws, but I can empathize for those who make such a choice, and give them the benefit of the doubt as to their motives.

In the end then, it is only empathy that allows us to accept someone's decision to do something that we might disagree with, or not understand, or never do ourselves, let alone when that person's religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc, differs from our own.

And is it empathy that I find lacking in the policies and actions of our country under the leadership of President Trump and his allies, a lack that makes me ashamed for America.   

 

  

 

  

James Baldwin

In one of the last few editions of The Atlantic, I was introduced to the author and activist, James Baldwin. While I am sure that I had never read any of his books, not seen him on TV, I was aware of the titles of a few of his books.

After reading the article, which was a summary of a debate from 1965 about race relations between Baldwin and William F Buckley, I searched the Chester County Library system and found "The Fire Next Time", and then when returning that book, borrowed "Go Tell It On The Mountain", the first written in 1963, the 2nd in 1953.

First, I am a bit surprised that I was never asked to read one his books in high school or college, especially given that I attended high school from 1972 to 1976, a very volatile time in race relations in America. 

While Baldwin championed equal rights to blacks (the wording of the day), he did not embrace the philosophy of integration when that concept meant becoming white, as opposed to being treated equally. And he certainly did not advocate pretending that systemic racism, as well as slavery, had not done irreparable harm to the Black community. 

Nor did he easily forgive white people for actively or passively supporting the systems that treated people of color less equally, even as less than human.

A number of characters in his books expressed this most clearly, with little reluctance to emphasize the evil that had been done to Black men and women, and, even further, to consider white people, not only hypocrites for their alleged belief in those wonderful words "all men are created equal", but even evil. 

After reading both books in the last few weeks, I can easily imagine them being banned (as they are in a number of places) as he does not hide his contempt for white people, nor sugar coat the violence and cruelty that was the plight of those of his race, both on the plantations, and in the streets of the south.

While he doesn't describe the actual scene, a young Black woman is taken into the woods by a number of white men who violently take her virginity. She is forever changed, not just by the horrific act, but by how she is treated by her own community afterwards. The simple fact that her attackers are never prosecuted, not even indicted, is bad enough, but that her own people treat her as damaged goods adds insult to injury.  

I don't know if Baldwin mellowed in his opinions of race relations in America in his later years. I would like to think that he would have been extremely proud of America, and even white people, had he been alive when Obama was elected to be president, twice.

But perhaps it is best that he is not alive now, with the horrible backsliding that is occurring under the Trump Administration. I can imagine his outrage and anger at the president when he makes statements suggesting that slavery was not so bad, or that perhaps the Smithsonian should not be so harsh in its presentation of this topic. 

I would think that he may have thought that, despite the glaring statistics, still, concerning incarceration rates for young Black men who commit the same crimes as their white counterparts, but are jailed many times more, there had been progress since the days of the Tulsa Massacre, and the mean treatment of African American veterans who, after returning from war and conflict, were still treated with disdain and outright viciousness. 

Whether he would have been surprised at the popularity of Trump's open racism or vindicated that he was right all along, it is impossible to know.

Finally, I was struck by Baldwin's depiction of church, belief in Jesus, and the importance of prayer as depicted in many of his characters. On one hand, he also portrayed a sense of futility to pray for justice, and for eternal happiness with God. 

For instance, that same woman whom I described above represents total commitment to the belief in an afterlife with a merciful God, and the saving grace of Jesus, who suffered even worse tribulations during his life.  

So, while Baldwin conveyed a cynicism in longing for peace and tranquility and fair treatment in the next life, knowing that it would never happen in reality, he also described events and characters that seem able to survive earthly life only because they dream of that everlasting peace after their current life ends. 

I've posted a few times under the title Race Relations. In the following post, as Obama's 2nd term was ending, and the popularity of Trump was building, I was still hopeful that, the backlash that was infecting America after having elected our first African American president, would be temporary. And may even lead to another leap forward once it had passed. Sadly, we seem to have fallen even further behind, and, if there is a leap forward in our near future, I can't see it.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/07/black-and-white.html

In this next short post, I discuss an edition of the National Geographic about race and ethnicity. In reading it again today, I enjoyed my comment that if we could only alter our perception of skin color to reflect the understanding that such a trait is in response to environmental influences, not as a reflection of some type of scarlet letter usage by the Creator to label some of us. That we are all black, just some a little lighter, or conversely, we are all white, just some a little darker. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/03/race-and-ethnicity.html

This next post was written a few weeks after the the murder of George Floyd inspired protests around the country. In that post, I included a link to, and the actual story called The Switch Back, which was my version of what would happen if a certain percentage of influential and powerful people on Earth woke up in a body which presented as a different gender and race, than what they had before.

And, after nine months in that scenario with all the changes that would begin to occur if suddenly the world was run by black women, what would happen when they were all switched back.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-ongoing-protests.html 

The last linked post is just about three years old, and is a reflection on the replacement theory rhetoric that was prevalent then. Sadly, very sadly, it appears that the current administration is implementing policies that seek to rectify the inevitable changes in demographics that are in process in America.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/10/replacement-theory.html 

Finally, and only somewhat related, I encountered a post from 2017 when updating the font on recent posts "hit" by a reader.  It reminded me of the conversations I have been having about my current lack of  optimism and how that is common as people age, so it should not be a surprise that America itself is neck deep in nostalgia and the good old days. Hence, the popularity of make America great again.

The post describes the efforts to document opinions as to when times were better, generally always times when people were children. As if our parents, any parents, told their kids about their financial troubles, or exposed them to the sometimes cruelty of reality.

Which of course, provides an explanation for why so many children today suffer depression and anxiety, as that technological wonder called the cell phone provides information on a daily basis about the truly horrible things occurring in the world, from the slow starvation of the Palestinians to the daily bombings in Ukraine to the under the radar conflicts on the African continent that produces so much death and poverty. 

Where people of my age who grew up in the 60's and 70's, a time marked by much civil unrest, were insulated, for the most part from the brutality of what was happening, today's kids see it scrolling across their phones as it happens.

Not to mention, reading the works of James Baldwin, who detailed the horrors of the "good old days" but whose words did not penetrate the everyday white household, culminating in a swath of my contemporaries thinking those times were, not just the best days of their lives (which should be true when we are children), but the best days for America. 

And so we blithely accept prisons for people who have risked life and limb to come to America for opportunity and freedom, thinking that such cruelty will bring back those better days. 

No wonder Trump and his ilk want to remove all mention of the atrocities committed against indigenous people, minorities, women. By whitewashing history (strange, that word, whitewash), it makes it easier to commit those same atrocities again, just with different victims. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/05/nostalgia.html 

Ernest Hemingway

In the July/August Smithsonian, there was an article called "Exploring Hemingway's Pamplona", in which the author went to the famous town for its annual running of the bulls and corresponding fiesta, with a nod to Hemingway's visits, where he stayed, where he ate and partied, all of which inspired the iconic author to write "The Sun Also Rises."

After reading the article, I decided to read the book, now just one year shy of 100 years since its publication. 

While I am sure that I have read a Hemingway novel at some time in high school, certainly "The Old Man and The Sea" and perhaps "A Farewell to Arms", I can't say I am familiar with his writing, could not summarize any of his books other than the generic info anyone might know about his individual works. As for "The Sun..." I am sure I never read it before, so, to be honest, I wasn't sure what to expect, especially considering the almost century that has passed since its creation.

I have read an author who purports to document the "Lost Generation" as those who fought and lived through WW1 are often referred as, although Vera Brittain, while documenting the same disillusionment, same deep sense of loss associated with that horrible war, expressed it in a very different way than Hemingway. Perhaps it was a gender difference, although "The Sun..." does feature a woman character not unlike the men depicted by Hemingway.

Here are links to the two posts that resulted from reading books by Vera Brittain, a woman born six years before Hemingway, and who also based her books on her experiences before and after WW1. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/02/testament-of-youth.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/03/the-testament-of-friendship.html 

While I enjoyed "The Sun...", I was startled by the language used by Hemingway, especially his references to the few black people he encounters or knows of. One particular scene when describing a famous black boxer of the time to whom he refers as a nigger is said very casually, as was common at the time. 

One could say that it marks an evolution in tolerance for descriptions of people in a wholly negative light. Except that we now have a president who uses terms to denigrate people all the time, even while sitting in the Oval Office. While there may now be certain words that can't be used to describe other races or nationalities, there is also a sort of renaissance occurring which is bringing back prejudices against those now demonized by the orange king, perhaps not through direct use of those derogatory terms, but just as dangerous, through the open hostility towards people deemed inferior, or disposable. 

How else can one explain casual statements that perhaps 2 million Palestinians should be moved out of the Gaza strip, or that the war criminal Putin should be allowed to retain the land he took by force, regardless of the hundreds of thousands of lives, on both sides, that have been lost due to his illegal war.

Of course, Hemingway represented the rough and tough American, in both his writing and his persona. Yet he also suffered all types of mental and physical issues, some brought on by his drinking and lifestyle, others from the real injuries he survived in WW1, and the battlefield horrors he witnessed as a soldier and reporter.

Some say that when his ability to write about those experiences began to fade, he was unable to go on without his main defense mechanism, hence his suicide just weeks before his 62nd birthday.

I probably won't pursue reading anymore of Hemingway's books. While "The Sun..." does present a softer side of Jake Barnes, the character said to be based on Hemingway himself, he does not represent a set of traits I aspire to, nor wish my son to resemble. 

At the same time, though, I can relate to the hopelessness that permeates the characters, and the book itself, as I have often stated in my recent posts how the optimism which marked the overall attitude of my blog has dissipated, immensely.

When I see the man in the White House using his position, and the power of the federal government to extort money from universities, from law firms, from the CEO's of some of the most successful and important industries of our country, I can understand the malaise that some of the lost generation felt as they experienced everything they had trusted in and depended upon for meaning and structure come tumbling down around them in the form of a destructive, aimless war, followed by a decade of excess and gilded waste.

It seems today that the electorate is fine with any atrocity, any prejudice, any horrendous act against children born to the wrong parents, as long as their 401K's continue to grow.

I was asked by someone recently what the Dems could do to counter the GOP onslaught against democracy being carried out in Texas, and to counter Trump's use of the military in blue state cities to squash our first amendment freedoms. 

Sadly, my response is that we need an economic collapse because it is only money that Americans care about. Should inflation surge again due to the Administrations chaotic, nonsensical tariff policies, should the job market continue to flounder, should stocks take a tumble as big business realizes that Trump is all about himself, not America, then, if their are free elections in 2026 and/or 2028, perhaps small d democracy will gain a foothold again, and the Dems will get a chance to govern with an eye towards the working class. 

Of course, we can only hope that they will actually govern as such, this time. 

As for now, the decline continues. 

  

Elaine Pagels

As I mentioned before, I discovered Elaine Pagels through a book review in the May edition of The Atlantic. I already discussed the first book of hers that I read, The Gnostic Gospels. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/07/gnostic-gospels.html

I just finished reading another book, the one which was specifically reviewed in that Atlantic article, called "Miracles and Wonder" with a subtitle of "The Historical Mystery of Jesus", published just this year.

Where to begin.

The best thing I can do is to recommend that if you are a Christian who is interested in understanding the beginnings of the movement that has grown from a smattering of apostles and acolytes to one which continues to spread throughout the globe, continues to inspire people to seek God, truth, morality, and which counts over 2 billion adherents worldwide, in various permutations, read this book.

Short of that, a few things stand out for me. In no particular order

Pagels refers to brothers of Jesus, not in the way that bros refer to their friends, but actual brothers who were born from the marriage of Mary and Joseph. Perhaps this is more commonly accepted than I knew before reading the book, but I was never asked to memorize Jesus's brothers during my Catholic school upbringing, never remember any teacher, nun or lay person, discussing in any way that Mary had other children, yet Pagels mentions it numerous times in her book as fact, without any attempt to justify such a claim. 

As to why my Catholic training never mentions these siblings, I can only postulate that the desire to present Mary as a virgin, extended to the rest of her life, for no real obvious reason. 

Pagels discusses the necessity of the virgin birth story, in light of the fact that Judea, at the time, was rife with activity against Roman Rule, and that, as is true today, Roman soldiers were often deployed into regions of unrest whereupon they killed without requiring guilt or proof and raped with impunity. 

Does Pagels believe that Mary was a victim of such an event, thereby inspiring the story that Jesus was the result of a virgin birth? No, but she does cite accusations at the time against Jesus and his questionable birth story. Remember, the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written decades after the crucifixion of Christ, at a time when acknowledging an association, let alone worship of Jesus placed one's life in danger. To deflect an obvious criticism, that Mary was not married making Jesus illegitimate, a story intimating divine intervention can be effective when cementing the believers faith. 

At one point, Pagels refers to this nascent movement as someone who lived in that time, whether Jewish or Roman or Pagan, might perceive it. As a cult. This really struck me in light of how we still look askance at the "cults" of today, how we worry when young people turn to non-traditional religions or religious beliefs, or even kidnap them from these groups so as to reprogram them to a more acceptable religious affiliation. 

One might say that it is true that every major religion of today, was at one time considered a cult, its leaders and followers heretics, blasphemous, etc. by the mainstream religions of the time. As I mention in the post about The Gnostic Gospels, even within the Christian communities in the first 300 years after Christ's death, there was debate among the followers, and rifts and disagreements about the meaning of the life of Christ. Cults within the cult, so to speak. 

At the end of the book, Pagels delves into how three particular films have presented different perspectives on Jesus and his life. One of them, a 2018 film called Mary Magdalene, features a disturbing scene in which Mary's family has decided that she is possessed by some sort of devil. Not because she is following Jesus, at that point she only has a cursory familiarity with his teachings, but because she refuses to marry the man that her father has chosen for her. In the scene, she is dunked repeatedly into the river, to drive out the demon, until she is practically drowned. 

Eventually, the family asks Jesus to "cure" her. He questions her, speaks with her, listens to her, and then tells her that there is no demon here. She decides to follow him, but when she tells her family of her decision, they double down on their belief that she is not well, their reactions ranging from anger at Jesus and his disciples, "what have you promised her?" "what have you done to her?" to outright shunning, her mother telling her that she won't be welcome back if she leaves with Jesus and his crew.

Again, remember, Jesus often told his followers that they must leave their families if they are to follow him, if they are to find the truth, find God, not unlike so many anguished families today who lament the lack of contact with their children who have joined a cult.

Such a fascinating perspective, at least for me, perhaps partially because I spent a few years seeking knowledge and attending talks and visiting ashrams which associated with Maharaji, now referred to as Prem Rawat. While I have often credited my mother as a moral example in my life, the time I spent listening to Maharaji also influenced my life, then and now.

Another major point of Pagels book is the perception that many of the apostles who accompanied Jesus during his time of teaching and healing, believed that when he referred to the new kingdom that was near, they believed that he meant soon, literally, in his lifetime and theirs. Again, in the Mary Magdalene film (I watched it after finishing the book), Judas is presented as a true believer in this concept. In fact, the movie suggests that he betrayed Jesus, not for money, but to force Jesus to show his true power. 

For Judas, the fact that Jesus could do all sorts of miracles, not the least of which was bringing a dead man back to life, meant that he could wave his hand and smite the Roman oppressors, that he could call on his angels to bring justice to their world, that he could truly make the last first, and the first last. In the movie, Judas hangs himself, as I was taught, but his death seems driven more by disappointment, perhaps even anger that he believed that the kingdom was at hand, so could not accept the death of his messiah.

Which brings us to the Resurrection. 

Again, Pagels discusses this as objectively as possible in an attempt to explain why such a miraculous event, rising from the dead, was important to the New Testament Gospel writers, as a way to attract new believers, as well as differentiate Jesus from the other teachers and prophets that existed at the time.  

Her analysis is not an attempt to cast doubt that Jesus rose from the dead but to explain why such a story would be helpful when expanding a new religion. During this chapter, she makes a number of references to how some of the disciples doubted the Resurrection, at first, and not just the well taught Doubting Thomas anecdote. Along with the movie, Mary Magdalene, both present accounts that cast Mary's encounter with the raised Jesus as being openly rejected by most of the apostles, specifically Peter. It is not until they have their own experience that they accept the Resurrection.

This reluctance to trust the word of a woman, is also reflected in a scene, in the movie (I can not confirm if it appears in any of the accepted Gospels, but does appear in the Gospel of Mary, one of those documents recovered from Nag Hammadi which I refer to in my previous post called The Gnostic Gospels). 

In that scene, Peter does not doubt Mary's word, but does demonstrate a lack of understanding about the message of Jesus. In the scene, Peter and Mary are traveling together, just the two of them, when they come upon a village with multiple people, men, women and children, who are dying, presumably due to the violence inflicted upon those not Roman during these times.

Mary stops to help them, to Peter's consternation, more concerned is he with his safety. Afterwards, after their intervention which saves a child, Peter admits to Mary that her actions more surely reflect the sermons of Jesus. Peter seems to start to realize the power, and danger, that living the life examples of his teacher can be, and tells Mary that her actions in helping the people they came across truly demonstrate her belief in Jesus, and his deficit in understanding His message.

The next to last chapter of the book, touches on the topic, when did Jesus become God. Here, Pagels points out that Matthew, Mark and Luke emphasized the good news of Jesus's message, whereas it was John who took the next step into proclaiming Jesus as God. It is not something I ever noticed when learning the catechism, but she points out numerous passages in all four Gospels which demonstrates how the four men interpreted similar events in a different light.

It is a point, as I mentioned in my other post, that is one of the reasons that I call myself a lapsed Catholic. I always thought that the message, the sermons, the example of his life, should be enough for us to know right from wrong. That, like many other advanced spiritual beings that have existed throughout history, we should adhere to the message without glorifying the messenger.

Similarly, although on the other side of the spectrum, we just witnessed the firing of a public servant whose job it is to report labor statistics, jobs created, unemployment, etc. When the report was published last week, the messenger was fired by a president who does not tolerate bad news when that news reflects poorly on himself. 

Sadly, once Trump places a Yes person in charge of that particular department, any future jobs report that features good news, will generate doubt on its veracity. And again, trust in the government will be compromised.

If we were to extrapolate this concept to include the possibility that other advanced spiritual humans have been born since Jesus of Nazareth, perhaps even in 1957, but since we have maintained the blinders that necessitate the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, who died for our sins so we can spend eternity with God, then we become oblivious to the possibility that someone with a similar message could be walking on Earth today, or be born tomorrow. 

Add to that possibility that such a person could have been six years ago in Gaza, or tomorrow in Sudan, and there is no chance that a new belief system, or even a revision, or extension of a current belief system, can be spread, and accepted in America, let alone across the globe.

Perhaps that should be my next story, God sends another Son to Earth to remind us of His love for us, His desire for us to share eternity with him, but that person ends up in an early grave, born to the wrong parents in the wrong country, or in a hospital for people considered insane.

Or maybe the better story line is that God so loves us, that She sends such a person on a yearly basis, born in various countries, sometimes male, sometimes female, perhaps even a gay person here and there, all to remind us of the message that is of the utmost importance. And, knowing that we are a rather stupid species, or perhaps, to give us a break, too concerned with institutions that give us comfort, allow us to abdicate our rational brain, and spiritual growth, to what we are told by those who claim a connection to the very God that prefers an individual relationship, not a watered down one filtered through the teachings of man made dogmas, messengers are sent, over and over again. 

Which of course, makes Jesus the one in ten thousand iterations of such interventions by the Creator whose teachings, and life, stuck, all the rest being tossed away without recognition. 

Now that is a Creator I can get behind. I just hope the patience and persistence behind such a plan will overcome humanity's infantile understanding of spirituality, and the actual point of our lives.

  

A Few Thoughts

I was going to add the following few thoughts to the beginning of my post on Elaine Pagels, but decided to let them stand alone. 

First, for those of you who have not heard, and I imagine it is an overwhelming majority, the EPA is poised to reverse its decision that the release and continued accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is dangerous, and needs to be addressed. 

This endangerment finding which occurred early in Obama's first term, was the result of a challenge to various EPA regulations that particularly targeted the transportation industry, such as tail pipe emissions and minimum gas mileage standards (CAFE). But also help limit the toxins that are emitted by power plants, especially coal burning ones. Those challenges eventually reached the Supreme Court which ruled that the EPA, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, could create those rules as long as there were scientific studies which proved the logic behind the standards. 

Now, however, the Trump Administration is using non-peer reviewed "studies" that emphasize the cost of these regulations without considering the savings, in lives and dollars, that those regulations have provided. 

What is spectacularly stupid about such a rollback, is the obvious facts on the ground; more billion dollar environmental events, more extreme weather, more push back from Mother Nature against our arrogance.

For some more info, here is a link to an article about this travesty. 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epa-revoke-endangerment-finding-regulating-greenhouse-gases/  

Also, a link to a post I wrote in 2014 when I naively thought that, at the time, science was being attacked. I say naively now, because compared to items like the above, the events which triggered that post ten years ago are very small in comparison. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/03/science-fiction-and-fact.html 

Suffice it to say that actions like the rescinding of the endangerment finding is not only backward science, even if we assume that those advocating for it are only the stooges of the fossil fuel industry, but anti-science when it becomes clear that the "costs" that might be saved when this ruling is repealed (savings for business) will be outweighed by twice even thrice in costs that will be realized by the public in terms of increased medical ailments (and bills to pay for care), not to mention the additional damage and deaths that climate change, now exacerbated rather than addressed, will create.

I would call it immensely short sighted, if I didn't think it actually reflected rich interests stealing even more money from the rest of us, while causing illness and death, all supported by Trump and his fellow billionaires, and the spineless public servants who roam the halls of Congress pretending to care about their constituents.

Second, I just want to send a personal message to Ghislaine Maxwell. Ghislaine, I know you would prefer not to spend the next 20 years in prison, but be careful with whom you make a deal to get out, or to earn a pardon. Certainly, you have a treasure trove of information concerning who spent time on the Island, who ran in Jeffrey's circle most frequently, who had the weirdest sexual peccadilloes, and that such information will never be worth more or provide as much leverage as now.

In fact, you don't even have to be all that honest, just reveal what you are asked to reveal. After all, morals have never been a problem for you. 

But remember, once you make a deal with the devil, in this case the Trump Administration, they will own you, and while you may be pardoned or released early or just sent to a prison with more freedoms, you will forever have to remain on guard to not say the wrong thing (like the actual truth) to the wrong person at the wrong time.

Also, and I can't emphasize this enough, as long as you possess knowledge regarding Trump's relationship with Epstein, you are at risk for a similar ending that befell your ex-boss. I just hope you have some insurance squirreled away in an off-shore account that can't be easily traced to you, because any leverage you think you hold in your memories, won't be worth a penny if you can't expose the truth, dead or alive. 

Be careful, not because I don't think you are scum for all the pain you helped inflict on all the young women who you trafficked for the rich and slimy, but because I would like to think that karma is real, and that the men behind the horrors might someday be held accountable. 

Lastly, I read an interesting article this morning somewhat related to my initial topic, the decline/attacks against science, but from the perspective that this administration's multi-pronged attack on the institutions that represent knowledge and technological progress may result in America no longer being the country where scientists flock for advanced training and opportunities for cutting edge research in those areas that will drive the future of our planet.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2025/07/science-empire-america-decline/683711/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20250731&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=The+Atlantic+Daily 

In a nutshell, the article recounts the decline, throughout history of some of the most advanced nations, scientifically speaking, and how those countries lost their superiority. 

And how, right now, to satisfy his warped opinion of how we should think, and who should be allowed to come to America to study, learn, and share their knowledge, Trump is causing the most intelligent and forward thinking people in the world to rethink their desire to come here while emboldening other countries, European as well as Canada and China, to welcome those same scientists with open arms, and research dollars.

Additionally, by ranting against the higher education institutions like Harvard and Columbia who seek the most brilliant minds in the world, regardless of country of origin or political opinions, he closes the door on those immigrants. Remember, if not for the prejudiced attacks, and outright violence, against the Jews by the Third Reich, the development of our space program, not to mention the creation of the atomic bomb, might not have happened had Hitler and his Aryan acolytes not chased the smartest people out of Germany.

Finally, by slashing the budgets for the NSA, NIH, and other such organizations that fund medical research, Trump is delaying, even cancelling the work of people who one day may have found cures for Alzheimers, Parkinson's cancer, etc, all in the name of some idiotic obsession with rooting out woke doctrine.

And so the decline continues. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alison Bechdel

I have been accessing the Chester County Library System these last few months, "holding" books from other libraries in the system so that they can be transferred to my local library in Spring City. 

A few weeks ago, I picked up two books, one from a writer I have already mentioned, Elaine Pagels, about which I posted earlier this month, and a book by Alison Bechdel.

Bechdel is an American cartoonist who began documenting the life of herself and her friends in a comic strip known as "Dykes to Watch Out For" in the 1980's. The book I borrowed was titled "The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For", a compilation of various episodes from her long running strip. 

To say that Bechdel's efforts was/is groundbreaking is a monumental understatement. Besides creating one of the first representations of lesbians in pop culture, she helped popularize the Bechdel test which established a measure used to assess the representation of women in fiction, especially in film, the application of which clearly demonstrated the lack of women and their relationships in media. 

To pass the test, the film needed to feature at least two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man. A bar seemingly low enough, but one which was not eclipsed very often.

"Dykes..." on the other hand bombards us with the details of the relationships between the mostly female characters, in addition to their political and social opinions. A perspective not common in the vast majority of movies, and frankly, history itself. 

In addition to this unique viewpoint, reading the compilation took me down memory lane, as all the critical issues since the 1980's were discussed, protested against, worried about, and survived, if even only barely.

In some ways, I was humbled, as Bechdel's characters most often act upon their strong beliefs. They go to rallies, form discussion groups, conference with others with similar ideals, and, of course, still manage to hold down jobs, pay their bills, establish long term relationships (even marry when finally legal to do so), and raise children.

They confront the establishment and the forces that try to prevent them from living their fullest lives, while living those lives despite their own character flaws. This is particularly demonstrated by the character Mo who is certainly a reflection of the author, but not immune to having her faults displayed in living color.

What struck me hardest however, was the simple fact that so many of the obstacles that Bechdel's alter egos faced, have not changed all that much. While it is true that the gay community is more widely accepted, the trans community is now the target of the same discrimination which hampered gay and lesbian people forty years ago. 

Even worse, the political situation surrounding the continued capitulation by Congress of its legislative and oversight duties, has worsened with the current administration. Today's Congress is even more spineless than before.

While I can't imagine how Mo, Ginger, Tina, Lois, Harriet, Clarice, Sparrow, etc would navigate the problems we face today, I am confident that they would be in the streets with their No Kings signs, and on the front lines protesting the assault on our environment.

I posted this under the label Equality, a label I have only used twice before. Below is a link to one of those, from early 2017. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/02/rudy-and-selflessness-of-majority.html

My biggest take away from "Essential Dykes..." is that Bechdel opened a window into a lifestyle that was unknown to me, while confirming my belief that the people within that community shared the same values, fears, and goals as myself and my family. 

But also, just like in the movie Rudy referred to above, it is only by association with those that are perceived to be different can we truly achieve the ideal of "all men are created equal". 

While I am not privy to Bechdel's reasoning for her comic strip, I would like to think that she wanted to demonstrate how many ways in which the gay/lesbian community was like the straight community, while also depicting some traits that made them different as well, traits not just related to which gender attracted them.

It is a point of view that we seem to have lost in America today, replaced by the emphasis on how we are different, who is more different, and the attachment of blame in conjunction to how those differences can be emphasized. 

Polarization on steroids.

And so the decline continues. 

  

Cruelty, and Shortsightedness

Back in May, I posted the following opinion concerning the intent of the Trump Administration in its dealings with, well, everyone. In it, I acknowledge that I was a bit surprised, not at the blatant cruelty exhibited by Trump's MAGA policies, not even at the admission by him and many of his acolytes who openly state that making it uncomfortable for illegal immigrants to remain in America is the point, but by the overt cruelty being shown to Americans, whether they work in the federal workforce, or identify as transgender, or merely disagree with the current administration's policies.

Trump, along with people like Tom Homan, Stephen Miller and Russel Vought, have no qualms about treating people, Americans or otherwise, with disdain and inhumanity in the name of their ideology. They are as far from Christians as one can be without actually wearing a swastika. 

As I have said a number of times in past posts, I no longer wonder why everyday Germans allowed, even participated in the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, as we are seeing, first hand, how millions of people who believe they will spend eternity in heaven, are OK with allowing the most vulnerable in our country, and around the globe, to suffer and die. 

Here is a link to that post about cruelty. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/03/cruelty-is-point.html

I originally was going to title this post Cruelty, and Stupidity, but thought I would soften it, a bit, in hopes that some who might have not read it, choose to read it.

So, again, I am mortified at the cruelty of so many of Trump's MAGA policies. But this kind of disagreement might be considered emanating from, and evoking deep emotions.

But they are also, from a rational, or logical viewpoint, shortsighted, or stupid, if I may be so bold, for a number of reasons.

Take tariffs. A tariff is a tax on an imported good which is designed to raise revenue, or equalize the cost of the same product when manufactured in the home country, or to influence trade policies between countries. 

The tax is paid for by the importer, which, unless that business decides to absorb the additional cost, is passed along to the consumer. Now, if all or most of that tax is passed along, everyday people pay more for the same product, leading to higher inflation, at least until a domestic manufacturer can match that new price, which won't necessarily equate to a lower price, but could result in more jobs at home. This seems to be the point of Trump's trade war, to bring jobs back to America.

But at the same time, he publicly reprimands, or threatens, any business that chooses to pass along that tax, which will not make the product more expensive, but which will also not incentivize a company to move the creation of that product back home. 

At that point, the revenue becomes the point, which is fine, but it also means that either the business paying the tariff has to sacrifice profitability, and most likely job expansion, or will be forced to pass along the cost due to pressure from stockholders, creating inflation.

As for attaining better trade pacts, again, certainly a laudable goal, but Trump's proposed tariff rates are not a reaction to high tariffs by our trading partners, but due to trade imbalances. America is the largest buyer of goods in the world which has created a dynamic in the business world in which providing the goods and services we demand, at an affordable price, is accomplished by seeking the cheapest labor costs, either by moving jobs to the Southern states of America, or more commonly, offshore.

I can remember many business people bragging about increasing the standard of living in poorer countries by their moving manufacturing to those places. It was a win-win, cheaper products for Americans, better profits for the business community. Heck, I worked for a small business from 2000-2008 which imported over 90% of our product from China. During the busy season, we had upwards of 40 people in the office and warehouse. It was a small business, began in a garage, that was built into a profitable company that provided a living wage to dozens of Americans. The American dream, or at least a piece of it.

All because the labor market in China enabled sporting goods to be manufactured, and shipped to America, at a price that was competitive with other sporting goods wholesalers. And, again, this practice was defended by conservatives as good for everyone, as it is certainly true that poverty levels in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc, were reduced through these efforts.

And, lets not forget that the vast amount of MAGA paraphernalia is made overseas.

So, if Trump wants to remake the global supply chain, that is certainly his prerogative, having been elected again, but it can not possibly happen without higher prices for the American consumer, and perhaps even a lower standard of living for all those overseas workers who are no longer employed, in addition to Americans who will not have the same purchasing power during the transition. 

So, on one hand, he can't brag about revenue while pretending that the revenue isn't paid for by the American consumer, then tout his trade agreements as negotiating strategies to bring manufacturing jobs back when those pacts are dependent on businesses whose only concern is going to be where they can get a guarantee of stability in trade policy. They won't make 3 and 5 year plans to build plants in America, with Trump's on again, off again, pattern. Let alone his recent tendency of TACO.

Plus, and let's not forget this detail, executive orders to raise and lower tariffs are considered unconstitutional. The court cases are still in motion. So again, does a forward looking corporation take a chance on a multi-billion dollar investment with a completion date in 2027 or 2028, when, in the meantime, these tariffs may be ruled to be an executive overreach, illegal, in other words, or, taken off the table, should there be an election in 2026 and the Dems win the House, or in 2028, should Trump actually leave the White House?

For me though, the greatest example of shortsightedness by the Trump Administration is its attempt to deport a few million people in the next few years when we consider that our birth rate is declining at the same time that our county is aging, and retiring. We need more workers, not less, yet Trump is deporting the very people, immigrants, who have formed the backbone of the American workforce for generations.

So, while AI may replace some jobs with robots, we will still need people willing to work in the lower paid jobs that have always been filled by newly arrived people to our country, while also needing more advanced skills for those who remain in the workforce. 

Which highlights another, and I will call it stupid, Trump focus, which is to make life miserable for young people who have student loan debt, while also discouraging our teenagers to attend college by reducing and eliminating programs which offset the costs.

At this point, there are actual times when Trump or one of his talking heads actively discourages young Americans from attending college. Can you imagine that, advocating for less educated people? I guess when the demographics of those who vote for you consists of a high percentage of voters without a college degree, it might make sense. But to pretend that such a shift away from college is good for America, let alone the businesses who require future workers with advanced knowledge, engineers, scientists, etc, not to mention our shortage of nurses and doctors, is foolish, in the extreme.

It is bad enough that young people, 35 years old and under, face difficulties in attaining home ownership and establishing funds for their futures, but to then make it harder for them to afford college, and the still documented economic advantage that a degree provides while also making student loan payments harsher, and eliminating public service forgiveness programs, is again, incredibly myopic. 

Speaking of public service, again, why would any young person seek such a job, considering that attacks on the federal work force. Despite the lie (I should say, another lie) about the evil deep state propagated by Trump and his allies, we will always need people to work in public service positions knowing the financial compensation is less than similar jobs in the public sector. Yet, the goal seems to be to scare our young men and women from such ideals. Again, no surprise from a person who is completely transactional in everything he does, but one would think that our elected public servants, regardless of party affiliation, would understand and appreciate what these people do for America. 

I certainly understand why the rich rail against IRS agents considering that it is the wealthy who avoid their taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars of uncollected dollars. What surprises me is that everyday voters buy into the lie that the IRS is coming after them, when there are many studies that show that slashing IRS staffing leads to less taxes being collected, generally from the rich who have clever accountants who hide money offshore, and/or use other tricks not available to regular tax payers.

But how does the everyday voter not understand that we need dedicated people to enforce pollution standards, inspect meat packing plants, work as air traffic controllers, audit our nation's books, guarantee fair labor relations, etc, etc, etc. The actual truth is that the federal work force, numerically, did not increase all that much from 1982 to 2023 while the overall population of the country has increased by 100 million people in those 40 years. See link below.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/ 

The reality is that we need more dedicated public servants in our federal work force, yet the Trump Project 2025 based philosophy is working against that requirement from both ends, eliminating jobs, in many cases without really knowing what those jobs entail, and discouraging the younger generations from considering those jobs as careers.      

Lastly, and most critically, is Trump's insistence that climate change is a hoax, but even worse, the capitulation of Congress to this ridiculous claim. For those of you still learning about the big, beautiful bill, there are multiple assaults in this area. 

First, the repeated attempts to claw back monies approved and in many cases, promised to businesses and individuals to install and maintain green energy projects, especially wind and solar as well as the elimination of subsidies going forward, even those that make roof top solar arrays less expensive. 

Also, whether merely as a reflection of how much money the fossil fuel industry pumps into our elections, or just because Trump is incapable of understanding how alternate energy sources work, he is doubling down on coal. While I imagine that none of his family will ever find themselves working in a coal mine, he doesn't seem to mind sending mostly red-state Americans to such dirty, dangerous jobs. 

So, while the demands on our electric grids continue to expand, he wants to eliminate the industries which have been responsible for the majority of growth in our country's energy creation.

As Forrest would say, "stupid is as stupid does."

In May of 2011, I wrote a story called The Energy Conundrum. At the time, it was set in the future, in the 2030's, a time not that far off as I type this today. It is the story of American shortsightedness as related to energy. Too bad our elected leaders didn't heed its message then, even sadder that Trump, the GOP, and millions of my fellow citizens are blind to its message today. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/05/energy-conundrum.html 

 

 

Oppenheimer

I finally watched the Oppenheimer movie that came out last year. Even though there was a lot of hype about it, "greatest movie of the century" etc, I enjoyed it more than I expected.

If you haven't seen it, and are planning to do so, you may not want to read this post as I will dive into the film. 

First, I hadn't remembered, or noticed, who was in the movie, so I was pleasantly surprised a number of times when I realized that Emily Blunt portrayed Kitty Oppenheimer, Matt Damon played General Grove, Gary Oldman was President Truman, and Robert Downey Jr depicted Lewis Strauss, in addition to others who had lesser roles, such as Tom Conti, Josh Hartnett, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branaugh and Casey Affleck. In many cases, I did not recognize the actor, the make-up and character they portrayed overriding the preconceived image of them in my head.

It was truly remarkable, just from this perspective.

More importantly though, the movie presented a story in which the main character, J. Robert Oppenheimer, is a flawed hero, a story line which I truly enjoy. And, to me, one which is far more true to life than the infantile perceptions that seem to permeate our society today, whether be about our founders, our country, or our current leadership. 

I've called this out, even in terms of glorifying the messenger for the message in the case of those who have brought us advanced spiritual lessons, but it is much more overt when people pretend that the founders were connected to the Divine, or that nothing bad has ever happened in America due to our special place in the Creator's eyes, or that every statement and action by our current president must be for the good of Americans just because of his constant statements to that effect and his red hat.

While I recognize that Hollywood alters reality to tell a good tale, I assume that Oppenheimer's struggles with his relationships, and his discipline in terms of the actual, scientific work in which he engaged, are relatively accurate. Certainly, it is true that he was a complicated person, someone who could seemingly listen to and argue for both sides of a debate with equal aplomb. 

As the movie progressed, he seemed wishy-washy at times, jettisoning what appeared to be a strong belief without concern if a new perspective, or influence, on that issue allowed him to move forward with his goal. 

After effectively leading the wide spread teams that eventually created the atomic bomb, an event that the vast majority of Americans at the time thought was justified, despite the horrific loss of life both at the time of the bombing and in the years afterward due to radiation poisoning, Oppenheimer lost his security clearance, along with his job and standing in the scientific community, because his reluctance to fully advocate for the development of the H-bomb, and his insistence that the technology be shared with our allies, in particular Russia, was interpreted as disloyalty to America.

The fact that one of the scientists that he recruited for the Manhattan Project, was indeed a spy for Russia, didn't help his cause, especially with the influence of Joseph McCarthy and his Red Scare tactics that drove hundreds of Americans out of government work, even civilian work in some cases, merely because they had at one time been affiliated with the American Communist Party, or associated with people who did. In Oppenheimer's case, his brother and sister-in-law, his early lover (Jean Tatlock), and even Kitty, his wife, were all at one time, registered members of that party, although, he, while making monetary donations, did not officially join.

It was so bad that in one of the more critical and shameful scenes during his security clearance hearing, General Grove, the man who had chosen Oppenheimer to be in charge of the testing and development of the A-bomb, was asked if he would clear Oppenheimer today, with the new guidelines that presumably included references to past associations with communists. Grove admitted he would not, based on the current protocols, while also expressing his belief that Oppenheimer was loyal to America, then and now. It appears that Grove is pained to admit this, knowing that such a technicality might have produced a different result without Oppenheimer leading the program.

Would America still have mastered the technology that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki without Oppenheimer's leadership and inquisitive mind? Probably. Would we still have achieved that goal before the Germans? Less probably. 

Yet, less than ten years later, Oppenheimer loses his security clearance precisely because that same inquisitive mind was able to entertain and discuss different political and economic systems with his friends and family. 

It is this kind of myopic thinking that seems so prevalent in America today, and not just in the GOP. I read an interesting article about the success of Zohran Mamdani in the recent New York City Democratic primary for mayor. The article referred to an alliance between Mamdani and Brad Lander, two people with very different perspectives on the Israel-Hamas war. Yet they were able to focus on those things they had in common, rather than that one issue so that due to the primary using ranked voting, each man encouraged his followers to rank the other second, and/or not rank ex-Governor Cuomo at all. As a result, Mamdani's seven point lead after first votes were counted almost doubled when second and third ranked votes were included in the final tally. 

It is a lesson the extremes in both parties need to heed but especially the Democrats, as it is clear that millions of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 stayed home in 2024, while the GOP rallies behind everything Trump says and does, even when they have a history of disagreeing with a particular issue. While I might call that being spineless, it is politically effective, which, in the end, is the basis for a coalition's success. Disagree on the details, but always vote in unison when it matters.

Clearly, the absurd sway of McCarthy in the mid-50's in America, had it occurred in the mid-40's, might have resulted in a completely different ending to WW2 because McCarthy was all about one issue, rooting our communists, regardless of how that process was employed. All or nothing, no deviance.

What is even more interesting, is that in many ways, Oppenheimer was correct in his calls for cooperation and transparency with Russia, in terms of nuclear proliferation, rather than an all out arms war. While many in America might conclude that it was Russia that folded, and that both countries respected the MAD doctrine, even while accumulating enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the world hundreds of times over, it is also true that seven additional countries now possess nuclear weapons, and that others may soon join the list. 

Would things have been different had the adversarial relationship been replaced with one of cooperation and trust? The realist would say no, precisely because America and Russia did not trust each other despite the simple fact that for 80 years we have trusted them to not start a nuclear war, and vice-versa. 

As the movie progressed, Oppenheimer seemed to regret his decision to help unleash the nuclear age, not because he didn't realize it would happen with or without him, and not because he didn't believe in its use, but because he didn't trust governments, and the men who ran them, to grasp the obvious; a nuclear war is not winnable. The movie portrays his struggle with his place in history as someone who thought that once used, any sane person would realize that such power should never be used militarily again. 

Sadly, if we are to believe those who rant that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon, even if we have to bomb the hell out of them, because they will use it at once, then Oppenheimer's regret is proven. Even more so because should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and deploy it, should cooler heads not prevail, and I have zero faith in our current president to reflect such restraint, then the even more absurd proposition that a nuclear war is winnable could be tested. 

In a pivotal scene with Einstein, after WW2 was over and Oppenheimer was still riding high on his fame, there is a discussion between the men that the Downey Jr character had interpreted as the beginning of the campaign by Oppenheimer to turn all the important scientists against him. In reality, the conversation was more a reflection on how awards can sometimes indicate the end of one's career and influence, but mostly two men who knew that their work in physics had fundamentally changed the world, yet whether it was for the better or worse, was still up for debate.

Finally, towards the end of the movie, Kitty admonishes him for believing his one-time brilliance in helping America end the war against Japan, would give him carte blanche to say and do whatever he wished. It is sad that she was right although I don't think Oppenheimer ever really learned that lesson.  

 

Gnostic Gospels

As I have mentioned before, I began a subscription to The Atlantic a few months ago. In addition to the emails I receive daily with incredibly interesting articles by talented writers, I have received three monthly magazines to date. 

In the May edition, I was introduced to Elaine Pagels through a book review; The Atlantic has a few book reviews in each issue.

Pagels is an American historian of religion. She has conducted extensive research into the origins and history of Christianity, as well as Gnosticism, and so has written many books concerning these topics.

Gnostic Gospels is one such book, and the one which I recently read.

First, anyone who has read my posts, knows that I am a lapsed Catholic. While I admire and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (see my literary effort called An Atheist For Christ), I do not believe in the two most basic tenets of Catholicism, that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died and rose from the dead to enable us sinners to gain eternity in heaven.

While it is possible that I had encountered Gnostic teachings at some point in my life, I never identified as a Gnostic, per se, although I have, at times, associated with being an agnostic, which, as I have now come to realize, is not the same as Gnosticism.

In December, 1945, an astonishing archeological discovery was made in Upper Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. Within an earthen jar buried some 1500 years earlier, were Coptic translations of even earlier manuscripts written in Greek. As research into this discovery continued, it became clear that the Nag Hammadi scrolls revealed gospels written in the first few hundred years after the life and death of Jesus. Further, these gospels were suppressed by the Church, as control of the direction of Christianity eventually favored an interpretation of Christ's life that these gospels did not support. 

In essence, these gospels represented a strain of Christianity that was popular in the first few centuries after Christ's death. They detail the main differences in the Gnostic version as compared to what we now know as the core tenants of Catholicism. 

To me, while it may seem obvious that any organization or belief system had to evolve from something, and that such evolution would have included cast aside beliefs, it is revealing to learn of some of those differences. I imagine it is part of Pagel's desire to research such debates as they reveal the arguments and disagreements of those early Christians, especially those people who dictated the direction of the Church, and the real meaning and lessons of Christ's life.

Again, to be clear, Pagels is a historian, someone who has spent much of her life teaching about and researching the origins of Christianity. She does not place value judgements on the competing interpretations of the meaning of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, but instead presents those disparate explanations in the light of how those who believed them, who preached them, advocated for the advancement and fundamental tenets of Catholicism.

Her book Gnostic Gospels, portrays those clashes as the literal battle for the direction and structure of the future Church, as well as the foundational beliefs that would be passed along concerning the life and lessons of Jesus.

Of course, as a Catholic indoctrinated into the "winning" side of that battle, Gnostic beliefs were never communicated, or if mentioned, were done so as heretical beliefs to avoid, and condemn.

As I mentioned above, the requirement that humanity needs to be saved as a result of original sin has often bothered me. Here is the post I wrote on that subject subject in late 2023.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/original-sin.html 

So, again, in 1945 these scrolls are found that reveal multiple gospels, such as The Gospel of  Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, the Gospel to The Egyptians, The Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter, and many more, upwards of fifty two texts. All from the early centuries of the Christian era.

The book is very detailed, comparing quotes and details of events from one of these "discovered" gospels as compared to the four more recognized gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like the witness statements that often occur among multiple people in the aftermath of an historic event, these Gnostic Gospels discuss the same or similar events as those in the New Testament, but with differing interpretations and/or translations of the languages of the time. 

Remember, anything written about the life of Jesus was written in long dead languages that have been translated, a few times, as language has evolved in the past 2,000 years.

The book can be hard to get through, not due to esoteric discussions, but because Pagels knows her subject so well, and provides umpteen instances where the current, accepted version and interpretation of the life of Jesus, is not the accepted interpretation of the Gnostic gospels. 

Additionally, Pagels names names, literally those people who drove the discussions, and who made the choices that placed the Gnostic gospels outside the accepted dogma of the Church.

Pagels also elaborates on just why it was inevitable that the gnostics would lose the battle, as they emphasized the ability for knowledge, attained through individual searching, over the necessity of a structure with a hierarchy of authority, pope, bishops, pastors, etc, from whom the lessons of Christ's teachings needed to be learned and explained.

Again, for me, someone with a fairly strong anti-authority streak, the Gnostic interpretation seems more relevant, and attractive.

Whether that tendency touches on pride, and the danger of automatic rejection of anything that emanates from an authority figure, sort of like an advanced two year old who says No without thinking, well that is a different issue.

The discoveries at Nag Hammadi.

I assume I have never heard of these texts before because I did not spend my due diligence in researching my Catholic heritage in those days when I began to question its tenets, and/or because my source of such information would have been the hierarchy which suppressed those texts to begin with. Regardless, I am glad to have had this Aha moment, and grateful that Pagels has spent so much of her time in trying to understand, and communicate the origins of the religion to which I was born.   

I've written under the topic of religion many times. Two posts, link provided below, were the result of letters to the editor which were published in our local newspaper, back in 2010.

 https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-christian-founders.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html 

Finally, I reread a post from 2018 that was recently accessed by someone. It was not labeled under the "religion" banner, but it certainly reflects a morality, a social morality, that we seem to be getting further and further away from. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/05/individual-vs-group-success.html