So, is Trump now going to follow through with his campaign threats?

Do you suppose President Trump will, on Day One, start disassembling Obama's pet policies (thus throwing millions of Americans off of healthcare, reneging on an international agreement we had with our allies over Iran, and so on).

Will he tell us the week after his inauguration exactly how the IRS is progressing on that audit and how soon it will be over so he can release his tax returns?  Will he immediately get on the phone to Mexico and demand enough pesos to build that big beautiful wall he's been dreaming about?  Will he lock the gates at the borders and chase off everyone who speaks Spanish or Arabic?  Will he immediately start spending day after day in various courtrooms, suing all those women who lied about him and his penchant for groping, as he said he would, while doing his part on alternate days to make sure Hillary rots in prison?

Hey, come on, media.  Hold his feet to the fire. Either he follows through diligently on all these campaign promises that got his followers so stoked, or he lets it all fade into the gathering fog, therefore painting himself as the lying opportunist many of us suspected he was, a scammer who was just blowing smoke to get elected.

My prediction?  Left to his own devices (that is, unless someone presses him relentlessly), I think he will go utterly silent on all of those things. We won't hear another word about walls, or women, Obamacare or crooked Hillary. Because, it's like this. Trump enthusiasts don't really care about his campaign promises, and he knows it.  They only care to the extent that they found his verbalization and theatrics to be entertaining while they lasted.

It was all hyperbole.  We knew it.  Trump knew it.  And his tribesmen knew it; but they didn't give it a second thought--because these are guys who live in a world of hyperbole.

Ever listen to working dudes at a bar?  Or at the ballgame?  Or in the locker room? Or at the backyard barbecue?  We speak in overblown, nonsensical nonsense constantly.  It's hilarious stuff and it keeps us entertained. We despise this politician or that religion! And everything we love is always the best in history!  And the things we hate, the most disastrous ever!  And, by God, we are gonna whup the ass of anyone who is un-American enough to disagree! Yup, that is called "guy talk".

Trump has become fluent in it--a lingo loaded with exaggerated stream-of-consciousness rhetoric that sounds to the ear of the working man exactly the way he and his buddies themselves talk and think. Sure, they know it is nearly all B.S.  But that's okay; it keeps them laughing and keeps their anger level up to an acceptable level. 

Saying that stuff on the stump served him well, but President-elect Donald Trump knows full well that his people no longer care one way or the other about any of those things now.  And didn't really take it to the bank even back then.  They were entertained for a few months, and that's all that matters.  It was Apprentice-II, the Sequel...and that season has ended.

So, no, don't look for any tax returns or Mexican walls or lawsuits against gropees anytime soon---or anytime in the next four years for that matter.  Trump will quietly let those matters die on the vine.  Unless, of course, someone in the media (or his opposition camp) is concerned enough to keep asking him about it every day, day after day after day.

They should.  Because the single reason he got elected was the entertainment value of those wild claims and threats.  And, if we let him slide on them, he gets off scott-free with fifteen months of lying and deceiving the American voters--a flim-flam tactic that got him the biggest prize of his business career: the coveted office of Leader of the Free World.



    

Evan McMullin & Mindy Finn sound like folks I would trust

I am one of those who has been tearing his hair out of late over the depressing choice of presidential hopefuls we face.  I have decided that I cannot in good conscience cast a vote for Clinton (due to the continuous whirlwind of uncertainty around her ethics), Trump (due to his unstable temperament and lack of understanding of any and all things Presidential), Johnson (due to his libertarianism, which I oppose--although Bill Weld seems like a sensible guy), or Stein (too, too, too liberal for a down-home conservative like me).  So, I am now throwing my support behind a guy who seems to me like a genuine straight-shooter and a real conservative (but a compassionate one):  Evan McMullin.

You no doubt have heard little or nothing about him.  So, let me share with you a brief email I received from his campaign.  I hope you will have a look at their credentials and see if you don't find McMullin and his running mate Mindy Finn to be the most appealing pair in the race:

Friend,

Americans want candidates they can vote for: principled, patriotic, with a positive vision for the future.

Those candidates are Evan McMullin and Mindy Finn.

Evan's entire career — from CIA operative, to investment banker, to chief policy director of the House GOP — has been in service to this nation and the institutions that drive it.

 Mindy is the founder and president of Empowered Women, a bi-partisan organization that gives voice to a bold, new generation of American women in civic life. She has served as an advisor to the Republican National Committee, President George W. Bush, and Governor Mitt Romney; and developed business partnerships for Twitter. She has spent her career in service to the conservative movement and expanding it so it works for every American.

 When Americans were faced with two of the least qualified presidential candidates in modern history, Evan and Mindy knew they couldn't stand on the sidelines anymore. They stepped up and decided to pursue the cause of American renewal and to give Americans leaders who will put country over power, selflessness over worship of self, and principle over popularity.

But they can't do it alone — your support is what powers this campaign.

There is a better path, a better ticket, and a better future for America — and it starts with you. Elections are won by those who stand up. You can help us win by organizing your community.

Thank you for stepping up!
Joel Searby
 Chief Strategist
 McMullin for President

In wake of election, it's up to sensible Americans to repair our nation's fabric

Now that it looks fairly certain that our next president will be Hillary, it is time to rise above all the political hostilities and silliness and get to work making American even greater. Some of you are bound to keep right on spewing hatred and anger and indulging in childish name-calling and disregard for civility. And, much as we love you, you are not helping. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

As I see it, this is the perfect time for sensible, rational moderates (including both moderate progressives and moderate conservatives), the ones with cool heads, wisdom and understanding, to take back our country. If we don't like what the new president stands for, let's mount a reasonable effort against those policies; but let's do it peaceably, methodically and with smiles on our faces. Our attitude adjustment goes like this:

(1) We must concede that neither the current president nor the newly elected one is a crook, or evil, or a liar...but rather a decent, patriotic American who may have blatant character flaws (as we all do) and lots of ideas we disagree with, but is nonetheless bent on doing what they earnestly believe is best for the country--and, if we truly believe in our nation, we will be respectful of the president, our democratic process, and the office of POTUS;

 (2) We must kick to the curb and shut off the mic on any extremist or big-mouth who continues to talk hatred, bigotry, hubris, or unproven, unsubstantiated nonsense--whether on the airwaves, in Washington DC, on social media, or in our own communities--and remind them that badmouthing our system or our leaders is badmouthng the USA and helping our enemies;

 (3) We must hold the news media's feet to the fire, make them understand that the times we live in are too complicated to have everything reduced to the level of a reaility show, and force them to get back to honest, unbiased, professional journalism; and

 (4) We must fix the two-party system, even if it means abandoning the old dysfunctional Republican and Democrat parties and forming some new ones that are more in tune with the needs of ordinary disgruntled working-class people.

I am eager to join with anyone who agrees with me on this...and I will fight back against anyone who plans to keep right on being obstructive and dragging our country down with obnoxious bs. Just sayin'...

 [---Join me each week for a 15-minute audio podcast with music & light-hearted commentary---]

..and by the way: Enough about Bill Clinton's past already. Not relevant!

I'm a little tired of hearing Bill Clinton being portrayed by the right as a predator and rapist (i.e. one guilty of sexual assault). I was around back then and paying attention to the impeachment stuff. And I came away with the idea that what was going on with Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Monika Lewinski and others was sexual hanky panky between consenting adults...and nothing more. Evidence, as I remember it, suggested that these women eagerly pursued a relationship with Clinton. If there was proof to the contrary, I don't remember it. Moreover, Hillary Clinton was a victim of spousal infidelity; so who could blame her for lashing out against the women who played hanky panky with her husband? She was NOT an enabler. So give it a rest, Trump. Enough of trying to play the Bill Clinton card in this election. Won't work! Just saying...

Did the manly Donald just admit in the townhall that he was lying about being manly?

Are we Trumped out yet? Thank God there are only a little over three weeks left of this charade.

DT is a braggard and a bully, and he fits that profile to a T: Braggards and bullies invariably have been plagued throughout life with an inferior complex and a need to build themselves up into something bigger than life. I don't know what brought on this psychology in Trump, but it is clear that he struggles constantly to "be a man". That's why, in last night's debate, he was really caught up in a very painful conundrum when Anderson Cooper forced him to answer the question, "Have you actually done those things to women that you talked about in the video?" Trump tried to evade it, but Cooper asked it twice more, and Trump eventually had to mumble an answer ("No, I have not").

So look at the dilemma he faced. Remember, he is a guy who absolutely has to build himself up into "being a man". So, how was he to answer? I'm sure this was as tough as they get for him. Politically, he knew he almost had to deny doing those things in order to make his "it was just locker room talk" argument hold up...and keep himself from being further outed as a proud card-carrying creeper. But he was also, simultaneously, admitting that, in the tape, he was just blowing hot air--essentially lying--.AND (even worse) he was admitting that he actually had NOT ever kissed and groped and romanced all those beautiful women. And there goes his image, his cherished manliness, the most important part of his persona, right out the window. If he didn't do those things, he comes off looking like an inadequate wimp to his tough-guy locker room fans and supporters.

Anyway, that was one of the things I took away from that townhall meeting. Who won? I agree with the pundits; it was a tie on substance. But on style and temperment, Trump did little more than prove to his base that he is still the Trump they love and is still in this race. That may not be good enough to win in November, however.

I get into a lot of these matters on my new weekly podcast called "Reedo in the Meadow".  Happens on Sunday night about 11:00 or so.  Look for the link on my audio-video page:   https://vimeo.com/reedw 

Stopping gun violence: It begins with profiling the shooters. Who are they?

So, NOW...finally...is everyone onboard and ready to actually do something about these horrific mass shootings and acts of terrorism? Good. Let's get started. And the place to start is by identifying the nature of the problem and who the perpetrators are.

First, let's define the basic issue. Is this, or is it not, a matter of "gun violence"? My answer is "Yes...mostly". Close enough for discussion purposes anyway. Sure, there are bombings and stabbings and other kinds of weapon misuse. But, in our country at least, most mass murders are done with guns. So, yes, let's start by addressing the main problem: gun violence.

Next, let's devote this particular discussion to trying to get some sort of handle on who these shooters are. My observation is that they fall into three groups. Before dividing them into those groups, however, let us take a look at what these people have in common (besides being gun owners with a desire to shoot people).

These are citizens who fall into a particular subset of gun enthusiasts who see their right to bear arms as the freedom that protects all their other freedoms. They view the Second Amendment as a logical companion to the First Amendment. To these individuals, the ownership of guns is a direct extension of their right of free expression. They see no distinction between their right to verbalize their anger against their enemies and their right to defend themselves from the actions of those enemies.

These citizens own guns, often many of them, and for what they see as very good reasons. And they comprise the following three general groups:

Group 1: Middle-aged, white working class men who see themselves as tough guys and true red-blooded Americans, but whose lives and livelihoods are being turned upside down by globalization, ethnic diversity, and the technological tsunami. They are easily swayed by anyone who speaks their language and inspires them to fight back--a Donald Trump, for example.

Group 2: Young African-Americans and Hispanics who are natives of the inner cities and who see themselves as imprisoned in a hopeless cycle of poverty and lack of opportunity. They see no way out. The American Dream is a myth to them. Consequently, they are susceptible to the excitement and opportunity promised by the turf-war gangsters that control the streets and alleys of their neighborhoods

Group 3: Millennials whose parents are Muslim transplants from the Middle East; young Americans who are struggling to come to grips with their own identity and to 'be someone' in a world that is foreign, and often hostile, to them. They are easily influenced by radical groups that play to their anger and frustration and are quick to invite them to join in fighting an idealized war against that oppressive mainstream society.

The members of these groups, of course, are invariably gun-owners, are predominately male and are angry about their situation in life and determined to fight back. And, although they reside in completely different areas of the country and are completely unrelated to one another, the three groups do share a kinship, certain traits that tend to fit them into a common profile, one that makes them prone to engaging in gun violence:

1. Each group is insular. That is, the members associate almost exclusively with their own kind and communicate with one another in a language they all understand. They harbor a huge distrust of outsiders.

2. Each group shares among its members a well-defined enemies list, laying out in no uncertain terms the people and things they hate the most. And they see themselves as warriors against those mortal enemies.

3. In the case of each group, members, when in the private company of their own peers, are not at all hesitant to speak openly about their feelings and to vent their anger and hostility vociferously, without regard to political correctness or what might be socially acceptable to so-called 'outsiders'. 'Strength in numbers' bolsters each guy's bravado and bold rhetoric, often to a point of being incendiary and promoting violent solutions.

4. For the members of each of these three groups, the next level of action is to prepare for that inevitable day when they will have said all they can say and gone as far as mere barroom expletives, barbs and bigoted epithets can take them. Thus, they spend considerable time and resources arming themselves against all of these enemy forces which, they are convinced, will be coming after them and their way of life sooner rather than later. They call it self-defense. And rightfully so, even if the threat is somewhat exaggerated or even imagined.

So, for all three groups---the middle-aged working stiffs, the inner city minority kids, and the second generation Muslim-Americans--a fascination with guns and other weaponry not only evolves into an all-consuming hobby but, even more than that, it becomes a natural extension of their need to express their anger and hostility toward their lot in life and the ones who made it that way.

Thus, for them, the right to keep and bear arms goes hand in hand with their right to free speech and expression. The former is merely the tools and weaponry they need to keep 'the enemy' from taking away the latter.

Certainly, not every gun owner is an angry man, rebelling against society. Many are sportsmen, many are collectors, and many, of course, are not even men. Guns appeal to women, as well, especially when it comes to protecting themselves and their families. But, there is a distinction: Those are not the ones committing mass murder against innocent people.

There are many other issues that will need to be addressed along the road to ending these senseless killings. Mental illness, societal pressures, availability of weapons, and so on. But first we have to recognize the perpetrators and identify them for who they are. That's not to say they comprise one monolithic group of individuals with one shared motive; but they do appear to have a shared psychology.

Perhaps we should start there.

Issues can wait. Right now, we must vet for tone, temperament & character.

Kudos to Hillary for her speech yesterday. She laid it on the line, all the reasons why Trump would suck as President. Hope she keeps up that line of attack. And I hope Bernie does the same.

I agree that Hillary has flaws, arguably in both in her character and her track record. So, I am not a HC supporter. I am like a lot of Americans who feel that our country would be best served by more traditional conservative values and less of the progressive and libertarian agendas. But, at the same time, I absolutely don't want someone as reckless and offensive as Trump as President. That puts voters like me in a quandry to say the least, and we are still trying to figure out which way to jump in this crazy election. Do we vote for the lesser of the evils? Or do we hope a better choice comes along to vote for? Or do we stay home and not vote at all?

We reasonable folks would like this election to be about issues and policy; but it's not. it is all about temperament and character--and which is more entertaining--acting Presidential, or acting like a goon.

The people who are driving the dialog and making all the noise are not interested in engaging in sensible discussion in a calm, measured way (that, to them, is just more elitist, establishment mumbo-jumbo). No, they want to curse and yell and spew their pent-up hatred and prejudices. Trump, by eagerly sharing with them his laundry list of enemies to pick on (foreign governments, immigrants, minorities, the media, liberals, etc.) and then throwing away the rule book, has taken away the obstacles, like political correctness and good manners, and given all those angry provincial nativists carte-blanche to finally cut loose and be as rude and crude as they want, without worrying about who they might hurt or offend.

I shudder to imagine that all of this might be resetting our culture and painting over everything we traditional conservatives have always loved and cherished about the United States of America.  The 21st century may be ushering in a New World (dis)Order that many of us will live to regret.

As dismayed by it all as I am, however, I still plan to stick to my standards.  Before I even look at the issues, I want the tone, temperament and character to be there.  So, would-be candidates, hear this.  My vote is only one; but, if you want it, earn it. Be Presidential:
 

If you cuss in public, I will never vote for you. If you express your anger by name-calling and bashing, I will never vote for you. If you use name-calling and bashing as a way to be cute and popular, I will never vote for you. If you brag constantly about how great and smart and talented you are, I will never vote for you. If you incite intolerant people to hate, I will never vote for you. If you say things that are untrue (incl. passing off lies, exaggeration, hyperbol...e, and propaganda as truth), I will never vote for you. If you brow-beat people to get your way, I will never vote for you. If you believe that all is fair as long as you close the deal and win, I will never vote for you.

Now that we have that straight, let's see if, come November, there is a candidate in the race for Leader of the Free World who strikes me as being enough like the Pope, Jesus, Gandhi, or the Dalai Lama to deserve my vote.

Advanced Christology: The next level in following (and understanding) Jesus

Even the twelve didn't get what he was trying to teach them; indeed, in the end, most simply abandoned him, confused, and returned to their ordinary lives.  So, what was he really about?  Paul wrote in I Corinthians that he and his followers worshipped Christ crucified.  But, maybe he was just like all the many thousands of the 'other' disciples who lacked the wisdom to truly grasp the message.  According to legends and lore, there might have been a lot more to the historical Jesus than even practicing Christians know.  In the meadow, we seek to get past the parables and get to know Jesus as he really was and to follow his teachings.   

Unprincipled Sandersites & Trumpites: A pox on both their houses!

The unruly, uncivilized nonsense displayed at yesterday's Democratic convention in Nevada, mostly by Bernie Sanders supporters, demonstrates exactly what alarms ordinary folks like me the most: the inescapable fact that there is a contingent of populist agitators within the Sanders camp that is turning out to be every bit as bad as Trump's bunch.

Don't get me wrong. Bernie Sanders is an honorable public service, intelligent and likeable. Most of his supporters are clearly good and decent Americans who, like those who support Trump, are fed up with the way things are going and simply want change and a better country. But they are not the ones making all the racket.

What we are seeing and hearing is the scum rising to the surface, the worst of us, the very lowest element in our society---ill-bred people who have grown up without learning any basic values; who laugh at virtue; who have no concept of what it means to respect those who disagree with them; who have grown up demanding the world on a platter and have been indoctrinated by the culture of their peers to selfishly thrash about and whine like a toddler, and throw a temper tantrum whenever the world dares deny them their toys.

Anyone who has ever scrolled down to the "comments" section below a news story online, or a blog, or a YouTube video knows exactly what I am talking about. All those degenerates who call people names, curse, bash, and put their narcissism, bigotry and ignorance on display for all to see are just the most obvious examples of how far our electronically-connected civilization seems to have plunged toward what I fear is a looming new Dark Age.

I would hope that most of you all, the folks I know and love, are not part of that crowd, and I would urge those of you who are of good heart, goodwill and good nature to let your wisdom and virtuous approach to living lead you quickly away from the angry mobs of radicalized hooligans who are threatening to subvert the beauty and integrity of the United States of America by blindly falling in with those gangs of political agitators who idolize and worship misguided leaders with misguided visions for our future.

Trump v.s. Hillary? Now THERE'S a death by poison or by shooting choice!

I think anyone who seriously believes Trump is going to tone it down and suddenly start acting Presidential is dreaming. No way. That is not him. He doesn't think of himself that way. His whole shtick is to hog the limelight, to be a flamboyant showman playing to an audience of adoring fans--and to no one else. Being a serious leader, responsible to and for all citizens of the U.S., will never suit him. He might fake it for a short while, but it will wear off in short order, I guarantee it.

This week we learned that Ted Cruz and John Kasich apparently have just decided to double-team Trump, Kasich agreeing to step out of the way in Indiana and allow Cruz to prevail...and Cruz returning the favor in Oregon and New Mexico.  It's the old divide and conquer strategy--one Trump calls "collusion".

I guess if you're a Trump fan, it does stink of a rigged, corrupt system--and a last ditch effort by a couple of losers to finagle a win. But if you're of the opinion (as I am) that Donald Trump in the Oval Office could possibly be the most dangerous thing that could ever befall our nation, then you probably salute that collaboration as heroic and patriotic--a move by Cruz and Kasich to momentarily put aside their own political hopes to focus instead on what is in the best interest of the country. My observation is that the polls more or less show that about 20% of us are in the former group, 40% are in the latter group, and the rest have no idea what's going on and couldn't care less.

My view of Trump as President is well-known. And, yes, I am predictably dismayed by tonight's election results in the New England states where he ran away with things as was expected.  But so did Hillary Clinton. So what about her?  Let me share my take on Hillary as President.

First, I will never ever vote for Trump, that is a given; so if she ends up being his opponent next fall she will likely get my vote---PROVIDED she and her running mate keep it toward the center.  If, on the other hand, she picks someone like Elizabeth Warren and I see them go slipping off to the left, I will be forced to stay home on election day. While I don't exactly care for her demeanor, and I have questions about her judgment and integrity, I do get a sense that she just might be a fairly strong and decisive leader on the economy and foreign policy. I have to say, though, that I do not agree with her on social issues--or at least on what she is saying about them on the campaign trail.  I'm not sure that her stump speech is really what she believes.

I have a suspicion that she is merely trying to appeal to the liberal base of the party (i.e. Bernie's people) and that, once she wins a bunch of them over and gets in office, most of her rhetoric about the plight of blacks, women, gays and such will immediately cease. In other words, I think Hillary is really a left-of-center moderate pretending for now to be a lefty. And, since I am a right-of-center moderate, there is a clear possibility I might vote for her in the fall...but with a caveat:  I have to be comfortable that I won't be helping to open the door to liberal Supreme Court justices and further expansion of the progressive agenda which I feel is damaging our country severely. 

Is God real. Absolutely. But we are too tiny to see over that mountain.

I like to imagine that we get the word God from the imaginary word GUTT...which, in my own imaginary parlance of pondering, stands for the Great Unknowable Transcendent Truth.  God is simply man's convenient way of referring to whatever it is that started the universe, created all the beauty of nature, and keeps it all purring along smoothly.  Is God a bunch of robots?  An alien force?  A bearded dude in the clouds with lots of wisdom and magical powers?  I don't have any idea.  But there is no question in my mind that, based on that broadest of definitions, God is just as real as anything we can see and touch. 

 

So, what about all those preachers and churches that keep insisting they are in touch with a living, personal God who says this, or did that, or wants this or the other?  Are they full of it?  No, not necessarily.  But the more they stray from the notion of trust based on 'faith' and get into claiming to actually be in touch with God (as with another human being) the more likely they are to be mistaken.  And, besides, the numbers don't add up.  There can only be one body of truth; so if someone were to be lucky enough to hit it right on the head, it would immediately mean that all the others have to be off in the ozone somewhere.  Let's look at it logically.

 

Elementary arithmetic anyone? Let us suppose for the moment that there have been, for the sake of conversation, 10,000 totally unique and different definitions of God throughout history. What is the most that could possibly be correct? (Answer: one) What is the least that could possibly be correct? (Answer:  zero) Okay, with me so far? So, now, do the math. How many does that leave that are GUARANTEED to be wrong? Only two possibilities, right?  Either 9,999.....or 10,000.   But, of course, we know that all 10,000 swear that they alone are right and keep preaching that message to beat the band.

 

Now, if I were a betting man and looking for someone wise to follow, I wouldn't put a nickel on any of those 10,000 churches and religions. I would instead go with the one that admits they don't have any earthly idea who, what or where God really is.  And that is precisely where I am on the God matter.  I have faith that God is something that is out there somewhere; but I don't dwell on trying to figure 'Him' out. I place my trust instead in Jesus who I believe was (and perhaps still is) a real person who probably actually does know God. I do my praying to him, and he is my connection to the big guy.

 

God may or may not have a brain and thoughts and opinions.  But the one we affectionately call our Father in Heaven, whoever or whatever that might be, is not something spiritual, or supernatural, or metaphysical.  God is real: the real explanation for everything--the real "big picture" of which we are an infinitesimally small part.  But it all lies so far over the distant mountain, beyond our horizon of understanding, that we can never have the physical capability of ever going there.  The best we can ever do is have faith that God does exist and is good.        

Our mega-corporations had better forget China and start putting the U.S. first

Back in the 80's I spoke out against what was then termed "Reaganomics", a theory most conservatives still cling to today as "free market capitalism". The idea is that if you deregulate the big corporate businesses, keep the federal government out of their hair, and let industries and their billionaire CEO's regulate themselves, it will encourage competition, resulting in lower prices, better products and services, and a healthier economy--and their success will "trickle down" to the rest of us.

I said at the time that Reagan was misguided and his thinking was flawed; that what would really happen is the rich will get richer (through collusion and loopholes) and the rest of us will get screwed. Well, guess what? That is what's happening. (Just ask Bernie Sanders). I mention this because it is our big business conglomerates that are making countries like China richer and our country poorer.

We need to clamp down on them with protectionist laws that force them to keep their facilities here at home, hire American workers, and stop selling out to places like China. If a company is going to call itself a U.S. company and is going to profit from our capitalist perks and benefits, they had better start putting the U.S. first, and not their bottom line.

Free market capitalists will always holler foul, of course, insisting businesses should be free to do whatever they want to make money. I say wrong. We, the people, own this country...and we need to take it back.

(Fact: the average CEO makes $100 million a year...and gets a bonus of, on the average, $150,000).

An irrational leader holding sway over an angry public is dangerous!

White working class men (who make up the bulk of Trump's supporters) do have a very legitimate beef with the way things are going. Their jobs are going to foreign countries, immigrants, computer geeks, and robots...while their towns and communities are going to hell in a handbag--increasingly losing all semblance of the traditional Western European Christian ethic, culture, ethnic makeup, and religious flavor they grew up cherishing. And, now, to them, it looks like the government is going the same way--having been taken over by pushy liberals who kick sand in the faces of their wimpy, comotose conservative counterparts. Am I right?

Hey, I totally agree that there is plenty of room for anger. As a traditionalist, I am irritated myself by this trend. But I also try to be realistic. I have to ask my fellow furious folks to stop for a moment and think about whether making Trump President will make things better or worse. Sure, he claims he's one of us and that he has all the solutions and will get things done. But is there anything to all of that bluster and braggadocio? Or is he blowing hot air out his you-know-what? I'll let you be the judge. But I don't trust him one bit.

Just remember: His plan to throw democracy and decency out the window and steamroll over anyone who gets in his way may result in the changes HE wants; but what do you plan to do if they turn out to be changes you DON'T want? What then? That could happen. He is, if nothing else, utterly unpredictable. No one knows what he will do or how he might act tomorrow, let alone as President. And if he really does turn out to be the powerful, ruthless, invincible warrior he purports to be, look out friends! Be afraid! That, as history has shown repeatedly, is a highly dangerous mix of leadership qualities.

Trump is what you get when low-info voters rally around "one of us"

Trump is emblematic of our dumbed-down culture. Before the age of 'smart' connectivity, those who were politically engaged had ordinary common sense, street smarts and a rudimentary education ... AND ... we wanted leaders who towered above us, who were the crème de la crème. Today, those ordinary would-be voters are intellectually lazy, out on cloud nine, and ridiculously narcissistic ... AND ... we want a President who is "one of us". Guess where that takes us?

Someone once said wisely that "The most essential requirement for democracy to work is an informed public". That's why it is dreaming to think we can go stormtrooping into places like Iraq and Afghanistan, set up some voting booths, and expect democracy to work.

But rather than worry about the third-world, we'd better look at what's happening to our government here at home. Ignorance embraces ignorance. By dumbing ourselves down as a culture, and picking leaders "like us" who "tell it like it is" and whom our lesser angels find entertaining, we may be destroying any chance of democracy continuing to work here.

Trumpism: Emblematic of our crass reality show culture?

I have this idea--perhaps mistaken (or not)--that Trump, being a seasoned reality show star, more or less represents contemporary pop culture to a segment of the public that lives and breathes that sort of cheesiness.  Could that be the secret to his popularity? I wonder... If someone were to go out on the street with a questionnaire querying people about their daily lifestyle and values, would the gung-ho Trump folks answer a lot differently than the anti-Trump folks?  Let's try it as an experiment.  You already know where you stand on Trump as being totally awesome, or totally worthless.  Now, let's see how you might answer said questionnaire. 

Let's say the questioning went a little like this:  When you are talking to your kids around home, are things like off-color humor, drinking, and guns considered no big deal--or the kind of things your family frowns on? Do you typically watch a TV show at least once a week that features "real" people doing dangerous, stupid or off-the-wall antics? Do you watch any shows where sexual innuendo, cursing or bleeped cursing are taken with a grain of salt--or, in fact, make the show more entertaining? Do you get a kick out of watching someone get dissed, humiliated, or expelled from the competition by their peers, a panel of judges, or the viewing public? Is watching and enjoying these shows an ordinary family affair around your house--no big deal if the kids want to watch? Do you have sons (or daughters) who routinely play any kind of video games where someone kills someone else?

Good, now try these:  Do you know which Kardashian or Duck Dynasty person is which, and could you identify them in photos? Do you have certain times and situations where you make your kids ditch their phones or turn them off? Do you pray, discuss religious matters, or watch religious TV shows in your home with your family at least once a week? Would your kids get grounded for calling someone a dirty or tacky name? Do you know what kind of t-shirts your kids have in their closets? Would you stop them from wearing attire that promotes violence, drugs or sexual promiscuity, or musical artists whose music promotes such...or that imitates the "look" of a rap artist or other sports or entertainment figure who is famous for vulgarity or bad taste? End of quiz.

I'm not trying to be judgemental here...although I will admit that I lean toward the traditionalist (and anti-Trump) side. My point, however, is this: I wonder if Trump represents a modern lifestyle that his fans consider perfectly normal and okay...but which more staid, traditional folks consider appalling. I dunno. But I suspect there may be some of that going on. Someone needs to do the research...because I am very curious as to whether I should be fighting back against Trumpism, or against Western civilization.
NM

If Putin wants to give Assad a fair deal, that's reasonable

I think we should be okay with Putin granting asylum to Syrian President Bassar al-Assad, as he hinted he might be willing to do. Too often, in our zeal for spreading freedom and democracy, we automatically demonize all kings and dictators as tyrants, and deny them the due process they, like every other human being, are entitled to, once they are forced out of office. We did it with Saddam Hussein and again with Muammar Gaddafi. Both of those guys are now dead, essentially lynched (literally in Saddam's case) by their political foes without being given any real chance to defend themselves.

We should remember something: Democracy is not for everyone. It requires an astute, sophisticated, educated public and a people who are inherently tolerant and modern in their thinking. Some countries are simply too backward for self-rule. They need to work toward it gradually. And, in the meantime , they need a strong "father figure" to keep order and control their destiny until they are mature enough to control it themselves.

We need to remember that before we hawkishly go seeking regime change around the world without considering the consequences of leaving a power vacuum and a public that has no idea what to do next.

Note: A friend responded to me on social media:  If you read Revelations you will see where it's all coming together. Not in our lifetime but it's working. PRAISE THE LORD

...to which I replied:

As I've said before, I believe that our purpose is not to sit around twiddling our thumbs, waiting for Armageddon to rescue us from this sinful old place. We have an obligation to use our time wisely, to spend our worldly existence making the world better. Works and deeds do matter. Peter and James were right. Paul was not. But that's just my take on it. If there are, let's say, a thousand different versions of Christianity out there, and as many different opinions on these things...then---let's do the math---How many are likely to be right? Easy. Either ONE or NONE. How many are likely to be wrong? Also easy. Either ALL or 999. Those odds don't give me much faith in all these folks who swear up and down that theirs is the only correct religion.

Should we tolerate all religions---or only those that share our "God"?

I think the American people need to be educated on exactly what values ordinary Muslims hold. That's the only way we can determine if they are compatible with our American way of life or not and if we in this country should be expected to tolerate Islam as a legitimate religion.

Here in the U.S. most of us are of a Christian heritage and, as such, we tend to have a fairly modern enlightened take on God (as Jesus did). Most of us, I would say, view God (Allah--same thing) as being all about peace, forgiveness, non-violence, compassion, and making the world a nicer place. If some self-proclaimed religion teaches a value-system other than that, I'm thinking maybe they should be scratched from our "religious tolerance" list. Clearly, not every crazy group that calls itself a religion actually IS one, or has anything at all to do with God.

So, what about Islam? Where does it fit in? How many of us actually know what Muslims believe?  I wish some network or publication would take it upon itself to provide us a truly in-depth, well-researched series on what the Quran actually teaches, what the clerics are really saying in the mosques, and what has been written by Muslim intellectuals over the years regarding Sharia law and how Muslims view tolerance and the rights of individuals (including women, minorities, eccentrics, etc.). 

Educate us, if you will please, on whether we Christian Americans should trust and embrace the followers of Mohammed as our brothers and sisters....or not.