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.