SINS OF THE FATHER (IN-LAW)

On March 26,  2014, the son-in-law of Osama bin Laden was "swiftly" convicted of "conspiracy to murder Americans" in a New York federal courtroom.  He was bin Laden's spokesman and had reportedly taken joy in the killing of Americans.

So, there is no question that we may easily consider him a despicable person.

But, the NY Times article did not exactly spell out HOW he had made a concrete, positive contribution prior to the actual killing of Americans as opposed to just talking nasty about it after the fact.

I guess I am about the only scum-sucking "Commie pinko" who is concerned that MAYBE an American judge let a jury "railroad" someone just for merely talking badly.  An article in a prior edition of the newspaper reported that prosecutors had made a lot of closing argument about what the son-in-law was SAYING but never mentioned anything that he actually DID to further the conspiracy.

Should it be a crime in the US for just talking badly?  Does any possible exemption apply only to American citizens, so those in other countries better watch their mouths?  Maybe we should start rounding up the in-laws of all those who are suspected of committing crimes and lock them up or shoot them in the back of the head, just in case.

After all, we have to preserve the image that we are the big, bad-assed Americans with large testicles who can kick anybody's ass we want, any time we want!  Teach 'em some R-E-S-P-E-C-T!

Any patriotic American who values the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech ought to be concerned about the outcome of this case.  It is easy to defend the rights of those with whom we agree, but do not the reprehensibly bad people also have rights worth defending?  Do we really want to invest the President and the Justice Department and the armed forces with the summary power to determine which statements get approved and which get criminalized?  And punished?

Defenders of Barack Obama are exultant that Abu Ghaith was convicted in a CIVILIAN court since so many war-mongers and thugs have previously rattled their sabers for summary kangaroo-court justice for these folks in "military tribunals," where pesky "legal technicalities" don't get in the way of convictions!  Obama's critics have fretted that there just might be too many acquittals of those scum in civilian courts, so Obama's supporters are giddy with delight demonstrating that summary "justice" can be achieved in civilian courts, too!  "Look, Ma!  Liberal puke Democrats have testicles, too!"

It is the exact same attitude that praised Barack Obama (to the teeth-gritting consternation of Republicans) for having directed the SEALs to grab Osama bin Laden, summarily execute him, then dump his body at sea so no pointless autopsy could be performed that MIGHT have shown that bin Laden, unarmed and in restraints, was executed with a bullet in the back of the head while kneeling down in his pajamas.  Who knows?  Who cares?  

We know, however, by the government's own murky statements, that bin Laden was captured and killed, in his pajamas, unarmed, without any arrest warrant or warrant of execution being issued by a proper court.  We know that bin Laden, though PROBABLY guilty, was never actually convicted of any crime in a US court of law.  If we all believe bin Laden was guilty (as I do), then why bother with a trial?  Problem is, most of us with an opinion know ONLY what we've been told.  Most of us have no first-hand knowledge.  Just foaming-at-the-mouth outrage about "9/11."

Does it really matter what the "legal technicalities" are if we don't have the legal certainty of a proper procedural conviction of someone who was "probably" guilty?

I know what my answer to those questions are, and I don't like any of this one bit.  It is worthy of the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, or a lynch mob!  The US court system is certainly not perfect, but it is a lot better than summary execution by government stooges who have declared someone to be the universally despised bệte noir of our existence.  So, we need not worry our pretty little heads with that old bromide about being tried by a jury of one's "peers."

It's so easy to just be a good "German" and do what is expected and not rock the boat.

GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS

The following made "Correspondent of the Day" at the Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch on March 26, 2014.

I have recently seen a lot of indignant Letters to the Editor angrily declaring that there is no such right in the Constitution for gay marriage.

It is true there is no specific reference to a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution, but as with other implicit "rights," (1) there is no specific prohibition against it, (2) there is no compelling legal reason against it, and (3) there IS a constitutional right to "equal protection of the laws" across the board, regardless of what some English translation of the Book of Leviticus may say.

Contrary to the beliefs of most people, the Constitution does not operate as a bundle of specific rights from a benevolent government.  A majority is not allowed unfettered power, even in a "democracy."  Too many politicians and judges have incorrectly promoted this view, but constitutions actually operate as bundles of specific, limited POWERS granted to governments (or not).  As the 10th Amendment makes clear, if the US Constitution does not specifically authorize the US government to do something, then it is (or should be) PROHIBITED, regardless of what a mere majority may want!  State constitutions work the same way.  Constitutions do not constitute blank checks of power for governments.

Any government (federal, state or local) simply cannot treat gay people (nor anyone) differently UNLESS the applicable constitution specifically authorizes it.  In other words, all people in the US should be free to do as they damned well please unless a constitution specifically permits a government to interfere or to discriminate.  A state or local government is simply powerless to deny a civil marriage license to anyone UNLESS there is a specific constitutional provision thus allowing such discrimination or there is some legally compelling reason (like preventing incest) for a government to otherwise act in a discriminatory way.

It's really hard to see such things clearly, looking through the wrong end of the constitutional telescope.

SUPPLY SIDEWINDERS

I was watching Lawrence Kudlow on CNBC March 19, 2014.  He was hosting some of the Usual "Supply-Side" (admittedly) Suspects thereon, all validating each others' economic analyses in unison.  I swear, one of them actually admitted to being a "supply-side" thinker.  Kudlow prattled on about the non-existent "free market" for capitalism.  The US has highly-regulated markets, for good reason.  The antitrust laws are are valid example and are utterly inconsistent with a truly "free" market, which would otherwise favor monopoly.

Back in the old days, basic generic market analysis was a balancing act between the "supply" of goods and services vs. the "demand" therefor.  Because a huge demand remained a relatively constant force so long as we Baby-Boomers were fully in the marketplace, buying up and consuming all manner of objects and services, the post-WWII "supply-side" methodology worked; that is, tinker with the "supply" of things (like the money supply) and raise or lower costs to manipulate the otherwise-steady demand in the marketplace. 

Traditionally, the Fed(eral Reserve) has been able to manipulate the money supply with three basic statutory tools: (1) increasing or decreasing the "Reserve Requirement," which is the amount of cash that banks must keep on hand that cannot go into circulation, thereby increasing or decreasing the availability and interest cost of loaned money; (2) manipulating the (short-term) Federal Funds Rate, the interest rate paid on short-term (12 mos. or less, I think) Federal bonds, the ripple effect of which goes into the interest costs of short-term debt generally and, ultimately, all debt; and (3) manipulation of the Interbank Funds Rate, the overnight interest rates paid by banks to each other as the aggregate money supply is moved around from bank to bank.

Thus, manipulations of the money supply by the Federal Reserve were predictable and effective: increasing or decreasing the money supply overall to make "money" (and debt) more or less expensive.  Debt was relevant since there was so much of it created by us Boomers spending like drunk sailors to buy stuff!  Our "savings rate" stank to high heaven and instigated a lot of anxious paw-wringing!  We didn't save diddly!  As we Boomers have aged, though, I think those days are gone forever.  The Federal Reserve, limited to its three traditional tools, has recently been aggressively buying up Federal bonds (govt.-issued debt), thereby propping up artificially high bond prices to keep interest rates artificially low.  One must keep in mind that the price of fixed-income debt instruments (like bonds) and the rate of return (interest rates) are inverse to each other: one goes up--the other must go down.  Low interest rates favor those who borrow money ONLY, but the vast majority of people now do not borrow money they don't have to, and they are certainly not in the stock markets!  Most folks don't have an IRA or 401k plan--they will likely rely strictly on Social Security (SS) or employer pensions for retirement.  The contrived low interest rates have, however, inured to the immediate benefit of those who buy stocks on margin (borrowed money) who thus have additional stock purchasing power enabled by low interest rates.  That, along with companies buying up their own stocks, has recently kept stock prices and indexes high, but sooner or later I think the overall lack of purchasing power is going to force the chickens to come home to roost in the form of a serious stock-market sell-off.  The new Fed chair, Janet Yellen, simply made some remarks on March 19 indicating a possible (and utterly predictable) future reduction (not cessation) in Fed bond-buying, and just those remarks caused a modest market sell-off!  What is going to happen in the stock markets when the Fed actually DOES reduce or stop its bond-buying and/or companies reduce or stop their stock-buying?

I vehemently disagree with the "supply-side" approach to economics.  I think it is no longer relevant, if ever.  NO ONE among the so-called "experts" has addressed even as a possibility that the current economic crisis may have something to do with the rapid fall-off in DEMAND because of us Boomers aging AND people losing high-value employment.  We "neo-geezers" just ain't buying cars, refrigerators, homes, records, bar tabs, etc. anymore!  Just ask bar and restaurant owners!  Then add to that the serious degradation of the purchasing power of so many people who barely have enough cash to live, much less engage in discretionary spending.  We are now seemingly caught in a whirlpool of lower or loss of wages and middle-income salaries that have reduced purchasing power (demand), which then forces businesses to lay off employees, who thereby have no discretionary money to spend among the suffering businesses!  Why is all this not a subject of discussion among the "experts," even to debunk its accuracy?

Most truly "middle-class" people's primary wealth asset is their personal dwelling, not stocks.  Only a relatively few folks have any "skin" in the stock markets.  In my opinion, the currently high stock markets are masking the true economic conditions among us because so many "experts" are looking at only the stock markets as a measure of economic health.  Janet Yellen got a lot of criticism from the smug "experts" on Kudlow's show for her consideration of various "vague" employment data in the Fed's decision-making.  As I said, the chickens might soon be coming home to roost!

NOTE: the Fed does NOT "print money" as so many "experts" complain; the US Treasury prints money just down the street from the Smithsonian at the Bureau of Printing and Engraving.  The Treasury is an arm of the Executive Branch; the Fed is a totally independent agency, as much subject to the control of Congress as of the President.` The Fed makes "monetary" (money-supply) policy only; "fiscal" (Federal debt/deficit) policy is determined by statute between Congress and the President.

NOTE2: Many employers are now trying to change their retirement plans from "defined benefit" (fixed pay-out) plans to "defined contribution" (fixed pay-in) plans, more like 401k's.  Thus, employees' eventual retirement prosperity could more and more vary with the fickle health of the stock markets than before.

"POT" AND THE LAW

I have been following the recent marijuana legalization movement with a lot of interest.  I used to practice criminal defense law and was one of the first lawyers in my small rural county and town who would take on drug cases.  Many of the other defense attorneys in the area would turn up their noses and refuse to handle drug-crime defense.  I later joined NORML--the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and became a member of their associated lawyers' group.

I have always believed that there were several serious flaws in drug prohibition, like the shifting of the burden of proof to the accused, the financial beggaring of court-appointed counsel (with the connivance of spineless and/or bigoted judges) AND corrupt practices pursued by many police officers and government generally, from the use of fraudulent lab reports (even the FBI Labs), illicit drugs planted on defendants by cops, especially black defendants (as reported to me by other cops), the increased harshness of punishment for drug crimes perpetrated by corrupt legislatures, and the often-successful efforts by politicians and editors to "poison" citizen juries with overt ads and messages to come down harshly on those accused of drug crimes, without regard for contrary evidence presented in courts. 

It was routine to impose incredibly harsh prison sentences on nonviolent drug offenders.  Even today, those convicted of "crack" offenses (mostly black and Latino) routinely get much harsher sentences than the (mostly white) folks convicted of possession of powdered cocaine, the exact same chemical substance as "crack."  The draconian manner in which the government and law enforcement used to come down on those hapless souls was disgusting beyond comprehension, and I felt very lonely in my pursuit of justice for these people.  Racism and bigotry at all levels was rampant, even into the late 1900's.  Urban blacks and Latinos routinely got much harsher sentences than white suburbanites for the exact same crimes.  Following the policies of both NORML and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, of which I was also a member, I refused to advise my clients to participate in "narc-ing" against other suspects in order to reduce their charges or likely sentences.  I was ethically obliged to inform them that my policy might well result in harsher dispositions of their cases, and that they were free to seek other counsel, but I stood firm by my policy, because I believe that to participate in such "narc-ing" amounts to committing more drug crimes.  The cops, the politicians and the judges, of course, did not agree with me, but I still believe that was correct.  There is no excuse--EVER--to commit more crime to prosecute crimes.  For my troubles, and having annoyed certain state-police "narcs," I believe that my telephone was illegally tapped (I was so warned by local court personnel).  For all I know, I may have suffered illegal and surreptitious searches.  The anti-drug insanity was rampant.

Another legal point that has always bothered me about drug prohibition is that everyone assumes that the government has the inherent power under the Constitution to declare any and all substances "contraband" and to impose criminal punishments accordingly.  To my knowledge, no one has ever questioned that assumption.  What has occurred to me is that it took a constitutional amendment (the 18th) to establish alcohol prohibition, so why would it not also require a constitutional amendment to establish drug prohibition?  I have never understood any distinction, other than popular sentiment.  As a "free" adult, I believe I have the inherent right to put anything I wish into my body, even if it is stupid to do so.  The government may well have the power to prevent me from buying it or someone else from selling it, but if I grow it and smoke it, it is my business ONLY.  The government has no business telling me what to do in that way.

When most people discuss marijuana legalization these days, it is always in a vacuum; that is, they ASSUME that the government has the inherent power and duty to protect us from ourselves; since there is no "proof" that marijuana is NOT harmful (the illogical proof of a negative), then "we" must ABSOLUTELY ensure that nothing bad ever comes from it, so we should continue to prosecute marijuana possession as a crime, and certainly not "allow" its decriminalized use, probably by "the children."  Who would possibly disagree, OTHER THAN godless hippies and liberals and socialists who should, of course, all be branded TERRORISTS who seek to enslave even children into drug-addled complacence?  The fear of undefined "terrorism" has succeeded the former paranoia about Communism, now mostly a joke.  After all, the "Cold War" had to be replaced with something to unite Americans in fear so that due-process short-cuts could continue unabated!  Some of the most absurdly reasoned abrogations of due process by the US Supreme Court have been promulgated in drug cases, where all sorts of search-&-seizure exceptions have been manufactured by the "Justices" out of whole cloth.

The drug-legalization-cost discussions almost never invoke a comparison with the costs of continued criminal prohibition.  Why not?  As I said, the discussions are mostly in a vacuum, invoking the horrifying "absolutes" of unpunished drug usage.  There is even a stern demand for "warning labels" on marijuana in an online news article received today, March 10, 2014.  Advocates of drug legalization do need to be forthcoming about possible problems with drug legalization.  There will surely be an initial spike in drug usage after legalization, though it will probably eventually settle back down near current usage profiles.  When asked, most people who currently don't use marijuana don't plan to change their behavior upon legalization.  There will surely be some impaired driving with marijuana, but there already is.  The current drug laws have never severely inhibited usage by those who are determined to do so.  Some minors will raid their parents' "stash" of legal marijuana and use it, but the current drug laws don't inhibit minors determined to use marijuana, anyway.  In short, removal of the current prohibitions will not likely change the longer-term usage patterns, it won't appreciably increase the likelihood of usage by minors, but it will definitely keep law enforcement and the criminal-justice system out of the business of attempted regulation of private conduct, it will eliminate the wanton criminalization of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding people, and it will obviously reduce the social and financial costs of incarceration for truly victimless crimes.  Why are those comparisons almost never mentioned by the doom-and-gloom crowd?  Because they are too obsessed with "sending the wrong message," as if anyone cares about the stupid message.

Marijuana usage probably has some adverse health effects, especially smoking it.  But, there are people smoking marijuana who do not use tobacco, and the frequency of marijuana usage will likely remain small.  Those who consume marijuana orally (as tea or in food) will have no adverse lung effects.  Adolescents probably should not use marijuana for hormonal reasons, and adults should continue to be prohibited from sharing marijuana with minors.  But, with legalization, the discussion about marijuana usage can be on the substantive merits and not about scary legal risks that have nothing to do with health effects.  Finally, there is a really important consideration rarely discussed: the "forbidden-fruit" factor.  That is the notion that humans are, by nature, perversely inclined to do things they would not otherwise do but for "authority figures" trying to coerce them.  No one wants to talk about that.

I believe the primary motivation for opposition to marijuana legalization is still grounded in political and racial bigotry.  Harkening back to the "evils" of marijuana fraudulently detailed in the mid-1930's movie, "Reefer Madness," there are plenty of people in charge today who still believe that marijuana usage corrupts morals and creates intemperate behavior, believed to be common among hippies, blacks and Hispanics.  There is a palpable fear that "the children" (mostly white children) will become like those "undesirable types" if marijuana is legalized.  So, we are again back to baseless paranoia, since the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary.  But not many people will openly admit to harboring such fears today.  Racism and bigotry have insidiously gone "underground" and are now much harder to identify and prove.  Many whites resent the continued calls for fixing these problems which they desperately want to believe no longer exist, since "Jim Crow" has been banned and their great-grand-daddies never owned slaves, etc.

Game, set and match.

But, the tighter we embrace the past, the more we are likely to repeat it.

CORPORATE NON-TAXATION

(From a 2014 e-mail to a professor at Boston University--see 4/26/16.)

I have come to believe that the corporate income tax, assessed on just about all corporations, has become basically a pass-through expense that is ultimately NOT borne by the shareholders but instead is really laid upon the workers, the suppliers and/or the customers.  That becomes possible whenever the "rising tide lifts all boats," so there is no competitive disadvantage to paying those taxes.  It's just part of the cost of doing business for all corporations.  That scenario is not likely to change, so the corporate income tax, which was once considered a fair trade for the limited liability gained by shareholders, is now an anachronism.

I say repeal the corporate income tax, then tax all dividends as ordinary income.  I would allow a pass-through deduction or tax credit for corporate income plowed back into certain capital investments at the corporate level, and I would net out losses for pass-through treatment as well.

Alternatively, I would certainly levy a US tax on ALL net corporate income regardless of locus, then allow credits for taxes actually paid elsewhere!  I thought that was the rule--I am shocked that corporations are able to place their otherwise-taxable incomes "off-shore" beyond the reach of the US Tax Man.

The revenues lost by repeal of corporate taxes need to be replaced with more taxation of individuals, especially upper-income individuals.  The locking in of the so-called 2001 "Bush" tax cuts by Pres. Obama for taxable (not gross) incomes up to $450K was unconscionable, given that the MEDIAN annual household gross income in the US is now somewhere below $52K.  Meanwhile, Pres. Obama also RAISED the FICA payroll withholding rate back to its former full level.  Wealthier folks don't pay much FICA--lower incomes pay (in addition to income taxes) FICA on 100% of their likely gross incomes!  No one talks about the economically adverse affect of FICA sucking currently spendable dollars out of the economy.  The only such discussions are about means-testing Social Security and/or misusing payroll-tax-increased FICA receipts to supplement the deficit-driving, grossly inadequate income-tax receipts.

But, I digress.

I am also in favor of repealing the reduced personal capital-gains tax and replacing it with an amortizable capital-investment tax credit, given to an investor upon making an initial investment, subject to a sliding-scale recapture if the investment is liquidated within a given period of time after it is made.  Thus, the longer the investment were held, the less the recapture, then zero recapture after a designated period, like 7 years.  This would have the effect of rewarding the MAKING of an investment, not its liquidation as the reduced cap-gains tax does.  

I would then tax capital gains, per se, at the ordinary-income level, subject to offset with capital losses as now.  This should be fine for the average investor/taxpayer, who would receive the net benefits of making investments up front, regardless of what he or she might be paying as cap-gains taxes.  The investment tax credit should be an "appropriate" percentage of the total investment.  I don't know the numbers, but there should be no net loss of revenues for the govt.

I think payroll taxes are regressive and should be the focal point of a lot of ongoing discussion about taxation, but very few people take the payroll-tax burden into account when discussing taxes.  I would repeal the Medicare payroll tax outright and fund Medicare from general revenues, then means-test the bottom end of Medicare with sliding-scale deductibles, covering the high end for everyone, totally independent of the insurance companies.  The insurance-centric "Obamacare" is a needlessly complex mess; it may be better than the status quo, but it is not nearly as good as it COULD have been with simply "Medicare For All."

I realize, of course, that my ideas are probably not politically feasible at this time.

A-THEISTS vs. ANTI-THEISTS

(The following is taken from an e-mail sent around Xmas, 2013)

I have been an atheist for the better part of 50 years--perhaps longer.  I really don't remember--it was some time between high school and college when it started.  It was gradual--there was no "thunderclap" of sudden enlightenment!  I know that I attended church services on occasion even after I was pretty sure of what I believed (or didn't).

I am NOT "anti-theist."  There is a difference.  A lot of believers think that all us "a-theists" are "anti-theists"!  Even some proclaimed atheists are really "anti-theists" by my reckoning, like Madalyn Murray O'Hair, who was a very courageous, fearless woman who fought well and hard for true religious freedom by resisting the tendency of those working in government to mis-use public resources to spread their personal messages of belief and indoctrinate others, especially schoolchildren.  Unfortunately, O'Hair was really AGAINST all religion (especially Christianity) and mocked it often.  Many so-called Christians were very mean to her and her family, and she became quite mean in return.  "Eye for an eye," I suppose!  She and some of her family were finally murdered by someone seeking to rip them off.

A true a-theist does not profess a belief AGAINST religion.  It makes no sense to me.  By my definition, an "a-theist" simply believes in nothing supernatural at all.  We are simply "without" religion; without "theism."  How can any of us know for sure?  I certainly cannot "prove" the NON-existence of a deity!  No one can prove the negative of anything!  It is a logical impossibility!  As far as I know, there may very well be a god, or devil, or angels, or whatever.  Nor do I demand that anyone who believes PROVE that their deity exists!  I hope I would never suggest such a thing.  I just don't care whether or not there is a deity somewhere.  I really don't think about it very much, one way or the other.  It is usually not a factor in my life.

Personal beliefs are private and deserve protection, by my standards.  Every one of us has the unquestionable right to believe whatever each of us wants to believe and express whatever any one of us wishes to express, EVEN IF it is offensive!  I like to say that the First Amendment guarantees the right to be offended!  I will fight to protect that right, because the rights of believers are essentially MY rights as well.  I recall that Jesus said, "Inasmuch as you do unto the least of my brethren, you do also unto me."  That is a core principle of mine.  The rights of the least of us (like Larry Flynt or Charles Manson) are the same rights as for all of us.

I will not, however, tolerate those trying to use or divert my tax dollars or my public property paid for or supported by my tax dollars to spread or proselytize their personal beliefs, pro or con, believer OR atheist.  I certainly don't do that!  Public property is not maintained for such purposes.  I believe that each of us has a right to say or protest whatever we may on public property, but those employed by government and paid by my tax dollars may not confuse their role as public servants with their exercise of private, non-governmental rights.  They must be "off the clock" whenever they choose to express their personal beliefs.  Thus, a judge or a schoolteacher may not use official property or time to proselytize personal beliefs.  That is not fair nor honest.  That is not exercise of a personal right but is, instead, misuse of official power!  That is taking money (salary) under false pretenses!

Some of my best friends are Christians, but I will not ever likely embrace any form of belief in supernatural deities, ghosts, fairies, angels, devils, elves or whatever.  I don't "believe in" magic.  I don't "believe in" Heaven or Hell.  I don't "believe in" miracles (although my graduation from law school and passing the bar exam come close!).  I don't "believe in" astrology.  I don't "believe in" the Hereafter.  I don't "believe in" Eternal Life.  I hope it is not true!  When I die I want to stay DEAD!  I don't "believe in" any of those things, but I am compelled to admit that they could all be true--I just don't care.  Nor do I care what anyone else believes, SO LONG AS they don't waste my time trying to convince me otherwise nor mis-use MY taxes or public property to push their personal messages onto others.

I have read the Bible completely (as was required my sophomore year in college).  I paid fairly close attention to that stuff in Sunday School growing up.  I think I understand the theological underpinnings of Christianity about as well as anyone else.  I also recognize some truths and events that occurred during the early days of church development (*) that grossly impeach the reliability of what passes for Christianity today.  But, again, I don't expect anyone else to embrace my skepticism.  But I also won't ever likely embrace the alternative!

Peter and Paul (who never lived during the time of Jesus) had a fairly strong disagreement about who should be the "targets" of conversion.  Paul makes reference to that dispute in one of his letters.  As Bishop of Rome, Peter believed that Christianity should be reserved for observant Jews ONLY, while Paul was trying to spread the "message" to the masses, traveling around and proselytizing among all the other peoples of the Mediterranean world.  Jesus had himself urged his followers to "go into a closet to pray" lest they make pests of themselves, smugly trying to impress others with their overt piety (Matthew, Ch. 6:6).  On the other hand, Paul vigorously promoted proselytization ("spreading the Message") to those who needed to hear it "for their own good," whether they were receptive or not.  Today's Christianity is really "Paulism," in my opinion, and I think it bears little resemblance to the fundamental teachings that are attributed to Jesus himself.  That is what I sincerely "believe," based upon a lot of reading and thinking.

People must be willing to accept that my atheism is just as strong and sincere as their religious beliefs!  After all, none of it is any more than just personal opinions of what may or may not be so.

UPDATE, 2/7/18: The absence of belief is not the same as the belief of absence!

CENTRAL ASIAN RELIGION

(The following is an e-mail reply to a reproach to consider the impact of Islam in central Asia:)

"Religion" is a totally man-made creation (vs. faith), so the subjective "religion" prevailing in central Asia indeed contributes to what is going on.

BUT, I don't let the humans off the hook who thus interpret their "religion" in hostile, violent fashion, nor do I subscribe to the view that, somehow, Islam is more inherently violent than any other absolutist fairy-tale belief structure.  In the end, it is HUMAN BEINGS who decide what "must" be done to enforce their subjective opinions about what is expected of others.  That is all religion really is anyway, a means of adversely judging the behavior of others and dominating them in the name of "God-given" authority!  Any other lip service to the contrary is usually delusional nonsense!  There are exceptions, but they are few and far between!

Any gringo who claims to know what is in the Koran when he or she cannot read Arabic is just full of it, for there ARE differing translations to English, and the present-day Arabic sources have been copied and re-copied over the years by multiple scribes who are BOUND to have injected their own "interpretations" of what they have written.

I have studied three separate "foreign" languages and was pretty fluent in German at one time, so I know what the drill is about translations.  Even Muslims cannot agree on what is written in the Koran, so how can gringos possibly know?  As with most religions, there are at least 2 factions of Islam (Sunni vs. Shiite), so how can we possibly think they are in agreement on ANYTHING?  Jews will argue to death over what the Old Testament "really" means!  Most "holy writs" are pure hearsay and are, therefore, utterly UNRELIABLE!  In my view, Christianity is no more valid or credible than Islam or Judaism!  It really cracks me up to hear self-described "good Christians" denigrating Muslims' belief in "Allah"!  That foolishness happens ALL THE TIME!  It's perfectly understandable for a woman to cover her head in church, but we will kill, or at least sneer at Hindu Sikhs for wearing a turban!  Most Americans are just dumber than Hell and brimming with self-pity!!

We are fatuous in our assumptions about the various "holy writs"!  In the end, we should examine what each INDIVIDUAL believes and expresses about the claimed religion.  To attempt to draw blanket conclusions about what INDIVIDUALS may believe on the basis of what we THINK is the meaning of whatever is total nonsense.  Group-think is ALWAYS invalid.  It is ALWAYS the essence of bigotry.

We are up against "it" in central Asia, and we have no business being there.  We cannot begin to understand the bizarre dynamics there!  Most of our "experts" don't even try!  Crazy people are DEFINITELY in charge!

RELIGIOUS TESTS

Regardless of how "devout" a given public figure is, his or her "faith" or religion has no place being discussed in the public square.  Article VI of the US Constitution explicitly provides that government (at any level) shall not impose a religious test for holding public office.  Obviously, this does not empower a "gag order" for people nor publications, yet it does present a good idea, and private individuals and journalists and publications would do well to heed the principle, that no one's religion or "faith" is any business but his or her own.  One's religious beliefs or practices, per se, are not "news items."

This unwritten rule also applies to candidates, who have no business injecting their religious beliefs or practices into the public square, thus implicitly validating the notion that there SHOULD be a religious test for public office!  Regardless of his many obvious shortcomings, Mitt Romney did try to minimize public discussion of his personal religion last year, as well he should have.  Too bad that Barack Obama won't follow suit, desperate he seems to prove, over and over, that he's not a Muslim (as if it was some dead animal) but is a Christian!

HOOTERS

I went to "Hooters" for the first (& only) time about a year ago with a bus-load of Lions.  We went there for dinner, then a minor-league baseball game at the ballpark nearby.

The food was OK--not spectacular, not bad.  However, I felt really self-conscious with the waitresses all running around in heavy makeup and skimpy attire.  I felt as if I had gotten stuck on the set of a really stupid porn movie!

It reminded me of the one (and only) time I went to a "strip" bar in Austin, Texas for a "bachelor party."  I decided to pay for a "lap dance," given that the fellow sitting next to me had this nubile thing writhing all over his lap!  I wanted to see what it was all about!

I realized, as it was happening, that there was no mutual attraction AT ALL!  Like the "Hooters" waitresses, the gal sitting on my lap was just there for money!  Neither she nor they were interested in me personally!  It was a rude revelation!  I knew this to be so, so I had to keep my hands to myself, or "Brutus" would come over and snatch me up like a dishrag and toss me out in the street!  In "Hooters," it was roughly the same: the waitresses would sashay by and twitch their body parts accordingly, but it was all "show" and no "go"!

Pointless, on both counts.

I HAD to find all that out for myself, but I won't ever bother with either form of punishing "entertainment" again.

SALVATION

Statist "conservatives" want to misuse the power of govt. to save society from we, the people, whereas statist "liberals" want to misuse the power of govt. to save we, the people from ourselves!