Getting the News

Reality checks, truth statements, assertions of falsehoods, bending, spinning, twisting, exaggerating, outright lying, and everything else in between, this is what the Free Press must discern, weed through, and then clarify in order to do its job with integrity.

Trump, I believe, will make the press work harder for its buck, but maybe that’s a good thing.

Whatever Trump says cannot and must not be taken at face value and must certainly not be taken for granted.  And whatever Trump actually does must be carefully examined from a larger perspective and from all angles: forward, backward, up and down, and inside and out, so as to adequately grasp the full implications and consequences of his actions.

In other words, enough of pundit’s opinions and opinings and second guessing!   The press must do its homework well.  It needs to move away from mere speculative commentary about what might be, might have been, or could be and move toward eagle-eyed description of what is; properly highlighting and outlining the intricate web of connections between cause and effect, between word, deed, action and reaction.  The press needs to show the direct links between words and actions and their consequences, connecting the actual results and effects of Trumps words and deeds and avoid merely speculating about them.

There is way too much speculation going on in the news these days.  We are being presented with way too much virtual reality as compared to actual reality—and it's not just Trump’s doing.

Furthermore, the press must go back to headlining real scope and depth to a story rather than merely repeating the shallow soundbite of a story.  For example: the press learns that Trump saves almost 1,000 jobs in Indiana at the Carrier company.  That’s the headline.  Yes, it’s catchy and impressive, but it’s shallow.  Yet it is what is repeated over and over.  Where’s the depth?  At what cost?  Is it a really good deal for the state; how do we know this?  In short, what about the details and the hard questions that shed greater light on a deal like this?  So, the Carrier Company is being given $7,000,000 in state tax breaks as part of the deal.  Well then, tell us, how is the state going to make up for this lost revenue?  What are the negative consequences, if any, to a deal like this—especially to the tax-payer?  That is, who is going to make up and pay-up for this $7,000,000 tax break?  In other words, I feel like I’m not hearing the full story!

I am tired of turning to these news channels that pits one side against the other: “I think this.”  “Well, I think that!”  “Well, I think that what you think is wrong.”  “Well I think that what you think is ignorant and wrong.”  Ugh!  Enough!!

I don’t care about the opinions of either side.  I want truth.  I want reality!  I want to see the big picture for myself, and from various angles, so that I can interpret the picture for myself.  Bring a reality check; show me what is there.  I want to hear about what IS.  I don’t want to hear about what might be, may be, could have been, or very well may have been, but for this and that.  I want to see the direct links between cause and effect.  Bring me the facts, state the truth; show me what’s real and actual!

If the President (elect) says it, it must be True, Right?!

The following is a November 27th tweet from Donald Trump, our president elect:  “Serious voter fraud in Virginia, New Hampshire and California - so why isn't the media reporting on this? Serious bias - big problem!”

With absolutely no substantiating evidence to back his claim, Trump declares that serious voter fraud has taken place in three significant states.  Why should this worry us?

It’s worrisome because this kind of tweeting, which he does often, continues to reassert Trump’s dismissive attitude toward actual truth and lack of respect for real facts, revealing his complete disregard for reality in favor of political spin, exaggerated hyperbole and outright deception.

Trump will often deliberately cast a cloud of confusion and darkness over individuals, institutions, and processes if and when he receives unflattering or unwelcome news by them.  In short, he throws mud at them knowing that the mud will stick in the minds of his devotees and/or anyone who already has doubts or misgivings and distrusts the person, institution, or process in question.

That is to say that Trump is a master in the use of demagoguery = “A leader who makes us of popular prejudices and false claims and promises in order to gain power.”  Trump now has more power and influence then ever before, yet he continues to use demagoguery as a means to attack anyone or any institution with whom he disagrees with or dislikes or has been offended by.

When he makes such assertions he is not interested in TRUTH.  His only interest is to smear and undermine public trust in said person or institution.  He tweets so as to make an immediate impact in the hearts and minds of all that are eager to give HIM the benefit of the doubt and are willing to accept HIS assertions without question.  He’s the Pied-Piper for those who believe in HIM.  He plays his tune and they lovingly follow him—tweeting and retweeting.

Why is it that his followers do not see the danger in Trump’s tendency to constantly redefine reality to suit his own purposes?  Someday this easy-going willingness to accept Trump’s exaggerated and over-the-top assertions is going to turn around and bite his followers and bite them hard.

My guess is that there will be a day of reckoning.  Sometime in the near or distant future, I have no doubt that many, many people will deeply regret that they had ever believed in Trump in the first place.

The Anatomy of a Truly Thankful Heart

The Thanksgiving Holiday has become a national family event.  That is, it is all about family together.  It is essentially the highest (holiest) of family days we have in this country.  Note that it is the busiest travel season of the year.  By bus, by plane, by car or train, everyone heads back “home” to enjoy a great family feast with their loved ones; families of all faiths, or no faith at all, participate in this great celebration we call Thanksgiving.

And because it is about family, it is eagerly anticipated with great expectation as well as anxiously dreaded with much worry.  After all, it is about family.

This excited anticipation of the Thanksgiving Holiday is stimulated by its imagined ideal.  Yes, if we’re honest, most of us have an image of the ideal Thanksgiving family gathering that brings a smile to our face and warms our heart: a Thanksgiving meal where there is more than enough food perfectly cooked, where the guests are perfectly happy and wonderfully satisfied and the children are well behaved, while the dinner conversation is perfectly delightful.  Everyone is joyful, happy, and well pleased—the perfect Thanksgiving!

In short, the ideal Thanksgiving celebration is a veritable celebration of a family’s success and prosperity, a celebration of a thriving family with good friends.  It is a celebration of what we have accomplished and achieved (with the help of God of course): Talk around the table is about how our children are doing so well in school, and how our youth are being accepted into the best universities, and our young adults are embarking on great new careers, and how the adults are enjoying great business successes; and there is talk of engagements and wedding dates and the anticipated arrival of new little ones into the fold.  Now that is the best Thanksgiving celebration that any family could have.

Would that it were so!

Question: what is at the root of real gratitude?  What is the heart and soul of gratefulness?  What is the anatomy of a truly thankful heart?  A Biblical story might give us some insight at this point.

In the Gospel according to Luke (17:11-19), Dr. Luke gives us an account of 10 lepers who were healed by Jesus.  Jesus was heading south to Jerusalem from Galilee in the north.  Somewhere in the region between Galilee and Samaria he entered a village where ten (10) lepers called out to Jesus from a distance.  (Because they were lepers they dared not actually approach him or come near him.)  “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” they cried.  Jesus responds by telling them to go and show themselves to the priests.  As they went, they were healed, completely cleansed from their leprosy—all ten of them.  Yet (the story’s point), only one of the ten came back to give praise to God and thank Jesus for the miraculous healing that he received.

We are told that this one leper (now healed) prostrated himself at Jesus’ feet and thanked him, praising God.  We are also told that he was a Samaritan, a non-Jew, in short, a foreigner to boot.  Jesus asked out loud: “Were not ten made clean?  But the other nine, where are they?  Was none of them found to return and give praise to God except this foreigner?”

And so, here we have the anatomy of a truly thankful heart.

First, he was fundamentally needy.  That is to say, he needed something that he could not provide for himself.  He was in no position to take care of his own need.  Unlike the saying that says, “God helps those who help themselves,” he could not help himself in this need of his.  He was totally helpless.  When he thanked Jesus, he did so knowing full well that he was totally dependent in his needful helpless state.  Unable to help himself, he was thus completely dependent on Jesus’ willingness and power to heal him.

Secondly, in thanking Jesus for this wonderful healing, he also was keenly aware that he could never repay Jesus for what Jesus did for him.  In that sense, this man became indebted to Jesus, for his very life as it were.  How could he ever repay Jesus for what Jesus did for him?  He could not and he knew this.

Thirdly, when thanking Jesus for this healing, this man knew that Jesus was under no obligation to heal him.  It was, in fact, an unearned, undeserved, gratuitous gift.  Indeed, it was noted that he was not only a leper but a foreigner at that.  This leper (now cleansed) was in fact an outsider, an outcast, and believed to be guilty of great sin (hence his leprosy) and therefore condemnable, not to mention the fact that, as a foreigner, he was not even a member of the Chosen people of God.  This man therefore knew that his healing was a freely given gift from Jesus, unearned and undeserved—the very definition of grace.

Desperately needy, unable to help himself, incapable of paying back, and completely undeserving of the gift he received, fully realizing this truth, living in this reality, this man accepted this generous act of grace from Jesus with full gratitude—utter and complete gratefulness for receiving an undeserved gift that he could never earn, did not deserve, could not pay for, and was unable to do for himself.

THAT is the anatomy of a truly grateful heart.

Is Our Political System Breaking?

There’s a lot of talk about our divided America.  We are polarized.  I suppose this should be nothing new to us considering that our national history includes a civil war.  Can’t get more divided than that, now can we.

Differences will always exist.  It’s how we manage or negotiate our way through our differences that counts.

We have always been a nation of immigrants—different people joining us from various regions of the world bringing along with them their unique heritage and cultural traditions.  Yet somehow we all become “Americanized” and identify ourselves as Americans.

So what is it about America that unites us as Americans?  And, whatever it is, are we in danger of losing it?

Is it our freedom, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?  Or is it our covenant together?  As a people we have agreed to live by, and work with a social, political, and legal system that our constitution has created.  Yes, it is this constitutional system that unifies us, a diverse people located in various regions according to States, yet federally unified by constitutional law and order.

Sadly, there are signs that we may be in the process of breaking this covenant and losing our unifying power.  Example: the most dramatic and expressive sign that we are beginning to lose our core unifying factor—our constitutional covenant—is the refusal by Senate Republican representatives to hold confirmation hearings for president Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, just because it was an election year.

It didn’t matter who Obama nominated, what kind of character, person, or judge he was or would be or might have been; it was a political power move, pure and simple.  The Republicans wanted to nominate their own Republican version of a Supreme Court Justice to fill the empty seat and thus chose to lock out any and all nominee possibilities from President Obama, simply because Obama is a Democrat.

This is a naked abuse of power—pure political maneuvering, a manipulation of the process for pure political advantage.  The constitutional mandate setting the rules of the game, no longer applied.  This is the evidence that we are losing something very precious in America, the thing that unites us as a people—our constitutional covenant together.  Our politicians are no longer playing by the traditional and historical rules of the game—and they are breaking these traditional rules with bold and bald face arrogance about it.  This move alone sets a very, very bad precedent for future political “fights” down the road.

There is a dwindling sense of honor and respect for the guy on the other side of the aisle.  He or she is no longer “the enemy” in figurative terms, but is now becoming an actual enemy.  Gone is the attitude, “Okay, my honorable and respectable political opponent who is also my friend, you won this round, perhaps our side will do better next time around; congratulations on your victory.”

No, now the attitude is more something like this: “You, my political opponent, are my enemy and will never be my friend; as such I will do anything and everything I can to ensure your defeat, even if you win!!  Me and my party will not cooperate, we will not compromise, and we will not support or work with you in any fashion whatsoever; we will negate, neutralize, and obstruct anything you may attempt.  We denounce your party’s political cause(s)—even if it overlaps with our own cause or actually may help the American people as a whole.”

The damage is being done right before our very eyes.  The breaking of our covenant together, the refusal to respect constitutional mandates in favor of political expediency and gain (the extreme application of gerrymandering would be another example of this).

Thus, it is not just that Donald Trump won the election that gives his political opponents concern; it is what was said and done during the whole election season—one bad precedent after another.

It is what is happening to our political mechanism as a whole that is setting people’s teeth on edge.  There is a sense that something has broken or is in the process of breaking, within our political machinery.  The constitutional machinery is not running smoothly, the people feel a disconcerting vibration within it, as if something has cracked or as if a piece of it has snapped and is grinding down toward irreparable damage.  This, I believe, is at the heart of peoples’ dismay about the election.  They are jittery, nervous and upset, worried and concerned, fearful and angry because instinctively they feel something has cracked, and the American constitutional system itself is in danger of breaking apart.

After the Election Comes Thanksgiving

Will there be anything to be thankful for, after the election?

Many will say that that will depend on who wins the election.  Is that so?

Whatever happened to “We the people”?  One particular man or woman in the presidential office will not make or break us.  Or will it?  Are we that fragile now?  WE, we will make or break ourselves.  Collectively speaking, WE are stronger (or weaker) than any one individual in office.

Thus, it comes down to US, and that means it comes down to who we are on the inside.

If we are angry, fearful, bitter, resentful, hateful, stingy, greedy, selfishly me-oriented, and preoccupied with thoughts of blame and vengeance, yes, we are fragile.  For, if our fears, hatreds, insecurities, and prejudices become that which defines who we are, we have most certainly become fragile.

Anger breeds anger, hate breeds hate, and fear breeds fear; put together, these core emotions breed divisive distrust and acts of injustice and cruelty in our treatment of others who think/act differently than we do.  The end result is destruction—the prevailing attitude being defensive and protective: “This is WAR!”

Hence, we, WE, are our worst enemy.

If there is no faith in the other, no trust, no acceptance of and allowance for difference, by default we become enemies.  And enemies seek to destroy The Enemy.  If there is no desire or faith in the possibility of peace and unity, no trust in the give-and-take process, no interest in distributing and sharing power, no belief that we can and should work together toward common goals with common interest toward a common vision, knowing that we can’t always have it all our own way, we fail ourselves, we fail the system, and we fail as a democratic nation.

On a different note, this is why it is sad that some of the most divisive and bitter sounding voices that we hear in the political arena are Christian voices or Evangelical voices, voices that supposedly believe in a Sovereign and Holy Providential God.

It’s as if Evangelicals know who God has anointed for office of the presidency.  But it doesn’t work that way.  Because if Evangelical Christians are true to their own confession of faith, there is only one truly Anointed One of God (Messiah/Christ), and that is Jesus.  Jesus is Lord!  What saddens me is that Evangelical Christians seem to have put American Patriotism over and above allegiance and loyalty to Kingdom of God principles such as Christ’s command to His followers that we are to “love your enemy” and be salt and light to the world rather than self-righteous and abusive Pharisaical condemners of the world.

In Christ we have a greater power, a greater Lord, and a greater promise—which should minimize or even neutralize our distresses and anxieties about the things of the world.  Therefore, as long as our faith is in Christ and our citizenship is in the Kingdom of God, as loyal citizens of the Kingdom of heaven, we need NOT be nasty, mean-spirited, bigots who hate and despise those who are different from us or who don’t live and believe as we do.  In short, of all people, Christians should have much more to be hopeful and thankful for.

First there is the promise of salvation, release from guilt and condemnation and a cleansing from our sin, the promise of heaven—eternal life with God in His glory.  Secondly there is the promise of a new heavens and a new earth where there will be no more tears or sorrow or pain or grief.  Thirdly, there is the promise of Christ’s Second Coming, which will initiate the completion and final fulfillment of the above two promises.  And fourthly there is the promise of the Holy Spirit, the comforter and helper, given to Believers as Christ’s guarantee that these promises will be fulfilled in Him.

With such promises and guarantees in Christ, why worry, why fret, why fear and disdain and condemn those who live differently, walk differently, or believe differently than us?  With such a divisive and fear laced election before us, Christians are giving up their greatest opportunity to bear witness to a greater good, a mightier God, and a most promising future by becoming enmeshed in the political polarities of our time.

For we seem to no longer be spreading a message of Good News and hope in Christ.  The Evangelical message now seems to be a sour message of distrust and exclusion, a message of superiority and self-righteousness, a message of judgment and condemnation fueled by hate.  In short, Evangelical Christians now seem to be preaching the false gospel of American power dominance and supremacy, where we condemn the poor for being poor, praise the rich for being rich, hate the sinner for being sinful, and take the name of God in vain by attaching it to a very human political party, candidate, or cause.

There is a third way, and it’s the Way of Christ.  If only we Christians were to truly adhere to and subscribe to the confession that Jesus is truly our Lord, master of our hearts and souls, our witness to Him would not fall on deaf ears at it now does.

If Hillary Wins, What?

So, let’s pretend the worst has happened in the eyes of the Republicans—Hillary Clinton is elected president.  What then?

Will they say, “Okay, Hillary Clinton won fair and square, and so we will respect the peoples’ choice and work with her”?  NOT!!

The reality is that the Republican party will probably find as many ways as possible to delegitimize her election—be it legal, social, political, or what not.

They will declare war and become confrontational at every turn, questioning her every word, trying her every act, block, deny, and obstruct her every move, and refuse her every step of the way.  They will charge and attack at every possible opportunity.  In other words, the Republican Party will do everything it possibly can to ensure that Hillary’s presidency fails, if she manages to win the election.

That’s not the way to run a country and it is not how our two-party system should work!

But THAT is what is exactly wrong with our government—hate, spite, all or nothing positioning, winner-take-all warlike posturing, vitriolic disrespect for one’s political opponent and refusing to cooperate simply because cooperation is itself viewed as a bad thing.

To say that there is no need for spite, hatred, and war-like attitudes in our two-party system, is to be ignored.  We are now parties of extremes.  The moderate middle-voice is being excluded.

One might argue, “Yes, but, “crooked” Hillary is a scoundrel, a dirty no good liar, a cheat, and a criminal!  We can’t possibly work with her.”  And Trump!  Is he really any better?

It’s political rhetoric.  No politician is pure, faultless, or angelic like.  At the same time, few politicians are of the devil, not even Hillary.  Such attitudes are far-fetched and overboard.

In truth, both candidates’ vision statements have value: “Make America Great Again” and “Stronger Together.”  And, in terms of policies and issues, both candidates have something worth saying and worth doing.

So if America is to be strong, Americans MUST work together (remember: “A divided kingdom will fall”).  And, if America is to be great again, Americans must do so by unifying.  And the first step towards unity is to stop villainizing our fellow Americans and their representatives.  We may differ in our opinions and strategies as to how to tackle complex issues, but we need not differ as to how we should view and treat each other.  We should see each other as neighbors in the same community and treat each other as such.  How is it that we have come to hate our neighbors and our political opponents?

Our extreme political divisiveness is going to become our worst enemy.  We will destroy ourselves from within, which is exactly what our real enemies want to see happen to us.

Trump Suing Accusers; I Doubt It!

He claims they lie, never happened!  He claims.

He claims that the Clinton campaign put these women up to it.  He claims.

He probably also assumes that the women are stupid and foolish.

Who would be foolish or stupid enough to go on public record with a bald face lie of the kind Trump accuses them of making?

And think of how hard it would be for Hillary’s campaign (or any presidential campaign for that matter) to actually orchestrate eleven women to agree to commit themselves to lie in its behalf, a lie of this magnitude. 

No, these women are not lying.  They’d be risking too much, have too much to lose if they were in fact lying.  No one could plan or orchestrate this kind of thing.  And I’m sure that these women knew they’d be accused of lying and be threatened with Trump law suits, before they dared to share their stories about Trump.  In short, their stories ring true—especially in light of Trumps own words during his so-called “locker room” talk.

So, why does Trump so boldly declare that he’s going to sue these women?  Because of his qualifier—“after the election”!  That’s why.

After the election, he is free to change his mind and make excuses for not following through on his law suits.  If he wins the election (which I doubt), he could say he has no time or need to follow through on the threat.  Or, if he loses, he could say that he is focusing on other things: such as challenging the electoral results perhaps. 

Point is, I believe that he knows that the women speak truth and therefore knows that he’d lose the case.  Thus, I don’t think he really wants to seek real justice by taking these women to court—seeking real justice would turn out badly for him.

However, he could be betting on his financial advantage.  Taking these women to court could drain their finances.  Trump has plenty of money and attorney-power to spend.  In short, he could litigate these women to financial ruin without ever actually winning his case or proving that these women have actually lied.  Rich bullies use this strategy all the time: “Attack by litigating your opponent to death.”  Remember, it takes money, and lots of it, to properly defend yourself in a court of law.  Then, when he has drained all their resources by various litigating strategies of postponement and extension, etc., and the women finally give up their defense for lack of funds, he could declare himself the winner!

Or, he could just choose not to sue AFTER the election.  Because his intent is to make a symbolic and impactful statement BEFORE the election, vis-à-vis, to say: “Look!  I am so innocent that I am willing to sue these women!”  The effect he wants on his listeners by making this declaration is for his listeners to conclude: “Well, of course he must be innocent, because if he were NOT innocent, he wouldn’t be willing to sue these women, would he?”  And if and when his audience draws that kind of conclusion, based on that kind of reasoning, he’s pretty much accomplished what he wanted to and needed to accomplish BEFORE the election.

Of course, you may draw your own conclusion.  As for me, I believe that the women speak truth and very much disbelieve Trump, despite his bold declaration of intending to bring a law suit against them (AFTER the election).  In this case, timing is significant.

“God Bless America!” One Has to Wonder

I heard on the news that this year’s presidential race is causing a lot of stress and anxiety among voters—on both sides.  Not surprising, is it?

Hilary haters on one side, Trump attackers on the other, we are being bombarded with tedious, tiresome attacks and counter attacks.  Whose going to win?

Voters are worried even fearful, dreading the possibility that “the other side” may win this election.

So, to those of you who are my fellow Christians, I ask you this: what do we mean when we invoke God’s blessing upon the United States, by saying, “God bless America”?  And exactly why do we assume that God should, would, or will bless America?

And why do we invoke this blessing of America as if WE are the only “Christian” nation worthy of God’s blessing?

According to an article in The Telegraph, “The number of Christians in Communist china is growing so steadily that it [sic] by 2030 it could have more churchgoers than America.”  Thus, by that standard, shouldn’t the new Christian mantra become, “God bless China”?  (See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10776023/China-on-course-to-become-worlds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html.)

So what is God’s perspective on the matter?  Psalms 33 gives us a glimpse.

Firstly, God is a God of righteousness and justice and expects as much from peoples of any and every nation: “For the word of the Lord is upright and all His work is done in faithfulness.  He loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of the steadfast love of the Lord” (vv. 4-5).

Secondly, God calls all people/nations of the world to stand in awe of him: “Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of Him (v. 8).”  God is to be honored, revered and respected as the holy, just, and righteous God that he is, by every nation.

Thirdly, God providentially oversees the destiny of ALL nations: “The Lord brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; he frustrates the plans of the peoples.  The counsel of the Lord stands forever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations (vv. 10-11).”  God favors no nation above any other nation; but for number four below….

Fourthly, only one group of people on earth has ever specifically been regarded by God as His Chosen People: “Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord, the people he has chosen as his heritage (v. 12).”  In the context of Psalm 33, “his [God’s] heritage” is none other than the Kingdom of Israel whose everlasting King is the Son of David, heir to the everlasting throne of King David of ancient Israel.

Fifthly, as to all other nations on earth, they are to seek God’s blessing by trusting in his sovereignty over them, and NOT in their own power and strength: “The Lord looks down from heaven; he sees all humankind (v. 13).”  “A king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.  The war horse is a vain hope for victory, and by its great might it cannot save.  Truly the eye of the Lord is on those who fear him, on those who hope in his steadfast love, to deliver their soul from death, and to keep them alive in famine (vv. 16-19).”

In conclusion, it is NOT a political victory that is required in order to bring peace, prosperity, and a prospective future to America.  Nor is it in the strengthening of our military might or in the enlargement of our police force—as if becoming a Police State is the answer to our wanting of peace and order.

No, the answer is this: “Our soul waits for the Lord; he is our help and our shield.  Our heart is glad in him, because we trust in his holy name.  Let your steadfast love, O Lord, be upon us, even as we hope in you (vv. 20-22).”

In short, we can NOT possibly win over a people by means of political power-struggles and political manipulation, by force and control.  All we can and should do is invite hearts to believe in and trust in a Sovereign and Holy God who is also loving and compassionate, a God of mercy and grace who seeks to heal the hurting and to redeem the outcast, the lost, the rejected, and those who are oppressed and hard-pressed by the cruelties of the world.  For peace will come in no other way than the Way of Christ.

Trump/Clinton: Lesser of Two Evils?

Okay, so Trump fessed up, owned what he said, and apologized.  A little locker room banter, therefore supposedly no big deal.  In defense of his character he says: “Those of you who know me, know that that does not reflect who I really am.”

Really?!!  Sorry Trump, but as I see it, that historic audio file reveals exactly who you are.  It was an unguarded moment when you were talking freely and being yourself.  You were engaged in genuine behind-the-scenes “locker-room banter” (as you, Trump, described it yourself).  Thus, it shows exactly who you are.

So, it must be asked: Does Trump really have the better character than Hillary?  How is Trump any more trustworthy or worthy of respect than Hillary?  Furthermore, if anyone says that Trump has changed since that audio incident, where’s the evidence of such a change?

So what is this presidential election really about?  What does it come down to?  Is it a matter of choosing the better of two evils?   If so, what are the “evils”?  That is, what evils does Hilary represent versus those that Trump represents?  In short, which candidate represents the lesser evil?

Consider this, which candidate has made it a life priority to greedily grab after money?  And which candidate has been most acutely self-serving with respect to the wielding of power and personal influence?  And which candidate displays a tremendous amount of arrogance, pride, and strident ego in their posturing?  And finally, which of the two candidates is most rude, crude, and domineeringly flippant when it comes to defending scandalizing events respecting the treatment of women?  Should that person really become the next president of the United States of America?

But my guess is that Trump supporters will say that the above paragraph exactly describes Hilary and Clinton supporters will say that the above paragraph exactly describes Donald.  When it comes to politics we seem to see what we want to see, hear what we want to hear, believe what we want to believe, and justify and defend accordingly.

Is Hilary really the devil with hatred in her heart?  Really?!  Who or what does Hilary truly hate?

Is Donald really the big hearted, generous, considerate, and respectful guy that deserves to be supported by Main Street middle class Americans, as well as African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics, American Muslims, and Women in general?  Really?!  Who or what does Donald truly love?

Questions about Trump's Money

Money, how one earns it, spends and saves it, including how one owes and pays debts off, it matters.

A shrewd business man may find ways to pay pennies on the dollar for his debt.  That may make him a shrewd man, and most will even call that smart; but it doesn’t mean that the financial deal was or is above social reproach or moral scrutiny.

Some things may be quite legal but very questionable when it comes to moral and ethical accountability.  So for example, many smart and intelligent lawyers will work the law to get their clients legally off the hook, financial or otherwise—but that is not the same thing as keeping one’s moral and ethical integrity in tact.

Thus, considering our tax codes, when the system is rigged in favor of the rich and powerful, the rich and powerful will use all their resources to hire tax accountants, tax lawyers, and bookkeepers to take advantage of the system to their benefit (object: to pay no taxes or as little taxes as possible)—without any consideration to the higher ideal of a moral, social, and ethical obligation to paying their fair share of taxes toward sustaining their community’s infrastructure, for example.

Hence, if Donald Trump managed to avoid paying taxes for the last 18 years or so (as a New York Times report by James Stewart indicates), it is not because Trump is necessarily a financial genius.

Rather it is because (1) our financial system favors the wealthy.  (2) Trump has the financial resources to hire the right people for the job—like specialized tax accountants and tax lawyers—to work the system for all its worth in his favor.  And (3) Donald Trump is shrewd enough to do exactly that.

Note: there is no doubt that Donald Trump hires professionals to do his taxes for him.  All Donald Trump has to do is provide the necessary personal paperwork & business bookkeeping & accounting information that is required for his tax professionals to do their job.  He then simply instructs his staff of tax professionals to find as many tax breaks and tax loopholes as can possibly be found to take advantage of.

That approach, my friends, does not make Donald Trump a financial genius.  For every wealthy business man or woman does exactly the same kind of thing at every tax season.  It goes without saying.  It’s a no brainer.

So, if Donald Trump is such a financial genius.  If Donald Trump is such a successful business man on the par with, let’s say, a Bill Gates or a Warren Buffett or a Mark Zuckerberg or a Michael Bloomberg, why then has he NOT released his tax returns for public scrutiny?

My guess is as good as yours, and it’s really pretty simple: Trump is probably not all that much of a financial genius to begin with.  Trump is afraid to release his tax returns to the public eye.  He more than likely realizes that if his tax returns became public, he would have a lot of questions to answer.  In short, Trumps so-called business acuity may not stand up very well under public scrutiny.  Keeping his tax returns secret protects him.  He is obviously fearful of exposing his actual financial reality.  And Donald Trump certainly does not like negative exposure.  Nor does he respect “reality checks.”  It’s that simple.

The Yahoo Email Hack & Self-Driving Cars

What do these have in common?

They both depend on computer electronics.  Ergo: if yahoo can be hacked (as any other computer program system), so can a self-driving computerized automobile.

Hence, I am wary of this rush toward buying into self-driving vehicles.

It seems to me that it should give a person great pause when considering the idea of handing over the control of one’s vehicle to a computer.

Driving involves too many unforeseeable scenarios, has too many unpredictable variables, and is therefore too fluid a thing for allowing a computer to take over the driver’s seat of a car.  (Note, there is already an officially recorded death as a result of putting too much faith in a self-driving vehicle.  And the car was a Tesla, a highly respectable company when it comes to newly-developing vehicle technology.)

“Can’t stop progress,” you say.  Quite right!  I understand, point taken.

But what is progress?  Is all technology good, just because it is technological?

Looking back at the last hundred and fifty years or so of our history—let’s say from the mid 1850’s to the beginning of this present century—considering all our mechanical and technological development, has it ALL been good for us?  I believe that an honest answer would be NO; it has not always been good for us. 

Is it possible that we place too much faith in science and place too much trust in technological development?

I must quickly defend myself: I am NOT anti-science nor am I against technological development as such.  Believe me.  (Here I imitate Donald Trump’s phrasing after he makes an assertion about himself: Believe me!)

Nevertheless, as one who respects and embraces scientific knowledge and advancement, I DO question our apparent blind faith in science and technology.  I think that we are all too eager and ready to buy into just about any and every technological development that comes down the pike—with an “apply now and ask questions later” approach to incorporating the latest gadget and thingamajig into our lives.

We need to take a hard look at what we have done and continue to do to Mother Nature: air and water pollution, global warming, the threatening and actual extinction of various animal species, and so-on—all as a result of our placing too much blind faith in our technological development.  It’s as if we believe that science and the advancement of technology is the supreme answer to everything we do on this planet, EVERYTHING!

It is not.

We should slow down a bit and ask some serious questions.  As a starter, we should not only be questioning how modern technology is being used, we should also be asking how our modern technological gadgets are being made: for example, what limited geological resources are being dug up and exploited in order to make our beloved gadgets?  That’s a good and fair question to ask, don’t you think?

And, exactly how might the exploitation of these particular resources possibly be causing long term damage to the earth’s ability to sustain life?  Is that not also a fair question to ask?  And shouldn’t such questions be answered BEFORE we invest in and delight in our various inventions?

But money drives everything.  And, science and technology is first and foremost about big business!  And, big business has little patience for cautionary, slow moving advancement when it comes to its investments.

Business investors care little as to whether or not new technological innovations are good for humanity in the long term.  They only care about the immediate affect on the bottom line.  Does it bring in dividends?  Is it a cash cow?  As to long term negative effects on humanity and the environment—they’ll let future scientists worry about that!  And so it goes.

And so, I make the following observations.

1. To our detriment, we all too often fail to consider the long term negative effects of our latest and greatest technological innovations.
2. It seems that the more dependent we become on our modern technology, the actual less free we really are.
3. Our growing dependencies on modern technological gadgets seem to have actually made us more vulnerable to unpredictable catastrophes, not less so.
4. Modern innovations and gadgets seem to rely heavily on unrenewable limited global resources, which is foreboding for future societies.
5. Though we are well aware of the positive effects of modern technology upon human interpersonal relationships, we remain quite ignorant with respect to its negative effects upon us.  For example, we are barely ready to admit that various aspects of modern technology can be addictive, let alone have an understanding as to why this may be so.

Thus, we should ask: Are we in the driver’s seat, with regard to modern technological gadgetry and advancement, or is it driving us?

As for me, I want to remain in the driver’s seat.

The Presidential Campaign and Nonsense Medical Records

Doesn’t it strike you as a bit trivial, even silly?

As a voter, I really don’t care much about what a doctor may say about the present health condition of either candidate.

Their willingness to run and endure the demands of a presidential campaign, is itself evidence that they must be in fairly good health.  It is quite obvious that running for the highest office in the nation requires a lot of stamina, calls for much energy, and is quite demanding of one’s body, mind, and spirit.  So whoever runs for president knows that good health is a necessity.

I do have to wonder: When is Hilary going to learn to simply be upfront and straightforward about these kinds of things?

Yet, I understand why Hilary avoided candid transparency about having pneumonia in the first place.  She knew that Trump would trump it up.  Still, it was a sorry decision on her part for exactly that reason.  Had she been upfront about having pneumonia from the get go, and had Trump pounced on this fact, using it as a political weapon against her, it might have served to demonstrate Trump’s smallness and pettiness, pouncing on such a trivial even silly little matter.

Who doesn’t get sick?  Who hasn’t had “walking pneumonia”?  Who doesn’t need rest after dealing with long hours of stretched out working days and long traveling/working nights, especially as is required in a presidential campaign?

Thus, the whole thing was made more of, than it should have been.

It is the result of campaigns being more about vilifying and demonizing one’s opponent than about issues, platforms, and visional substance.

I trust that both Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are in good health.  I see with my own eyes that they are both healthy enough to endure a presidential campaign and beyond.

I therefore don’t want to hear talk about either Hilary’s or Donald’s health records.  It’s not news.  It tells me nothing I can’t already see for myself, nor does it expose anything I feel that I need to know.

And so, for me, the state of their health is a non-issue.  If they’re healthy enough to run for president, they’re healthy enough to BE president; its as simple as that.  Getting ill or contracting sicknesses along the way, is just that.  It is not horrifying breaking news.  They’re human like the rest of us and so they’ll get sick just like anybody else.  It’s only normal.
It’s as simple as that.

Stretching Out the Clinton Email Scandal for All Its Worth

Are you a professional?  Might you be a doctor, lawyer, psychologist, professor, or…?  If so, you are well aware of professional requirements regarding confidentiality when talking to clients and or other colleagues with or about clients.

You are also aware of the fluidity of social and professional conversations at times.  You might, for example, professionally discuss a client’s condition with a colleague of yours while at a dinner party; having a professional/confidential discussion in a nonprofessional/casual social setting.  Yet, because of that social event and professional connection, you gain insight and go back to your office professionally better equipped to deal with your client.  Talking about your client with a colleague during a dinner party, is that wrong, bad, or unethical?   NO.

Reverse that.  You are in your professional setting, at the office, in the lab, or in the conference room of the institution for whom you work, and you have a casual/social conversation with a colleague or friend/acquaintance with whom you engage in pleasant personal social chatter.  Is that wrong, unethical, a bad thing to do, because you’re “at work”?  I don’t think so.

Lines of communication between two parties, especially professionals, are often fluid and sometimes blur the sharp lines between professional/confidential and personal/confidential.  Life is that way.  Relationships are like that.  Few things are cut and dry, this or that, black or white, in normal everyday interaction—it’s the messiness of life’s drama playing itself out in our everyday lives.

Hence, regarding Hillary Clinton’s email scandal, as is always the case, the two extreme reactive positions to the email scandal are exactly that—extreme and reactive!

On the one hand, Hillary haters will never let it go.  They paint the worst possible picture, saying things like she was not only foolish, but dangerous and criminal in her actions regarding the use of a private email server and the deleting of her emails, and so-on and so-forth.  Hillary supporters, on the other hand, see nothing wrong with what she did, saying that it’s par for the course; she’s totally innocent.

As usual, the reality is somewhere in between.  She wasn’t necessarily criminal-acting in her behavior nor was she necessarily dangerously damaging to national security; but neither was she being smart; it was indeed a foolish and unwise decision on her part.  All humans do stupid things from time to time and make poor choices while performing their professional duties at times—not necessarily due to evil and corrupt motives.  And that’s perhaps the real perspective that should be given to this scandal.

But, of course, Hilary detractors won’t accept such a normal, boring but balanced perspective like that.  They want blood.  So, what should have been a minor story has become a story that continues to feed into itself—more emails released bringing more details for review, resulting in more story generating headlines to sell the news.  And yet, there’s no real substantial new news in any of it.  It’s a whirlwind of busy talk couched in a hurricane of accusations in an attempt at character assassination. 

It’s ridiculous, laughable, and sad that this kind of thing has become our American political process.  Apparently we can’t seem to put things in a balanced perspective.  We seem to continually buy into hyperbole and believe the extremes.

And so, it is said: “Hilary should be put in jail!”  Really?!  If we were to scrutinize every politician in Washington the way Hilary Clinton has been scrutinized, I’m sure that 95% or more of our politicians should be put in jail—if measured by the same standard.

My point is this: We voters have created an extremely polarized political arena that ignores reality checks and it’s the main reason why we also have a congress that gets little to nothing of significance done anymore.  All we are allowed to hear or talk about are the extremes: So, now it’s all about Trump lovers/ Hilary haters versus Hilary adorers and Trump thrashers.  And, depending on which side you’re on, one may very well be Satan’s evil agent, while the other may be God’s greatest gift on earth.

When it comes to American politics, we leave reality behind and enter the Twilight Zone.

Taxes, Ireland, Apple, and Corporate Welfare

Apple’s tax bill to Ireland came to almost zero.

So, we get a glimpse of what corporate welfare looks like.

The European Union (EU) has accused Ireland of making a deal with Apple that resulted in Apple paying next to nothing in taxes.  Apparently normal tax rules were not applied to Apple.  Thus, the EU is accusing Ireland of entering into an illegal agreement with Apple, giving the corporation illegal State aid.

Whether Apple/Ireland wins or loses their case, as to its legality or illegality, is open to question.  But the fact is this: Apple paid nearly zero taxes to Ireland in certain years!

This is why it gets to me when here in the US our Congressional or State representatives block or cut State and/or Federal Aid to the poor and/or other social benefitting programs, touting umpteen financial, ethical, moral, and political reasons as to why the government should NOT subsidize social welfare, while at the same time quite easily and most readily earmark government tax breaks and other economic incentives to powerful corporations, which effectively provides huge amounts of corporate-welfare money to very wealthy companies.

They defend these economic incentives to wealthy corporations saying that the companies will bring in new jobs, sparking economic growth.  And the truth is that they seldom ever fulfill such grandiose promises.  However, the one promise that these companies do keep is to fund the re-election campaign for the representative who gave them the tax break.

To believe or say that the only right and proper way to grow an economy is by giving wealthy corporations huge tax breaks while denying funding for social welfare programs (such as educational advancement and nutritional programs for underprivileged kids, health care programs, various rehab programs, not to mention funding for municipal infrastructural needs), and then to say that such denial is in the best interest of economic recovery, is pure nonsense.  It is a skewed myopic perspective motivated by the self-interest of the powerful wealthy that is detrimental to the commonwealth community as a whole.

Yet this is done over and over again, with self-ingratiating justification and no apologies.  Another example would be the corporate welfare monies that the oil fracking companies in Pennsylvania received from the previous administration, by way of direct and indirect tax-relief incentives and other economic advantages provided.

Hence, whether the Ireland/Apple tax-break deal was legit or illegit, legal or illegal, is not the real issue.  The real issue is that in general rich, wealthy, and powerful companies like Apple continue to get away with paying little or no taxes at all, failing to pay their fair share of taxes to their communities, such that the overwhelming tax burden more pointedly falls squarely on the shoulders of the already overtaxed and financially weakening middle class—so that the rich get richer, the poorer get poorer and the gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow!

And THAT is a problem that needs to be addressed head on—politically, economically, socially, locally, and globally.

Critique of the Self-Made Man/Woman

Self-made, are you?

Americans take pride in self-made types: the do-it-yourself, go-it-alone, I-did-it-my-way guy, especially when it comes to money, as in the self-made millionaire.

But what exactly does it mean to be self-made?

No helping hand, no guidance, no assistance or support or instruction from others along the way, is that what it means?  I doubt it.

My guess is that it would be safe to say that the greatest of men or women were those who were NOT isolated or alone in the making.  They connected or bonded with someone special in their lives.  And they were most likely lovingly mentored.

Indeed, most biographies of great men and women will often point to a special someone in their lives giving encouragement—inspiring, motivating, and/or instilling hope in them.  They were NOT alone.   There was someone there, cheering them on, routing for them, believing in them, providing moral support, if not actual guidance and direction.

And there is no shame in that.  Indeed, anyone with good sense would consider it an honor to receive that kind of focus and attention towards one’s personal development by another.

The point is that we need to value more the very idea and practice of mentoring.

As a society, we value personal growth.  We acknowledge the importance of personal development and maturity.  (At least I assume and hope that we do.)  But we also value our independence and our freedom to “be myself.”  So much so that we may ignore the fact that to become one’s true SELF actually requires meaningful input from significant others; and here is where quality input from a valued mentor becomes extraordinarily valuable.

We need mentoring or some kind of guidance and instruction along the way of upward growth and constructive development.   Here’s why.

For one, we learn who we are by engaging with others, bumping into, responding to, reacting to, and/or imitating the other with whom we closely identify; consciously or subconsciously accepting or rejecting their values and practices along the way.  That is, we develop within a social relational context.

Secondly, we don’t always see what we need to see without someone holding a mirror up to us.  That is, we also learn to know our selves’ best when others mirror back to us what they see in us, good, bad or indifferent.  Obviously, it is best to learn the hard truth about ourselves from someone who loves us, having our best interest in mind.  Authentic love is not afraid to tell us what’s wrong with us, what we may be doing wrong, where our weaknesses lie.  We shouldn’t be averse to hearing it from such a person either.  It’s for our own good—development.

Thirdly, we can’t possibly always anticipate and know what it is that we need to know, or where to get that knowledge or info when we discover that there is a flagrant gap in our experiential/knowledge base.  Very few of us, if any, are trailblazers in knowledge; others have gone before us and know the way to get there.  This is where real guidance and direction is helpful.  For example, there is a reason why all good athletes have excellent coaches.  There is no sense in re-inventing the wheel considering that someone has already “been there/done that” before us.

This is just a short list as to why we need input/mentoring from others when aspiring to do well in developing into solid human beings of value and significance.  This of course presumes willingness on our part: that we are humble and teachable, for example, and are able to invite others into our personal lives to get under our skin and to provide constructive criticism, trusting them to have our best interest in mind.

Because, in the end, our truest value and worth actually does not come from the amount of money we make and leave behind, or in the number of awards we may have won in our careers, or in the many titles we have earned to attach to our name.  Rather, our truest value is in the many people we have touched in an enduring and positive way because of who we ourselves have become.

Rio Olympics and The Lochte Case

How old is Ryan Lochte?  I hear he’s thirty-two.  That is, he’s in his early thirties.  Thirties!  And this is his behavior?

The incident with Ryan Lochte in Rio made me think of other times when other athletes and/or entertainment celebrities of various types (singers, actors, or musicians, for example) have gotten into trouble.

At quick glance, an immediate observation that I’d make, as an outsider looking in on these various “another celebrity in trouble” incidents, is the common denominator of the childishness and immaturity of the initial misbehavior that triggers the media spotlight on them, questioning their judgment and character.

I especially find it interesting that some celebrities reactively choose to defy the assumption that, because they are celebrities, they are expected to be good role models.  Their defiant attitude goes something like this: “I didn’t ask to be a role model.  I don’t want to be a role model.  And I don’t have to be a role model to anyone.  So, don’t lay that burden on me!”

Back to Ryan Lochte, I have no idea what his attitude is, respecting the public expectation that he should be a good role model as an Olympic star athlete.  He may accept this, he may not; I don’t know.  What I DO know is that, celebrity or not, his age (32) in and of itself demands that he should be a good role model.  In short, he’s all grown up.  He’s a man.  He’s well beyond his adolescent years.  As a full fledge adult, he should act like one.

Don’t get me wrong; even adults need to let their hair down, have fun, and be a kid again, so to speak.  I get it.  There’s a kid in all of us, or there should be—and that’s a good thing.  We should all stay young at heart.

But—okay, at this point I realize that I am risking the chance of sounding like an old fuddy-duddy—it seems to me that our society is trending toward extending adolescence well beyond the teen years, into the twenties, and even into the thirties.  What used to be considered adolescent antics, in thinking and behavior, has now become the norm for twenty and thirty something year-olds!  Or is it just me?  Please don’t tell me that I’m just an old stick-in-the-mud.

Recently, my three-year-old granddaughter has picked up on the difference between being a “grown-up” and being a “kid.”  So, she made the following profound observation: “Mommy is a ‘grown-up,’ so is Daddy.  Mom-Mom and Pop-Pop [that would be me] are ‘grown-ups’ too; but I’m just a kid.”  That’s my granddaughter for you!  She tends to make life observations like that.

What she didn’t say, yet I know she’s thinking and observing, is that kids don’t act like grown-ups and grown-ups don’t act like kids; they’re different.  And she most certainly instinctively understands what that “difference” is; it goes something like this: “grown-ups are responsible for us kids, they show us the way, teach us, and protect us; I am learning how to be a person by watching the grown-ups around me.”

An adult that normatively functions as an adolescent is suffering from arrested development, is emotionally, psychologically, and/or mentally stunted.  Sure, most if not all of us adults may regress from time to time, have moments when we react or behave immaturely.  Still, few adults would like to be viewed as childish and immature in the long run.

Yet it seems that that’s where so many of our celebrities are—in arrested development.  I admit, this is just an impression, not probably true in actual percentages or numbers.  Still, there seems to be enough adolescent acting celebrities out there that the impression is there!  Men and women in their twenties, and sometimes even well into their thirties, that seem to have remained in permanent adolescent mode, given the immaturity of their personal and/or social behavior as highlighted in newsreels.

I have to ask: Why is that?

Is it possible that we’ve so glamorized youth, coupled with the assumed freedom to “do to as I very well damn please,” that we no longer value or even understand actual wisdom and maturity?  In short, are we raising a generation of young people that no longer view the aging/maturing process as a good thing?  Aging is bad!  And, if aging is bad, so is the wisdom and maturity that goes along with it.  Message: Don’t grow up!  Stay young.  Consequence: remain an adolescent in your thinking, attitude, and behavior.  Apparently arrested development is a good thing these days.