Israel Hamas War

Before beginning this post, I reread the one I created in October after the Hamas attack on Israel. I had posted that one under the topic War and Forgiveness. Obviously, there is no reason to do the same today, as there has been very few examples of people involved on either side discussing forgiveness. Here is a link to that first post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/10/israel-palestinians-and-hamas.html

So, I guess it is War, about which I have written many times. Here is a link to one of my earliest efforts concerning this topic. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-about-war.html

There are those that say the current Israeli - Hamas war is about the necessity to make sure that what happened last October never happens again.  That the future security of Israel depends on wiping out all vestiges of Hamas. Retrieving the hostages that remain is also mentioned as a goal of the continued military action.

But to me, it is all about revenge. 

Revenge.  That all encompassing need to seek justice when we are wronged. And, if you read that post I referred to above, the topic I touch upon at its end which is also at the end of the letter to the editor which led to that post, it is the idiocy of revenge that I discuss.

What strikes me about this war, and all wars, is that they very rarely accomplish the primary goal of preventing similar actions from occurring in the future.

For the life of me, I can't understand how the Israeli government and people don't think that by killing tens of thousands of women and children, in addition to displacing over a million Palestinians, isn't going to sow the seeds for future terrorists. And as for rescuing the hostages, I hope to be surprised that some are still alive, but believe that goal are words offered to the families, not a priority of the war.

Hatred begets hatred, war begets war, and anyone who thinks otherwise is either fooling themselves, or more likely, is only interested in revenge. 

But wait a minute Joe, you might say, didn't the bombing of Japan and Germany, the utter destruction of those two countries in addition to the slaughter of thousands of its citizens lead to peace? Are they not our allies today?

For me, this is the exact example of why war and revenge do not cease the circle of killing, because I assert that it was the Marshall Plan, which aided all the countries devastated by World War II, allies and enemies alike, and the monetary loans and grants provided to Japan which ended the cycle. In other words, it was kindness after the war that worked, not the war itself.

Proof of my assertion is that when we compare the treatment of Germany after World War I, when punishment of the defeated was the rule of the day, it seems obvious that the people were ripe for someone like Hitler who could point to the monetary revenge enacted by the Allies as the reason for their poverty and suffering. 

From there, speeches exhorting The Fatherland above all, (can you say Germany first) and a plan to restore Germany to a world power resonated with the German citizens. And so the cycle repeated. Had we treated Germany after WW1 as we did after WW2, perhaps the destruction of the second World War could have been avoided. But again, revenge ruled the day.

Additionally, Stalin dismissed the aid offered by the Allies, thereby creating a divided Europe, and eventually the onset of the Cold War. One could speculate that had Stalin accepted monies and assistance from the Marshall Plan, the world would look much different than it does today.

So, the question becomes, will Israel embark on its own version of the Marshall Plan once it has devastated Gaza? Will they follow the path of the Allies after WW2, or the path that was pursued after WW1?

To be honest, I am skeptical that once the ground war into Gaza has ended, that Israel will strive to rebuild Gaza. Certainly not as long as Netanyahu remains in power. 

In the movie Back to the Future, after George saves Lorraine from the clutches of Biff in the car outside the prom, he looks down at his clenched fist, looks at Lorraine, then offers his open hand to her to help her out of the car.

Will Israel offer an open hand to the Palestinians after they destroy their infrastructure and kill their leaders? And if so, will it be enough to counter the hatred they have created among the people who have seen their hospitals, businesses, and homes leveled and their husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters killed?

So again I say, revenge never works. One could even go so far as to say that rejecting revenge was one of the main tenets of the New Testament. Good news that replaced an eye for an eye with do unto others as you would have done to you.

It is a lesson not only important for Israel and the Palestinians to embrace but for America as well. Had we done so, the trillions of dollars and thousands of young lives wasted after 9/11 could have been saved.

 

 

An Atheist for Christ

It has been a dozen years or so since I wrote An Atheist for Christ. At the time, I "published" it, available to purchase through Amazon on Kindle for $1.99. I sold a few over the course of the next few years, certainly less than I hoped, but.... 

Because it was such a while ago, it took me some time to figure out where I had saved it. As it turned out, it was on the hard drive of a computer I stopped using a few years ago, but didn't destroy. Once found, it then took me a number of tries to alter its format into one which my new computer could handle. During the process, I also made a few grammatical fixes, and altered the format a bit. 

As a result, I present to you a new version of the compilation. As I said it my last post, the issues raised are all still very relevant, which disappoints me all the more considering twelve years have passed. In fact, it seems for some, the problems have deepened, become even less likely to be resolved. 

Perhaps we will make better progress in the next twelve years. 

                                         

                                    An Atheist for Christ 

                          

    Foreword 

When I told a friend of mine that the title of this group of essays was to be An Atheist for Christ, she said that it didn’t make sense. She assumed, like many people, that belief in the teachings of Christ presupposed belief in God. I joked with her that she was right, I really should have called the essays An Agnostic for Christ, but that just didn’t have the same ring to it, the same pizzazz. 

What I hope to demonstrate to her in this brief collection of thoughts is that in fact one can believe in the teachings of Christ and in the beauty of his message without glorifying it with the connection to God. In other words, if we don’t shoot the messenger who delivers bad news, conversely, perhaps we shouldn’t deify those who have brought us good news. 

    Chapter One: Cigarettes and Guns 

I don’t smoke, at least not cigarettes. I believe it is an unfortunate habit that robs many people of their health, and their material resources. That it is physically addictive has been proven without a doubt which leads me to wonder how anyone who manufactures, distributes or retails the product can deny that it is not a very uplifting way to earn a living. I imagine that many of them smoke themselves so at least they are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. 

I would prefer that cigarettes be made illegal as they have been proven to be physically, emotionally, and mentally addictive. But it has been demonstrated over time that attempts to legislate away human foibles frequently results in the opposite reaction. It is an unfortunate fact that people will always engage in activities that are harmful to them. So, while I do not feel sorry for the tobacco companies when they get sued for huge amounts of money especially when one considers how much time and effort they spent in attempts to bury the evidence of the link between their product and cancer, I also have limited sympathy for those people who sue when they develop lung cancer. 

Let’s be honest, when you took your first puff, you coughed. We all did. You knew it certainly couldn’t be good for you, or your body wouldn’t have reacted so negatively. But again, we all have our bad habits, so if a few million dollar settlements help reduce the profitability of tobacco companies, I am OK with that as long as we all realize that the fault is comprehensive. 

I also don’t own a gun, can’t imagine ever owning one. And while I admit that responsible gun ownership is the rule rather than the exception, I would certainly prefer there be less guns in the world, more rules governing ownership both in type and quantity. What saddens me is that so many people die from the misuse of guns, yet there are those who truly believe that more guns would make us all safer. As if an increase in guns would only find their way into the hands of good people, and as if there has never been a case of a good person losing their temper or making a bad decision. 

Perhaps we should look at is this way. If the thought of lung cancer eating away your insides isn’t enough to persuade you to quit, just imagine a picture of Jesus giving his Sermon on the Mount with a cigarette dangling out of his mouth. Or a gun sticking out of his waist band. 

Hard to envision? 

    Chapter Two: Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.

    Marriage

The institution of marriage is a hot topic right now. Most specifically, gay marriage. Many people of religion maintain that it is against God’s will for marriage other than between a man and a woman. There has been and continues to be amendments to various state constitutions to define marriage as only between a man and a woman thereby outlawing gay marriage. 

In particular, the amendment in California called Proposition 8 that was ratified by the voters thereby outlawing gay marriage was challenged in the courts, both state and federal, as being unconstitutional for the reason of its being contrary to the pursuit of happiness clause embedded in the framework of the state of California's constitution. 

One might also wonder if the issue of separation of church and state might eventually be raised as it is generally conservative Christian groups that spearhead such amendments. 

At the time of passage of Proposition 8, it was proclaimed an important “victory” for those who present themselves as defenders of the sanctity of marriage. I am married, to a woman, and don’t understand the concern. 

How does the marriage of two people of the same sex affect my relationship and family? Especially in an age where virtually half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce? I would think that religious people would rejoice in the prospect of any persons who are willing to pledge their faith to each other before their neighbors and their god. 

Seems an odd premise, claiming a belief in marriage that is so strong that you would make it illegal for certain people who want to marry. Some proponents of the one man, one woman definition of marriage point to the fact that homosexual couples can't have children in the normal way. That if everyone was gay, the species would die out. But does that mean that heterosexual couples who choose not to have children should also be prevented from marrying? 

And what of heterosexual couples who turn to artificial means to have a child? Is it not a blessing when that child is conceived and raised in a family that would go to such lengths to have a child? Is it any less of a blessing when a same sex couple navigates the same process? 

So, if it isn’t really about success or failure of marriage and it isn’t really about carrying on the existence of man, what is it about? Many will answer that homosexuality is against nature and against God's plan. Funny how some people know exactly the details of God's plan. But what if God's plan is to test how we treat each other by creating people with different skin color, different religious beliefs, different sexual orientation?

    Chapter Three: Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy. 

    Health Care

A few years ago, we witnessed the passage of the first substantial health care reform bill since the creation of Medicare. Much was made by its opponents that the reforms would cost the country billions of dollars while continuing our steady decline to socialism. What was so confusing was that many of the same people who were adamantly against the legislation were receiving their health care benefits from the government. 

Some were older Americans on Medicare. 

Some were proud veterans who had bravely served their country and were now taking advantage of the Veterans Administration for their medical care. 

Some were the politicians themselves whose health care was not only top notch but subsidized by their employer (the United States taxpayers) and was available for life, even after an election loss. 

Other voices against the reforms were people of great wealth. For them, the health reforms would mean little because their wealth enabled them to fly anywhere in the world and pay any amount of money to be treated for an illness. I imagine that they had concluded that their wealth was the result of their hard work, and therefore they were entitled to the best health care that money could buy. 

Conversely, it seemed that their attitude towards helping other people, fellow citizens of this great country, to have access to even basic health care hinged on a belief that those less fortunate must somehow deserve their plight. Strangely, many surveys of the public's attitude towards health care insurers who denied coverage to the sick in the guise of pre-existing conditions while routinely posting profits in the billions, was unfavorable. A majority of people acknowledged that the thought of Americans going bankrupt and/or losing their home as a result of an illness did not seem fair, yet a similar majority, in the end, was not in favor of many of the newly enacted reforms, especially those that required all people to buy health insurance. 

Even though it is obvious that any health care system will go bankrupt if only sick people paid premiums, we were unable to accept the premise that everyone purchasing health insurance (which most of us buy anyway) does not compromise our belief in capitalism. 

The sad part is that many people become proponents of a more universal health care system only after they or a family member face a devastating illness without proper insurance. Then, finally, it is easy to imagine how even more destructive the illness becomes, depending on how good their coverage turns out to be. 

Wouldn't it be better if, instead of the refrain offered by those who have been let down by the health insurance industry, "I don't want this to happen to anyone else" could somehow become "This shouldn't happen to anyone" without the negative occurrence happening first? 

    Chapter Four: Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 

    Wealth and Materialism 

Most people don't realize that the United States became a world power and a wealthy nation only recently. We spent much of the first 160 years of our existence as a nation experiencing the pains of growth, mostly ignored by the more established European powers. 

Our first real voyage onto the world stage was World War I and while we certainly made an impression on those countries of the old continent, our newfound status didn't last long, and by the 1930's we were virtually bankrupt as a nation. 

Our true sustained rise started in the years of WWII, grew in leaps and bounds during the time of the Cold War and, some might say, culminated in the collapse of the Soviet Union during the 1980's, which resulted in there being only one super power left, the United States of America. 

This incredible period of growth produced (and was driven by) the emergence and meteoric growth of the middle class. Some might argue that the time from the late 1940's through the 1970's featured history's greatest time of upward mobility for the everyday man. It was no longer about being born into wealth. 

Clearly, capitalism enabled the common man to aspire to and achieve a standard of living that provided a comfortable lifestyle and the opportunity to allow one's children the chance to an even better life. Working hard to attain a higher standard of living was supposed to be a means to a happier life. It was supposed to provide some of life's comforts, and allow for leisure time to spend with family, friends, or just to relax. 

But something changed. The accumulation of wealth became the ends rather that the means. In sports, in business, in entertainment, $10, $20, $40 million per year salaries are commonplace while the standard of living for everyday Americans has stagnated. 

As the wealth and worth of the top 1% continues to grow, as our government is flooded with the monies of special interests and billionaires, the notion that happiness can only be found in riches and possessions has replaced the concept that a happy family, good friends, satisfying work, and faith in God and the goodness of man is the recipe for individual happiness. 

Perhaps if we could be a fly on the wall when some billionaire is confronted at the gates of heaven with the simple question, did you make the world a better place, we might realize that obscene wealth may be the biggest obstacle to a more lasting, eternal happiness. 

    Chapter Five: Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth. 

    Children 

The teachings of Jesus are full of stories which demonstrated his love for children. As a self-described Christian nation, it should be a no brainer for us to do all we can to make sure that every child is presented with the opportunity for shelter, food, a loving home, and a quality education. 

Yet so many of our financial battles, the debates between the current fiscal condition and the future solvency of our country, seem to boil down to cutting benefits for the least among us, those in poverty, children as well as adults, while maintaining the advantages of those with the most resources. Frankly, I am not sure the gentle will want to inherit the earth if the greedy and short sighted among us continue to poison our water, denude our forests, strip mine our mountains and gouge holes in our earth all in the name of profit for the few. 

However, perhaps the earth in this case refers not to the physical plane of our existence, but the earth as it freely gives us its fresh water, its flora and fauna, its beautiful landscapes. Perhaps it is only the gentle who can truly appreciate the wonders of the earth, and therefore only they that can inherit and enjoy its gifts. 

Furthermore, perhaps it is only through a child’s eyes that we will be able to truly see the wonderful variation of man himself. Young children, when placed in a room without adult interventions, will play with each other without regard to race or gender, economic or social status. It is only when the prejudices and biases of their upbringing is implanted and learned that children become racists, misogynists, and other kinds of purveyors of hatred. 

What will it take for us to stop idolizing those who use their talents to take advantage of the meek and gentle, those who scoff at the idea that love is the strongest weapon we have against the forces of evil, and that taking over the earth is not remotely the same as inheriting it. 

    Chapter Six: Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. 

    Spirituality 

Many people equate attacks on religion as attacks on God. Of course, there are those who flock to the idea that the flaws of religion, man’s invention, proves there is no God or that God is not good. In that sense, they are just as wrong as those who assume that an agnostic or atheist cannot be spiritual. 

I have no doubt that those who truly look for the best in others, those who seek out and share stories of good deeds, those who value integrity and courage above fame and fortune, will be rewarded, not just in the next life assuming you believe in such a thing, but in this life as well. 

Many people, those of faith and those seeking the meaning of life, look to our religious leaders for lessons and guidance to attaining a spiritual life. Books by the hundreds have been written by PHD’s, gurus, and common men who were struck with inspiration. And, it is very easy to find God’s word being explained on TV and radio. 

Occasionally, I will stop to watch one of those shows on cable, or listen a few minutes to one on the radio. Generally, it doesn’t take long for the “preacher” to single out a segment of society that God hates, and who is to blame for the world’s troubles. Or, the emphasis will be on the fear of being cast into eternal damnation if one doesn’t think a certain way or worship a certain god. 

What seems to be missing is the message that spirituality is its own reward. It provides a positive outlook which begets an attention to the good times, and a resistance to depression in the light of those times not so good. 

It sees the cup half filled. 

It helps one live in the moment as opposed to wishing for the moment to pass for a future moment that is never realized. 

It sees the good in all, forgives the bad actions committed by everyone, and inspires empathy and an ability to see life through another’s eyes. 

Perhaps, rather than bemoaning the apparent trend for people to attend church less often, to claim affiliation with a religion is steadily declining, to discuss openly the possibility that god does not intervene in the lives of man, but expects us to be each other’s keeper, perhaps if more men of religion focused on the simple message of love, the trend might reverse. 

    Chapter Seven: You have heard that it was said, "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? 

    Politics and Nationalism 

Partisan politics is at an all-time high, and the country is as divided as ever, is a common refrain on both the left and the right. Notwithstanding that the ego-centrism of always thinking we live in the greatest time ever, or the greatest country ever, or any such “ever” statements is revealing in itself, I can’t imagine that any time other than the time of the Civil War where hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by Americans, was any less divisive. 

And how about the 1960’s and 1970’s when the fight for Civil Rights for black Americans created deep divides, the deaths of citizen protesters by police, and riots in the streets? A bit divisive, don’t you think? 

But all that aside, it is certainly a time when calling the president a hater of America or of white people, or merely calling him a liar in the halls of Congress, seems outrageously commonplace. One would think that, as a Christian nation, we would remember Christ’s words about loving your enemies, especially when your “enemy” is merely a fellow citizen with a different party affiliation. 

So imagine the difficulty in following Christ’s command to love your enemy when he is a Muslim terrorist who just beheaded a journalist? People on both sides of the aisle believe their perspectives are good for America and often find it hard to understand the completely opposite viewpoints of the other side. Our true strength, the true measure of America’s greatness and her level of Christianity, is acknowledging where we differ, respecting those differences, acting by example to show how our beliefs may be better to follow, and working together in the areas where agreement can be found. 

It may not approach the command of loving one’s enemies, but it is clearly superior to calling them anti-American or unpatriotic. In Christ’s time, tax collectors weren’t well respected. So let’s replace the word taxpayers in his statement with the word terrorists. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the terrorists do the same? 

    Chapter Eight: No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. 

    Corporations 

I especially like this beatitude. It goes well with Christ’s proverb about the rich having as much of a chance to reach heaven as a camel passing through the eye of a needle. Yet, clearly America is all about wealth. And the creation of the corporation is the penultimate vehicle for accumulating wealth. Those who incorporate gain all the benefits of its success but bear little of the penalties when it fails. 

The corporation has no national allegiances; even economists whom I consider left leaning, give corporations a pass when they move their base off shore for better tax rates. 

The corporation certainly has no concern for its employees, treating them as liabilities rather than the reason they prosper. Whether it’s moving jobs to southern states with lower standards of living or overseas to countries with labor rates a fraction of ours, corporations are all about profit for the investors. 

What is doubly ironic is that since the 1980’s, pay for those running the biggest multi-national corporations has increased hundreds of times. I wish I could be present when all those “camels” try to pass through the eye of the needle at the Pearly Gates. 

With the recent Supreme Court decisions granting some individual and religious rights to corporations, one might think that an increase in acts of Christianity towards the employees might develop. Unfortunately, the reality is that those rights will only be used to advance the needs of the corporation, the one true master. 

Humanity is far and away, second billing in the hierarchy of priorities, and God, a farcical theme thrown about by those in charge to make us think they care about loving one another. 

But, ever the optimist, I soon expect a generation of the future, to understand the perils of the corporate mentality, and begin to reverse the trend that allows corporations to control so much of our daily lives. Hopefully, this event will be spurred, not by some horrible event that demonstrates the core corporate belief that people are a liability to higher profit, but by a gradual swing to the spiritual awakening which acknowledges the phrase, “You cannot serve God and wealth”. 

    Chapter Nine: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God. 

    War and Peace 

Is it even possible for America to truly heed this beatitude? One could reasonably defend the assertion that our country was born from violence – the War for Independence. That, as I mentioned above, our greatness became apparent during World War 2, the years of the Cold War and the times leading up to the collapse of Soviet Russia. 

In the late 1960’s a book called the Report from Iron Mountain was published. It claimed to be the result of a top secret commission charged with studying the effect that a lasting peace might have on America, and all nations. Since then, it has been called everything from the greatest literary hoax of all time, to the blueprint for American foreign policy. 

My mention of this report is neither a recommendation nor condemnation, but to make the point that while many Americans believe we are a peace loving nation, war has been our calling card since inception. 

We are the biggest supplier of weapons on earth. 

We have one of the highest ratios of guns to people of any country and one of the highest percentages of death by violence. 

We actively pass Castle Doctrine Laws that give the green light to the use of deadly force if someone enters your home. 

We scoff at those who think poorly of the phrase “shoot first and ask questions later”, and admire those who “speak softly and carry a big stick”. 

Even our police departments, many now possessing vehicles and weapons that one would only expect on a battlefield, seem to have lost their charge of using deadly force in limited practice. 

Are weapons set to stun becoming the stuff of science fiction only? Our arrogance about the use of force is so entrenched that many weapons, from hand guns to an airplane with nuclear bomb capabilities, have been called peacemakers. 

Perhaps it is me, but, as the Iron Mountain report concludes, if the best way to galvanize nationalism is to always have a boogeyman to blame, and if the best way to control the thinking of a population is to immerse them in stories which inspire fear, and if the best way to direct media content is through corporate control, then perhaps Murdoch and Ailes knew what they were doing when they created Fox News. 

One thing is for sure, if we are to aspire to the moniker “sons of God”, we have a long way to go before we truly emulate Jesus of Nazareth.

    Chapter Last: In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets. 

    The Golden Rule 

I was fortunate in that I was raised a catholic by parents who lead the life by example. While I have strayed away from the dogma of the religion, I believe that I was guided by the examples taught to me about Christ and demonstrated to me by my parents. If I had been raised by Islam parents of the same mold, or by Jewish parents or by Buddhists or by agnostics, as long as they were true to the spirit of their beliefs, I have no doubt I would be of similar thought today. 

I have made many mistakes in my life, engaged in activities immoral and foolish, detrimental to both my body and my soul. I am far more reasonable, far more spiritual in the vacuum of these writings that in the reality of life. But I hold on to the idea that men and women, beset by the same tribulations and temptations, have achieved great things, uplifting things. 

Some have written great treatises on economics, some have made life saving medical discoveries, some have created magnificent declarations of man’s equality, some have achieved superior athletic feats. 

And some have presented us with an example of how to live among each other in peace and harmony. By equating this last achievement, Christ’s example, to a connection with god, perhaps we provide an excuse not to strive. So perhaps, an atheist for Christ is not a contradiction in terms as my friend told me, but a mindset that acknowledges the combination of good and bad that exists in us and challenges us to make conscious choices, every day, to be one or the other. 

Lastly, I often wonder why today’s liberals do not refer more often to the teachings of Jesus Christ, the greatest liberal of all time in my opinion, when proposing or defending their viewpoints and policies. 

Clearly, God and the bible have been ceded to the Republicans. Even in the defense of the use of guns and force, the word God often appears in a book title or a speech. And, you can’t go a day without hearing some far right pundit or politician quoting the bible while feeding the fans of hatred against the evil du jour. 

Yet the quotes I have referred to on these pages, sentiments that reflect a new way of interacting with each other, are far less mentioned, far less used in discussions and lessons. 

Is it just too difficult emulate Christ, in private and public policy? Is it politically incorrect to even try? Perhaps then, only through atheism, without the restrictions of the dogma of the religions that encompass them, can the spirit of these great institutions, and the teachings of Jesus, Mohammed, and Buddha be truly realized, and manifested in daily practice.

Chino

Last weekend I was a bit startled with the news headline proclaiming that President Biden had declared Easter Sunday, March 31st, as Transgender Day of Visibility. At first I thought it was a fake news article, since it seemed like such an outrageous and not very smart move by Biden. When I clicked on a few of the articles addressing the proclamation, the entire focus was how insulting this was to the Christian community, and how it proved that Biden and the liberal mob to which he answers were yet again displaying their anti-Christian, even anti-God agenda.

Of course, then I googled the subject and quickly discovered that March 31st has been recognized in this fashion since 2009. Biden didn't just proclaim it out of thin air, he just recognized its existence in solidarity to a community that is under assault from the far right.

Folks, it took literally, seconds for me to understand the backstory, yet millions of Americans did not choose to spend those few seconds, less time that it took to read any of the hateful attacks on Biden, to discover the truth.

Additionally, I thought it interesting to do a quick walk down memory lane and research how Easter Sunday is determined. I say memory lane because, as someone who was raised a Catholic, who attended eight years of Parochial school, and four years of high school in a setting run by Christian Brothers, I probably knew the formula behind Easter Sunday at some time. 

Do you know?

Without diving too far into the weeds, Easter Sunday falls on the first Sunday after the Paschal Moon. (Paschal is derived from pascha a transliteration of the Aramic word meaning Passover). What is the Paschal Moon? That is the first full moon that occurs after the spring equinox. 

But where does the crucifixion of Jesus come in, you ask? Well, if my memory of the catechism I was taught serves, there was a tradition of freeing a condemned man at the time of the Passover. Jesus, having been condemned to die could have been granted freedom, but the story goes that when asked whom to free, the Jews in the crowd shouted for Barabbas to be freed, not Jesus. 

As Christianity gained favor in the following decades, it made sense to align the death and resurrection of Jesus with the harbinger of new life, the spring equinox, which had been celebrated for thousands of years before the birth of Jesus. 

So, just to summarize, Biden did not "choose" Easter Sunday, March 31st to honor Transgender Day of Visibility, it has been celebrated on that day since 2009. Also, Easter Sunday does not really memorialize the death of Jesus of Nazareth, if so we would celebrate the actual Friday before Passover when he was crucified. Instead we honor Jesus's sacrifice for our sins on the day he rose from the dead, by 

co-opting the observance of spring which has been commemorated by humans for centuries.

So why all the hubbub about Biden's recognition of the annual Transgender Day of Visibility? 

Can you say prejudice? It is hard to decide which group of people in America are being attacked more, the transgender community or the undocumented. Both are routinely pilloried in the conservative media, both labelled everything from subhuman to perverts. Their treatment is indicative of those Americans who are afraid of the changes that are outpacing their understanding, and who prefer to blame their own fear of mortality as well as the loss of the rose colored memories of their childhood on the people who are being offered so conveniently by those seeking power and influence.

As I have said in a number of past posts about prejudice and discrimination, America has a rich history of using immigrant labor to build our infrastructure, fight and die in our wars, and do all the jobs that the "native" population eschews, while at the same time crying that those same immigrants are criminals, lazy, dirty, and are poisoning the blood of our country.

Here are links to a few of those posts. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/07/different-vs-special.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/01/rudolph-and-lincoln.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/07/muslim-demographics.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/09/prejudice.html

What seems so remarkable to me is that so many of the most outspoken people, and some of the most vitriolic comments about the LGBTQ+ community and the undocumented, emanate from those claiming to be Christians. 

As I mentioned above, I was raised a Catholic. But more importantly, I spent a number of years deciding for myself which religion best suited me, rather than believing everything I was taught in school and at church, just because my parents were Catholic. 

I read the bible, along with some of the other religious tomes. I followed a guru for a while, going to knowledge classes, attending programs, listening to tapes, practicing meditation. I found inspiration in the lessons of Jesus, especially the Sermon on the Mount, in the writings of Kahlil Gibran, and in the real life examples of my mother's life, particularly in her friendships and her focus on family.

While I am certainly far from a religious person, not having an association with any church for many decades, I do feel that my perception of the foundation of Christianity, the life and lessons of Christ, precludes the hatred that I see directed towards those considered on the margins of society by these alleged Christian groups. 

Perhaps I am misguided, but considering that Jesus lived his life amidst the marginalized people of his time, I firmly believe he would be advocating for much better treatment of the undocumented and those with a different gender preference. Of course, there are people who follow that example, and it is no secret how they are treated by those who claim to be believers of Jesus Christ.

To put all my cards on the table, I do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, that he died for our sins so that we could be saved, or that he rose from the dead, let alone that he was born of a virgin and conceived through the holy spirit. Yet, based on my understanding of his teachings, I wonder how those who claim to be Christians can exhibit such hatred and condemnation for others, in his name.

I distinctly remember writing a paper for religion class while in high school in which I speculated on whether a Christ figure was sent to every planet in the universe for the purpose of opening heaven to that planet's inhabitants, or whether Earth was unique. And if our planet was special in that way, why would God not save the inhabitants of all planets she created in the universe? And if we are that special, why are we so violent and inhumane in how we treat each other? One would think if we really felt we were that unique in the universe, we would celebrate our diversity, and our special place in God's plan. 

At this point in my life, I fail to see how any Christian can act in such an unchristian way, if he/she really believes what they claim to believe. We celebrate the diversity of our pets, the wonder of travelling to other countries, of seeing the wonders of our planet, of trying new foods, listening to new music, experiencing the incredible range of life that was provided by our creator, and then dehumanize some of her creations, in her name. 

Is it any wonder why more and more people are estranged from the religion of their upbringing when they see so much of America drowning in the very deadly sins that the Christian bible warns of, especially greed, wrath and pride?

I will next post An Atheist for Christ, which I wrote over ten years ago. I have just finished reading it, making some tweaks on format, correcting a few spelling errors. I shook my head a number of times during this process, as I realized that the points I made have not changed or improved, but in fact, have worsened. 

I sometimes hear conservatives, seemingly with glee, point to polls that indicate that a large percentage of Americans are not happy with the direction of the country. They seem to assume that when someone with a similar perception as myself, indicates our displeasure with where we are going as a nation, that we blame liberals, or Biden, or "woke" policies. 

This is another indication of their arrogance, their inability to realize that many Americans are distressed with the direction of our country because of the actions of those who wield their Christianity as a weapon to marginalize, even dehumanize, those who they claim god does not love. 

I am unhappy with America because of judicial decisions based on 18th and 19th century mores, laws that restrict voting rights rather than expanding access to this precious right, and policies that treat people who are different, by birth, as enemies of our creator, as if any of us can understand such an unfathomable intelligence.  

Oh, I almost forgot. Why on earth does this post reference a pair of pants made from lightweight cotton materials?

Chino, pronounced with the letter i sounding like a long e, is the trousers. 

But for me, the letter "i" in chino is pronounced with a long i. Put more easily, my version of chino, my use of it as an acronym, rhymes with the acronym Rino, or republican in name only.

Do you get it? Chino, Christian in name only.

It is those people, Virginia, that are the reason why I am unhappy with America's direction, and why, sadly, I believe the worst is yet to come.

Going Even Further Right

I was scanning my blog for posts about nuclear weapons and nuclear war with the thought that I might post about this subject again, when I came upon the following post from June of 2012. Just to remind you, it was during the summer of the run up to the presidential election between Obama (seeking his second term) and what appeared to be Mitt Romney. I conceived the post after hearing a moderate Republican on TV lament that the party was beginning to move much farther right than he was comfortable with, and that Reagan and George W Bush, two center right presidents, might not have much of a chance in the current Republican party.

Imagine that, in 2012, this particular conservative and lifelong member of the Republican party, was concerned that his party was moving too far right, and was concerned that Romney might need to campaign further right than he had governed (remember, he was the Governor of Massachusetts, where his health care policy of health insurance for all became the basis for the Affordable Care Act).

Here is that link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/06/gops-move-to-right.html

As it turned out, Obama won that election, 332 to 206 in the electoral college, and by about 5 million votes overall. Certainly not a mandate, but considering that unemployment, which had peaked around 10% after the economic meltdown of 2008, was still just under 8%, it was a strong victory for Obama. While some say that Romney wasn't the best candidate which is why he lost, many Republicans felt that he didn't go far enough to the right. The fact that Donald Trump became their next presidential candidate, and won, perhaps confirms that criticism.

One of the points I made in that post from 2012, was that the GOP had no choice but to veer further right as they had labelled Obama the most far left president in our history. (Those claiming that clearly missed FDR's 4 terms as president.) 

Unfortunately, as I described in that post, most of Obama's policies were center left, in general. Sure, the Affordable Care Act was a major accomplishment and considered another step towards socialism, but as we have seen since its inception, it is not only popular, it not only provides millions of Americans with health insurance, but it also has forced health insurance companies to incorporate many popular aspects of the ACA into their everyday operations, such as allowing children up to age 26 to stay on their parents policy, removing some of the restrictions which prevented people to attain affordable health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, expanded Medicare eligibility and required insurers to cover a list of essential health benefits.

In other words, if passing and implementing the ACA was a far left policy, then its overall success and popularity must indicate America is a bit further left than the GOP would like to admit.

All this being said, I can't imagine what that conservative pundit thinks today. Or can I?

You see, the person is David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, who is past lamenting about his party's tilt to the far right. He is now an MSNBC contributor, a senior editor of The Atlantic, and has written much about the dangers of Donald Trump.

While it is obvious that he does not support Trump and is alarmed about the state of the GOP, he apparently has not all together given up on his party, or to be more precise, his conservative leanings. He has just found himself trying to live a center right life within a far, far right political party.

But wouldn't someone as far left as you think that Joe? 

True, my political beliefs are a bit further left of the average. As I often say, I see the world in a much different way than those who demonize immigrants (documented and undocumented), believe that we need to have a national religion, think that the LGBTQ+ community is a threat to our nation, worship billionaires (especially the orange one) just because they have a lot of money, regardless of how they accumulated it, think science is a liberal conspiracy, yearn for a "strong" man to lead us despite the danger of his dictatorial tendencies, etc. (It is a large list, growing larger.)

Still, rolling back women's reproductive rights seems pretty far right to me, especially when these new laws guarantee a higher maternal death and child poverty rate. Not to mention the birth of unwanted children conceived as the result of incest and rape. 

And, frankly, so are laws that tell children and their parents that any gender confusion they might be experiencing should be ignored. Sure, the bullying will continue, the suicidal thoughts will still be present, but you have no rights in the land of the free to pursue treatment to help yourself. Additionally, don't bother trying to relieve yourself in the gender specific bathroom that makes you feel more comfortable, that is not a right you need to exercise in America. And, if you live in Texas, be doubly vigilant, because AG Paxton seeks your personal records, no doubt to rid his state of people like you so as to make Texas great again.

As for voting, the foundation of our democracy, well, since the GOP presidential candidate has only won the popular vote in one of the last eight elections, we must pass laws and add restrictions which make it harder to vote.  I can remember not that long ago having political disagreements with friends and family, but we at least always agreed that we should make it easier to vote. There was even talk of devising a way to vote online.

But now there are laws reducing the number of days for early voting, reducing the availability of mail-in votes, or drop boxes for votes, or if someone can hand a prospective voter a bottle of water while they wait in line. Not to mention the closing of polling sites in (coincidentally) minority communities. Can't win through policy, then just make it harder to vote.

In my state, Pennsylvania, when a voter completes their mail-in vote, he/she must record the date on the envelope or the vote might not count. The fact that when you mail a mail-in vote, it is date stamped by the United States Post Office, or if the vote is received before or even within a day of election day, it was clearly mailed in time, doesn't seem to matter. Because, you see, the point is to disenfranchise voters, and the fact that Democrats use mail-in votes more often really has nothing to do with this silly rule. Yea, right.

And let's not forget banning books. It's not enough to monitor your own kids trips to the library, now we must regulate everyone's access to books. Considering that so much information is available at a child's fingertips through the internet, it makes little sense to focus on libraries, to threaten librarians with fines and the loss of their job, when most of those same kids have 24/7 access via their cell phone. But hey, if you're going to go full right, book banning sounds good. 

Speaking of Reagan, the guy famous for his declaration, "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall", what do you think he would make of a party that embraces the current dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin? Whose party leader thinks Putin is a strong leader and "very smart". A party with legislative representatives and everyday voters who believe Putin's invasion of Ukraine is justifiable? A party that doesn't understand that a guy who kills his political rivals is a threat to global  democracy?

When Reagan was president, one of his favorite fellow leaders was Margaret Thatcher. Now the GOP is led by a guy whose favorite world leaders are all autocrats or dictators! He even just invited one to Mar a Lago! Do you think they were sharing cookie recipes, or reviewing the dictator playbook for dismantling a democracy?

So yes, I am liberal, I am left of center, and I am just as aghast as David Frum was in 2012 at the GOP's headlong drive to the far right. But more so, I am scared at how many Americans, even though a minority, identify with such far right policies as well. 

Finally, for those of you who followed the Ronna McDaniel saga, I thought it important to remind everyone that Ronna is Mitt Romney's niece. She used to go by the name of Ronna Romney McDaniel, but dropped the Romney when she was named RNC chair. 

Whether that decision was based on the original David Frum complaint that the GOP was moving too far right, and that Reagan, Bush and, as it turned out, Romney were no longer acceptable candidates, or Trump requested it, as some believe, it is clear that the GOP was fully committed to its continued shift to the right at that time.

The fact that NBC News thought she could lend some kind of perspective about how the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats, or about how the plan in which she actively participated (and may still be indicted in Michigan for) to ignore the American electorate and keep Trump in power almost worked, seems shortsighted, at best.  

Even if she was now going to admit that she was wrong when she was all in for Trump, that she now sees his deficiencies, especially since her party has consistently underachieved since 2016 when she became RNC chair and swerved far right, what would be the value of that? Trump has already kicked her out, is already mocking her for running to the left. 

Ronna sold her soul to glide behind the coat tails of Trump, and is now, like so many of those whom he jettisons when they are of no use to him, left waving in the wind. That is the danger of going far right, or any such extreme. Once you are out, there is no where to go.

Johnny Carson... and Death

I have been watching the Johnny Carson channel lately (yes, that is a real thing). I have probably seen about thirty to forty episodes so far. Considering that the show ran for just shy of thirty years, it is fair to suggest that Carson hosted over 7500 shows if we take into account when guest hosts filled in for him, so I expect to be able to click on the channel and see something different, someone different, for quite a while.

While Johnny, Ed McMahon, and Tommy Newsom (Doc's stand in to lead the band) are no longer with us, Doc Severinson is still alive. But considering that Johnny's last show was in May 1992, many of the guests I have seen to date have also passed away. So far, I have seen, in no particular order, appearances by George Carlin, Burt Reynolds, Milton Berle, Richard Pryor, Joan Rivers, Gary Shandling, David Brenner, Dom Rickles, Bob Saget, Flip Wilson and a few more I am sure I am forgetting. 

I have also seen the first appearance on the Tonight Show by Jay Leno (I kept waiting for Johnny to say, who knows, one day he might host this show), Eddie Murphy, Ellen Degeneres, Jerry Seinfield, and a number of other comics to whom Johnny gave "a shot" but did not achieve the status of the few named above. Obviously, as the years progressed, Johnny took his responsibility to lend a hand to aspiring comics seriously, knowing that one appearance on his show could skyrocket their careers.

Johnny also did some wonderful skits, both alone and with other stars. He often impersonated presidents, his favorite being Ronald Reagan. In addition to poking fun at Reagan, Johnny did a comical skit where he was being interviewed as George Washington. In the skit, he was asked how his polls were going, to which he responded that he hadn't received his newspaper yet, upon which there was a knock on the door, and a young man entered with a newspaper. When asked how he was today, the young man, named Ronnie, replied "Well", which was a word that Reagan often used to begin a sentence. The joke, of course, was that Reagan was a young man when George Washington was president. Carson often made fun of Reagan's age. 

I published a post in September of last year in which I posited that current president Joe Biden may one day be compared to Ronald Reagan, especially in the area of too old to be president. The post compared the two in terms of economic data, most areas in which Biden compares very favorably with Reagan. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/09/reagan-vs-biden.html 

So, why ...and Death as part of this post's title? Well, as I say in the paragraph above which begins with "While Johnny..." many of the guests I am seeing on these shows have died, especially on those shows aired in the 1970's and early 1980's. In fact, not to sound too morbid, I quickly got into the habit of googling the guests, not just to confirm my expectation that they were dead, but to see when, in relation to the date of the show I was watching. Often there was a decade or more between the appearance and passing, which was not a surprise considering most of the guests were on the show precisely because they were at the top of their profession, and in their 30's and early 40's. Still, many didn't survive to see their 80th birthday.

And then there is Freddie Prinze who made his first appearance at the tender age of 19, already having made a mark on TV and in nightclubs. Prinze was very funny, and Carson seemed impressed by both his comic material and very young age. To be honest, the brief interview seemed to reveal a young man who knew who he was and how unique his situation was, to be so young and on the verge of great success. Sadly, within three years he was dead, by his own hand.

I have been exercising in our basement more frequently this year. In addition to Carson reruns, I more often watch Friends reruns. While I never really watched Friends in its heydey, that doesn't mean I didn't fantasize about Rachel and Monica, or Monica and Phoebe, or Phoebe and Rachel. Sadly, now when I watch while pedaling, I think about Matthew Perry, who played Chandler Bing on the show.

Since his death late last year, much has been revealed about Perry, his drug use and abuse, his failed relationships, his loyal friends, his unhappiness with his life. If even half of what has been disclosed is true, Perry's fame and money were never able to fill what must have been a very large hole in his life. 

Freddie Prinze and Matthew Perry, along with the endless list of famous and/or rich people who took their lives either directly or indirectly, present such a powerful lesson about what really matters in life. 

Sometimes I feel sad for the people who seem focused only on accumulating great wealth, on thousands of daily clicks, on achieving even 15 minutes of fame. Of course, I sometimes also think about a post which might go viral. But if we are to learn anything from the sad stories of the rich and famous who die, just as we will in some (hopefully) not to near future, it has to be that money and fame, riches and possessions, do not accompany us when we pass to whatever realm we might envision. 

And, whether we will be remembered by millions who may have seen us on the Tonight Show, or just those in our immediate circles of family and friends, those memories will be far more intense, far more intimate, far more real, when based on kind words, compassion, smiles, and comfort. 

To Death... and Living. And all the wonderful times with family and friends in between.

Here are two other posts I created on the topic of Death.. and Living.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/11/death.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/01/just-finished-death.html

Philanthropy

A few weeks ago, my wife and I watched a documentary called The Greatest Night in Pop which detailed how music's biggest stars came together to record "We Are the World." If you haven't seen it, and are either interested in music history, or remember how many musicians came together in the 1980's to perform at concerts for specific causes, or to raise money to address the problems of the day, I highly recommend you watch this Netflix show.

Towards the topic of philanthropy, I checked my blog only to find three posts under the heading, all from 2015. Thinking that in itself revealed a problem, I decided to comment on the topic in this post. In addition, I have enclosed a link to those past posts which I thoroughly enjoyed rereading today. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/philanthropy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-philanthropy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/almsgiving-charity-assistance.html

For those of you who were young adults in the 80's, Live Aid and Farm Aid, both which occurred in 1985, might be considered the apex of benefit concerts. The most renowned musical artists of the day performed at those two shows, and hundreds of millions of dollars were raised outright, in addition to the millions of dollars of food that was donated by various western nation governments and non government agencies to help alleviate starvation in Africa.

And while it is certainly true that these concerts were blockbusters, the concept began in 1971 when George Harrison lent his name for the Concert for Bangladesh. This event not only set the precedent for benefit concerts, but helped to inspire Bob Geldorf and Midge Ure's song "Do They Know It's Christmas" and then Geldorf's organization of the aforementioned "We Are the World" song and Live Aid extravaganza.

In addition to these more well known spectacles, there has also been the thirty plus year Secret Policemen's Ball shows which raised money for Amnesty International, the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea in 1979, the Freddy Mercury Tribute Concert for AIDS Awareness in 1992, the Tibetan Freedom Concert in 1996, and the Concert for New York City in 2001 after the horrific events of 9/11.

While I am sure there are benefits being held by entertainers now, I am struck by the thought that what is being done today seems to pale in comparison to the global awareness concerts which I detail above. It's not like there aren't crisis galore as we speak. The war in Ukraine is two years old, why hasn't there been a Concert for Ukraine in America yet? Is it just that one of the major party's presidential candidates prefers the invading nation over the invaded? 

Or how about a benefit concert to raise money for both the victims of the Hamas attack into Israel last October as well as the humanitarian crisis that exists for the almost two million Palestinians as a result of the war in Gaza? Is it not possible for people to come together to mourn both the victims of the slaughter which initiated the war and the victims of the war itself? Is holding the idea in one's head that both acts were and are inhumane, not possible in our hyper partisan world?

And, perhaps it is too soon, or just that most people would rather forget, even though seven million people have died so far, but why wasn't there ever a concert for COVID? We lost over 1.2 million Americans to COVID, far more than any World War, more even than the loss of soldiers on both sides of the Civil War. Imagine that, the deadliest evedisaster in American history, and not only did it not bring us together to combat its spread and mourn our losses, it has driven us apart due to the politicization of the origin of the disease as well as the strategies (and vaccines) employed to limit the spread of the disease and reduce the deaths.

Is this one of the factors as to why benefit concerts, and more importantly, philanthropy and charity are in decline? 

First, it is unclear if charitable giving is truly in decline, or if there has just been a temporary dip. When I googled "is charitable giving in decline?", I found evidence that from 2021 to 2022 there was a significant reduction in giving in America. While you may still deduct your donations if you itemize (rather than use the standard deduction) on your taxes, the doubling of the standard deduction that occurred in 2017 has drastically reduced the percentage of filers who can take advantage of this deduction. 

Interestingly, in one of my 2015 posts, I posed the question of how much charitable giving might decrease if the tax deduction was removed. Again, there is not enough data to point the blame for the 2021-22 decline on this tax deduction change, as many economists point to the uncertain economic times as a bigger factor. Still, one might wonder if individual tax payers who no longer gain a tax advantage for charitable donations, in conjunction with the higher costs of living, might reduce their giving. I guess as the economy improves, more light will be shed on this topic.

I know that since our children left the nest, my wife and I have increased our charitable giving. Even now that we are both mostly retired (we each work part time, 12-20 hours a week), we have increased both the number and amount we give to charity. Perhaps, in the short term, charitable giving in America will actually increase despite the two reasons I list above, because baby boomers in the whole will have more disposable money than previous generations did. If that turns out to be true, it will at least bring from back a step or two from the cliff in my overall estimation of the baby boomer generation.

Philanthropy. Charity. Awareness that many others have less than oneself, and conversely, that many of us are very fortunate, privileged one might even say.

If we are indeed headed into a trend where people take to heart that often misinterpreted quote, charity begins at home, and America experiences a decline in everyday household charitable giving, will it simply be another indication that for all the talk about America being a Christian nation, we are all talk, no action? 

Not to put too much pressure on such short term decisions, but if we continue to ignore the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and fail to provide the Ukrainian people with the weapons and money they need to withstand the secession of their land and identity, while pretending that our weapons and monies aren't being used to slaughter women and children in Gaza, then we will be complicent, not only in two human tragedies, but in the surrendering of our "Christianity" to a much more powerful attribute and the exact opposite of charity; selfishness.

 

Shame on You Supreme Court Justices 2

Before beginning this post, I reread the one I composed almost a month ago. In that one I chastised the Justices for their apparent bias against allowing Colorado to remove Trump from their primary ballot. It wasn't just this obvious bias that concerned me but what I called their ivory tower approach to the oral questioning, and the absurdity of their seemingly offhand dismissal of the actual basis for Colorado's Supreme Court decision, that Trump engaged in insurrection. 

It can certainly be debated whether Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen, his pressure campaign to convince certain state officials to alter or misreport vote totals and to create "alternate" slates of electors, not to mention his relentless attacks on Mike Pence to "do the right thing", and his apparent glee as the rioters attacked the Capitol building, rise to the level of insurrection, but the fact that all those things occurred (and more), should at least have been a part of the debate as to whether Colorado, or Maine, after digesting these facts, had the right to disqualify Trump. 

To completely disregard this aspect of the decision, seems to indicate that either the Justices are purposefully ignoring it, or have decided not to take responsibility (as the final judicial word on any legal matter), for upholding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/shame-on-you-supreme-court-justices.html

Now, as a result of their decision to rule on the extent of presidential immunity as being claimed by the ex-president, it seems that ignoring Trump's actions isn't the case anymore, they are actually going to discuss whether he can actually do whatever he wants as president along as his party doesn't impeach him. Hard to believe I would ever look upon Nixon with a bit of wistfulness, as even he knew that his own party might impeach him for his actions, and that he wasn't above the law, while Trump has always acted as if laws are for everyone else, while his grip on the GOP is impenetrable.

This whole situation is the perfect storm of inconceivable actions which the founders could have never predicted. A wanna be dictator with an iron grip on his party along with a Supreme Court more worried about technical legal issues than the fight to save our democracy.

As someone far more insightful that I have said, most great nations fall from within.

What galls me is not just that SCOTUS chose to elucidate their opinion on presidential immunity (an amazing fact in itself, that after 250 years of presidents, it is only now, with Trump, that the issue has to be adjudicated), but that they put a stay on the federal trial to determine Trump's responsibility for January 6th. They certainly could have allowed the trial to move forward, knowing that even if they didn't take oral arguments until late April (and why so much delay for that process is another bad omen), and didn't decide until late May or early June, the trial would still be in progress, since they knew that the judge in the case had already promised over two months to the Trump team to prepare for the trial. Now, if they don't issue their decision until late May or early June, the trial can't begin until late summer. 

As I have heard a number of times, it appears that the Justices have given Trump a de facto escape from accountability, both because of the prep time I mentioned above, and also because of the tradition of the DOJ not to get involved in a judicial case involving a presidential election within 60 days of that election. Two months prior to November is September which is damned close to the possible trial start date of an early June SCOTUS decision plus that seventy plus days for trial prep.

Is this a clear case of SCOTUS prejudice for a political candidate who either actually nominated them or shares their ideology? 

While I can't possibly know the answer to that question, I can speculate that Judge Thomas, whose wife actively lobbied people in Trump's inner circle to do whatever it took to keep him in power, is biased. I also have no doubt that Alito was instrumental in pushing for the Supreme Court to take this case. 

As for the three justices that Trump appointed, I would wager that at least two of them were down with ruling on presidential immunity, especially Kavanaugh, who has a history of supporting extensive presidential powers. I am not sure if I prefer to find out that Chief Justice Roberts was in on the push for taking the case because if he wasn't that leaves us with the dangerous realization that all three of Trump's appointments appear to be on his side, or as Trump would put it, are doing the "right thing".  

Certainly it will be interesting to see if there is some kind of details released on how SCOTUS determined to hear this case. Was there a unanimous decision to hear the case, but some dissent as to putting the election interference trial on hold? Did the three liberal justices find themselves outnumbered by the six conservative justices on both the question to take the case and the decision to grant the stay to delay the trial? Remember, allegedly, a stay is generally only issued if there is a reasonable chance that the requesting party, in this case Trump, has a reasonable chance to win the case. 

Really? There are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America that believe that a president of the United States of America has immunity to do whatever he wants while president? There are enough justices that actually believe that the founders who fought for independence from the dictates of the King of England, would be down for an American King?

We have already seen some dissent when it came to the Colorado decision, as the three liberal justices were joined by Justice Coney Barrett in disagreeing with the extent of the majority when they seemed to rewrite the 14th Amendment with their decision that indicated that states can only get involved in state elections when using the insurrectionist clause, despite the fact that the original intent of the amendment was to keep those who fought against the Union out of the Untied States Congress. 

So again I say, shame on you Supreme Court Justices! Perhaps you believe that you shouldn't have a hand in presidential elections which is why you negated Colorado's decision. Unfortunately, you effectively have changed the course of the November election by not allowing the Court of Appeals 3-0 decision to stand, by not allowing the election interference trial to continue while you debated the extent of presidential immunity, and by scheduling oral arguments two months in the future, rather than in a much more aggressive expedited fashion. 

What is truly mind boggling, is that this Supreme Court thinks that should Trump win in November, they might be a backstop for some of his more outrageous policies, as if he will follow the law as they rule. We already see the Republican Governor of Texas thumbing his nose at their decision that only the federal government has authority concerning immigration, already see multiple GOP Congressmen and Governors advising Abbott to ignore that ruling. Do they really think that Trump will care what they say should they rule against one of his executive decisions, do they really believe his MAGA supporters will side with them or Trump?

While Biden engages with NATO countries leaders, Trump hosts the dictator from Hungary at his Florida home. The authoritarian playbook is open and in progress, yet the Justices think Trump will obey any ruling they make with which he disagrees. Again, ivory tower thinking.

A Trump victory in November, that can be blamed, even in part, because the American electorate is denied access to the details of how Trump and his team tried to negate the votes of over 80 million Americans, will add the Supreme Court Justices to the list of enablers which includes those who deny what they saw on TV on January 6th, refuse to evaluate the reams of evidence placing Trump at the head of a conspiracy to thwart the peaceful transfer of power, and ignore all the signs that Trump does not care about democracy or America, never has, never will. 

  

The Key to November's Presidential Election

Before beginning this post, I reread my Nikki Haley for President post from January. Here is a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/nikki-haley-for-president.html

In that post, I made a case for Nikki to win in November, and that it might be better for America if she did, certainly better than a Trump victory, and perhaps better than a Biden win. Unfortunately, as of now this will not be the case, as Haley recently suspended her campaign. 

I am not sure if the word suspended was used purposefully, meaning that she could reanimate her campaign should something occur that would make it viable again, perhaps, oh I don't know, maybe Trump being convicted of a felony, but for now she is out of the race. While it will be curious to see how many votes she gets in the next few GOP primaries, as no less than twelve states are still set to hold primaries this month, and I would imagine she will appear on many, if not most of those ballots, Trump is the presumptive nominee and will continue to be so until at least the summer when it is possible that one of the DOJ cases against him go to trial.

Which brings me to the title of this post, the Key to November's Election. Drum roll please......

Nikki Haley!

I don't know if she understands this, don't know if she is cognizant of the power she now possesses, but Nikki Haley can make or break either candidate with her endorsement. Should she capitulate, as virtually every other Republican in Congress has done, and endorse Trump, that may be enough to sway some of the over two and a half million Republican voters who have already cast their vote for her so far in the primaries, to hold their nose and vote for Trump in November. 

But if she withholds her endorsement, or actually endorses Biden, those same Haley voters might follow her lead and vote for Biden even though they may disagree with many of his policies. 

In other words, if Haley and those who chose her over Trump in the primaries put America first and either leave the president section blank, or actually choose Biden, that could be the difference in the outcome.

One might say that life is nothing if not ironic, so, as I stated in my post Accountability Finally? 2, from early February, wouldn't it be ironic if, as has already been started by strong women, the final die is case on Trump by another strong woman.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/accountability-finally-2.html

At this point, only Nikki Haley knows what she will do. I would like to think that she is considering her decision very carefully. I acknowledge that choosing no endorsement for either candidate, or openly rejecting Trump, will mark the end of her political career as a Republican. But if she chooses to emulate Liz Cheney, should she choose the United States over her personal ambition to be president, that choice in itself could not only save our democracy so that she can run for president again in four years, but also might catapult her to a position of strength in 2028 should the democrats not find a unifying candidate for that race. 

I imagine that I will go to my grave and never fully understand the allure of Trump, and why so many millions of Americans would knowingly vote to elect him president despite being convicted of sexual assault, convicted of fraud in his business dealings, been impeached for attempting to extort a foreign leader by dangling military weapons for dirt on a political rival, been caught with classified documents after lying about returning them, and most egregiously, lied about the results of the 2020 presidential election, then incited a mob to attack the United States Capitol while surreptitiously pressuring state and federal officials to "find" votes or just make up electors. Not to mention "jokingly" suggesting he would be a dictator only for one day.

Still, compared to how Nikki Haley may be viewed by future historians who attempt to understand her eventual decision about who to endorse in the 2024 presidential election, I can envision my eventual forgiveness for those in the Trump cult. We are all gullible to some extent, we all fall victim to the occasional scam, we all sometimes sacrifice logic, ignore the obvious, fail to research, or just plain become lazy, especially when the topic is as complicated as democracy.

But Nikki knows better. She knows the danger Trump represents. Knows his demand for loyalty to himself above all, and how that requirement in itself, does not bode well for America. I can only hope that she does not follow the path of most of the men in her party, men who have chosen political relevance over America, men who prefer to gain the crumbs which an autocrat like Trump will drop their way as opposed to the freedom that democracy, messy as it is, offers.

Let's hope Nikki is better than the Ted Cruzes and Mitch McConnells of the world. If not, and Trump is narrowly elected, in part due to her head down, eyes averted compliance to either some sort of party loyalty, or actual deference to Trump to gain some cabinet position, I expect that history may judge her no better than the other myriad enablers who lack the backbone to stand for America and to stand against a dictator wannabe.