NAFTA Reality Check

        While Donald Trump dislocates his shoulder slapping himself on the back for, as he himself has put it, “dismantling NAFTA,” he has also implied that all trade woes are the machinations of “the Democrats” and would like for us to believe that what will replace NAFTA is a brilliant economic stroke only he could provide.

        The above statement is factual. The reality of the situation, on the other hand, is quite different.  Trump has characterized NAFTA as bad economic policy which hurts American businesses, when in fact what jobs have been lost are relatively low paying jobs, and the beneficiaries of moving assembly to Mexico (primarily) have been Trump’s friends in the heavy industry and manufacturing sector. Moving assembly jobs to Mexico benefits those who profit from automobile and electronics sales.

        Similarly, Trump has repeatedly implied that we have trade deficits with both NAFTA signatories. He does not count trade in services, which include, among other things, telecommunications, accounting and legal services, and tourism. Services are increasingly a large part of U.S. trade and, in fact, it may be undercounted because economists have not figured out how to accurately measure digital trade, where the United States is the world leader. 

       As the 2018 CEA report which, one should note, was signed by Trump, put it, “Focusing only on the trade in goods alone ignores the United States’ comparative advantage in services.” But then, that’s what this president does, isn't it - ignore inconvenient truths? When he said the minimum was $17 billion, he is referring to a deficit in merchandise goods only in 2017 between the United States and Canada. 

       Over the past year, increased US oil production has significantly reduced that deficit as well. When Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA Bill, presented to him by a Congress which approved it by large Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, he said, "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."   Of course, those high paying jobs are in primarily the services sector, which Trump ignores and in which we actually do have a positive balance.

        So now for the history lesson (you knew I would, didn’t you?) The impetus for a North American free trade zone actually began in 1979 with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who made that idea a large component of his campaign when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in November of that year. Canada and the United States signed the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1988, and shortly afterward Mexico’s President Carlos Salinas de Gortari approached (then US president) George H. W. Bush to propose a similar agreement in an effort to bring in foreign investment following a widespread Latin American debt crisis. As negotiations commenced, under the aegis of the Bush White House, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney feared that the advantages Canada had gained through the Canada–US FTA would be undermined by a US–Mexican bilateral agreement and asked to join the talks.

        Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990, the leaders of the three nations signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992. (G.H.W. Bush still POTUS) The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by all three nation's legislative or parliamentary branches.

        The earlier Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been controversial and a divisive issue in the 1988 Canadian election. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats), but the split of the votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the election with the most seats and so took power. Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and easily passed the 1987 Canada–US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, when Mulroney was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC advisory process and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton.

        After much consideration and emotional discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.

        Why all the detail? Because Trump has “spun” free trade as a creature of the Democratic Party, when in fact, it has been a Republican/conservative ideal. In fact, here’s  a quote from the late Senator John McCain in the 2008 campaign,  "By the way,  Senator Obama said he would unilaterally renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement…” 

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/oct/15/john-mccain/obamas-been-critical-of-nafta/

The gist of Obama’s criticism of NAFTA was almost precisely what Trump would ballyhoo 10 years later as his own brainchild!

        OK, so while Trump rails against all things Obama, including NAFTA (by extension) and the Trans-Pacific partnership, (a sort of Asian-America version of NAFTA, which Trump killed by executive order, just because he could, since it was an Obama initiative) let’s look at some interesting facts, not "fakes" (remember facts?) regarding NAFTA, Republican and Democratic party positions.

        I have already shown that NAFTA is thoroughly Republican and Conservative in origin. Do not conflate that with my saying it was a bad thing, as Trump has repeatedly done. I’m just pointing out that he’s slandering the wrong folks when he attempts to lay NAFTA at the feet of the opposition, since it was Reagan and Bush’s darling from the get go.

        Now here’s the real reason this matters. What Trump is calling a “new” trade agreement is Almost identical to one he denounced and trashed immediately upon taking office – The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). Lost in all the Trump bullshit polluting the political landscape are several significant facts.

          While TPP was in most areas Asian oriented, both Mexico and Canada had asked to be parties to the negotiations because of concerns that said pact might weaken NAFTA provisions. In fact, what the Obama team negotiated was a series of concession from both that are almost identical to what Trump is claiming as “his” victory in the NAFTA rewrite. In other words, there was no need to renegotiate NAFTA because the Obama administration had already done it. Those same negotiators who Trump styled as “The worst negotiators in the world,” had already accomplished almost everything that Trump is now claiming credit for. Even odder, many of them are even the same guys!   

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/trump-tpp-free-trade-deal-obama-renegotiate-nafta-214874

        Key Trump “concessions” include:

Increasing the percentage of US made parts required for a car to be Duty free (already negotiated under TPP)

Access to Canada for dairy exports from the US (Already negotiated at a more advantageous amount [to the US] under TPP)

What was done under TPP and is missing from the Trump NAFTA rewrite (because he really doesn’t care about working stiffs) is a litany of more stringent requirements for use of Mexican workers assembling American made parts in Mexico, which in essence would have reduced the Mexican “cheap labor” edge, encouraging more assembly to be done in the US.

What WAS done by Trump, and which will directly hurt many Americans, mostly low income folks, is protectionism favoring what is already by far the most profitable industrial sector in America, Big Pharma. Apparently, net profits as high as 30% annually aren’t enough, so as part of Trump’s redesigned “NAFTA lite” It will become far more difficult, and in many cases impossible, for US patients to procure (less expensive, yet identical) generic drugs from Canada rather than pay “on patent” for US brand names. Truth told, (in the interest of full disclosure) generics are generally more expensive in Canada that the same generic in the US, but for those drugs still enjoying the, in my personal view, excessive patent protection period in the US, the story is different. 

     Miracle drugs, such as Hep C wonder cure Harvoni, although developed with your tax dollars (NIH grant to Emory University) are still priced far beyond the reach of any but the most well insured at about $84,000 per cure in the US. It is cheaper in Canada (although still expensive), but will be unobtainable for Americans under the new agreement.

          But wait, it gets worse. Ledifos, a generic form of Harvoni, produced in India under license from Gilead Pharmaceuticals, the Harvoni patent holder, sells for about $1200. That’s not a misprint; this identical cure costs patients (where it is available) .015% of what US patients pay, yet is the exact same medication.  This would be a Godsend to low income US and Canadian Hep C sufferers, but under Trump’s sweetheart deal with Big Pharma, will it be at least 17 more years until US sufferers can get Ledifos from Canada! Meanwhile Medicare drug costs continue to skyrocket even though around 60% of new on patent medications were developed with government funded R & D.

        Summarizing: The essentials of what Mr. Trump is claiming as an innovative and much improved Canada/US/Mexico trade agreement were already in place when he took office. And he killed it! What has replaced it is about the same as the Obama administration's improvements incorporated into TPP. However, several facets are actually disadvantageous to some Americans, and predominantly lower income folks.

      Even Forbes, a generally conservative source agrees.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/08/14/nafta-will-live-another-day-and-be-based-on-obamas-tpp/#4579873e6016

 And, finally, if by supporting the f***wit currently in the White House, you believe you’re just continuing the robust Reagan Republicanism you’ve been conned into believing, take a moment, travel back in time and read this 1993 anthem of praise to Reagan and NAFTA.

https://www.heritage.org/trade/report/the-north-american-free-trade-agreement-ronald-reagans-vision-realized

I hope you’re not too conflicted now!

There’s gas, and then there’s just hot air!

       I have said frequently here and elsewhere that POTUS has relatively little to do with gasoline prices. That has not stopped Republicans from railing on the subject and POTUS blaming, however. What is amazing is not simply their relative naiveté but the scope of their numerous grossly incorrect assertions,  samples of which follow below, beginning in the 2012 campaign and ending with a Trump tweet, wrong as usual.

       

Mitt Romney:  “the doubling of gasoline prices obviously follows a presidential policy.” He said Obama deserves blame “for what’s happened to gasoline prices under his watch.”

The Republican National Committee blamed the high pump prices on “the Obama economy.”

Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming said that Obama should be held “fully responsible for what the American public is paying for gasoline.”

Paul Ryan  then veep candidate, said that Obama was going “to great lengths to make gas more expensive.”

Rick Santorum said that Obama and his liberal wonks caused the pump price to rise because “they want higher energy prices. They want to push their radical agenda on the public.”

Newt Gingrich said that Obama’s “anti-American energy government” would give us “$10-a-gallon gasoline.”

Mike Lee, the tea-partying Utah senator, said that if Obama got re-elected, gas would cost $5.45 a gallon by the start of 2015. (it was actually less than half that)

Mitch McConnell said that the high pump prices were “the painful effects of President Obama’s energy policy.”

And the looniest of the lot, Michelle Bachmann, promised “$1 per gallon gasoline” if elected during her ill-fated campaign for the Republican nomination.

And now, this:

"Gas prices are the lowest in the U.S. in over ten years!"

— Donald Trump on Tuesday, July 4th, 2017 in a tweet

       It’s difficult to comprehend that all these persons, many advanced degree holders, managed to graduate university and seem to have skipped Economics 101. The petroleum industry is the poster child for prime example of supply and demand at work. It’s not as if this concept was new.  Adam Smith described markets and market forces in his 1776 masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations.” As a primer for specific commodities, it remains relevant.  

        When discussing petroleum, however, it is also instructive to point out that it was the proving ground for market manipulation, price fixing, monopoly and corporate greed. John D. Rockefeller and Standard Oil were a prime impetus for the enactment of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, although in truth others followed Standard’s lead. Characterizing the petroleum production and refining industries as “good corporate citizens at the mercy of the whims of POTUS” is as ill informed and incorrect as referring to Kim Kardashian as a vestal virgin.

          

       So, what’s the reality behind all the smoke and mirrors regarding gas prices? First, it’s imperative to understand that a prime factor in regional differences in prices of fuel is the fact that states and counties can (and boy, do they) levy taxes on every gallon, and that these, unlike federal fuel tax, which has remained a constant, unindexed, 18.4 cents per gallon since 1993, vary widely from state to state. Another point of interest is that the effect of federal gas taxes has actually diminished by about 65% due to inflation during those 25 years.

       Tax rates from state to state, however are a different ballgame altogether, ranging from Alaska’s 12.4 cents per gallon to California’s 52.8 cents. Funny, isn’t it, that few persons ever blame their governors for high gas prices?

So let’s look at how or if the Obama administration “caused” high fuel prices and if Trump has been responsible for their reduction.

In total energy consumption, the U.S. was between 86% and 91% self-sufficient by 2016. (Who was President?) Indeed, gas cost less during most of President Barack Obama’s last year in office than it does now. As I write this, prices are rising again, up 25 cents per gallon locally between fill-ups (not Trump’s fault), but I digress.

        In fact (remember fact?) the country became a net exporter of refined petroleum products by 2011, before Obama’s second term. Fuel prices dropped steadily from 2011 to 2016, dropping as low as a national average of $2.23 per gallon in 2015.

        What is well worth remembering in all the smoke and mirrors surrounding gasoline prices is the simple fact that the "Boomer" generation’s nostalgic recall of  29 cent a gallon fuel in 1965 is relatively meaningless when the price is adjusted for inflation. In truth, US gas process are today, when the average increase in consumer price index is factored (the only “fair” comparison), very close to what they have historically been. See the graph below.       

        The decrease in adjusted price from 1929 until 1974 reflects artificially low prices and relatively low state taxes per gallon.  The green line (gas prices adjusted for inflationary considerations and retro-adjusted to 1929, show that the effective price per gallon in 1929 was around $2.40 per gallon. During Obama’s next to last year in the White House that real price hit 2.23. Making it the cheapest gasoline in US history. It also is of interest that none of this has a damned thing to do with the Keystone Pipeline!

It Puzzles Me.

        So, as I was leafing through the “lifestyle” section of the local paper looking for my daily Sudoku, Jumble, and the Saturday Stumper (usually a really nasty crossword puzzle), my eye caught a column, apparently from beyond the grave, with the author listed as Billy Graham.

        I have long believed that the only dead person whose work remains good enough to reprint in the newspaper is the late Charles Shultz.  Peanuts typically carried far more rational and moral messages than anything the mercenary Mr. Graham ever spewed. (Warning! That was an opinion).

        Today's retread was a column entitled “The Only Road to Heaven goes Through Jesus.”  Processing that statement is revelatory when one attempts to process the tremendously un-Christian attitudes of many of the current crop of Evangelicals who would inflict their ethos and dogmatic beliefs on the entire body politic. It should be noted that this includes a large number of beliefs which are not derived from any philosophy attributed to Jesus.    

        The clear implication begins with the assurance that only Christians (and by implication that only those who are true fundamentalists will have any continued existence in any sense after death. Considering the Pat Robertsons, Rick Santorums, Ann Coulters, and Ted Cruzes, that might well be a plus. It also consigns all the rest of the world’s devout worshippers to someplace else. 

       In Graham World, the list of those not worthy of heaven would include, Einstein, The Dalai Lama, Socrates, Pat Tillman, Katherine Hepburn, Thomas Jefferson, and (probably for the best), Mark Twain. It’s a real shame, too, because I’d pay well to see Dylan Roof, Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gayce, Christians all, explain their murderous actions to Elie Wiesel and Mohandas Gandhi, who as a Jew and a Hindu, don’t have a chance of eternal life. Really sounds childishly ridiculous in that context doesn’t it?   

Riposte

This is a response to an individual who rabidly defended Brett Kavanaugh, insisting, with no actual knowledge, that he was innocent  of any sexual abuse of anyone ever, and that Dr Ford, who testified to contrary the had probably had something happen to her, but it wasn't "him."  Along the way she referred to me as a zealot for  disagreeing with her. She also, in true conspiracy theory style, flatly stated that Democrats were using  Dr Ford, a PhD, because they hated anything Trump ( and lets face it Kavanaugh is Trump's creature here. Of course she started with "You don't know me." 

Dear XXXXXXXXXX,

You are absolutely correct, sort of. While I don’t “know you” personally, I certainly do know you by your own words, which were either written in error or do reveal your attitudes toward to the discussion in point. XXXXX can confirm, and my writing indicates, that I'm not a "zealot." What I am is a fact based writer.  Nowhere did I, as you do throughout, assert opinion as fact. I do however, in your writing, see the continued use of "believe" in place of "know." I see an insistence of blaming/shaming persons who could well have remained silent and who gain absolutely nothing and stand to lose much, especially personal privacy for the rest of their lives, by coming forward.

Accusing the "Democrats" implies that an accomplished woman, a PhD, is so naive that she let herself be used (your words not mine), but to what end? The ruination of her life? You state that you believe that she had a “bad experience” but is so damaged that she doesn't know who the perpetrator was. Really? Kavanaugh has much to gain by lying and relatively little to lose. He will remain on the federal bench for life or retirement, regardless.

I cannot begin to fathom the motivation of those, especially women who blindly adhere to the Trump illusion. Certainly, any rational female, confronted with uncontroverted proof that their candidate slept with at least one woman, and that a porn star, while his wife was pregnant, might be forgiven for reconsidering their support of said serial adulterer. Of course, if you believe that Trump's attorney paid off the woman just out of generosity...! It's unfathomable that so much bad behavior doesn't seem to register with the real zealots of the far right.

When Trump said during the campaign, "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters," I honestly believed any intelligent Republican would pause to reconsider their blind allegiance. I was obviously looking through the wrong lens.

I mourn the death of the Eisenhower Republican party. I wonder at the reasons that Trump supporters maintain their slavish devotion, when I look at what he has done. Then, revisiting transference, I'm forced to believe, based on actions and attitudes that they support Trump initiatives because they feel and believe as he does. What are those apparent "core beliefs"? I say apparent since I find it hard to actually find any discernable core values in Trump world, but such as there are read as follows:

Immigrants are bad unless US businesses "need them" ("Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?")

Most women are liars, and powerful men, all moral (except Democrats) are under siege.

Although discredited by essentially every credible economist in the country, tariffs and trade wars are good.

The good will of the rest of the world is meaningless

When wealthy American businesses move to manufacture off-shore to maximize profits with accompanying US job losses, that’s somehow the Democrats fault. As a collateral to this, it is interesting that clothing such as Trump and his daughter manufacture overseas and sell in the US is not part of Trump's tariff gambit. 

Responsible mainstream media are now “left wing” if they disagree with anything Trump wants

Coal is “clean, beautiful coal” instead of one of the leading carcinogenic pollutants in the atmosphere

The environment is relatively unimportant and the EPA (created by the Nixon administration!) is just an annoyance to corporate polluters

Black people are just naturally lazy (“Black guys counting my money! I hate it. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks.”

Veterans don’t really deserve respect ("[John McCain is] not a war hero. He's a war hero - he's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I Like people that weren't captured, OK, I hate to tell you."

Incredibly and falsely inflated ego ("Sorry losers and haters, but my IQ is one of the highest - and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault." (Not if his fifth- grade writing is any indication. He never even made Dean’s List in college.)

"Show me someone with no ego and I'll show you a big loser." He must mean losers like Einstein, Hawking, Jonas Salk, Rosa Parks…losers like those people.

And, this lover of women on breastfeeding mothers: “You’re disgusting”

Finally, the “Trump economy?” The federal deficit, which Republicans screamed about when Obama was trying to dig out of the worst economic collapse since the great depression, will be more than 5% of GDP this year. This is a level never previously seen when unemployment was under 10%. Why is this happening? Good question, and here’s the incontrovertible answer. After constantly referring to “Tax and Spend liberals” as a campaign slogan, The Trump Administration’s budget reduced taxes (not so much on “us,” but a lot on the “one-percenters”) while greatly increasing spending. You've got more spending. You've got less revenue. And the deficit is just getting bigger and bigger, to the point where it will be at least a trillion dollars every year during the Trump administration and beyond." Some economist, huh?

So, in summary, one is almost forced to conclude that if you are a Trump supporter, these attitudes are ones you also embrace. If so, then I am truly sorry for you. If not, then maybe some introspection is in order. Anyone who points out these factual positions and asks, “Why?,” isn’t a Zealot, but a realist. The Zealot never asks why!

Implied Authority

This a response, too long for Facebook, to a reply to a picture I recently posted showing the shaming of women by those of the far right, specifically in response to assertions of sexual abuse by men. There can be little doubt that those of the Conservative ilk who race to pile on such complainants would sing an entirely different tune if it were their daughter. (Pardon me, I slipped into logic there for an instant.) Anyway, the person in question, at least by implication, seems to justify these opinions and dispersions as Biblical in nature, as many of the Far Rightists do. More disturbing (or it certainly ought to be) is her allegation that non believers are ..... never mind here she is in her own words, responding, not to me but to another response to the post which agreed with the sentiment displayed by the picture.  

       "Yes, the Bible is the catalyst for the views of most of us, others rely just on their common sense. Yes, women are subservient to men. Men are told to love their wife, but women are never told outright to love their husband. Amazingly, though, women love their kind husbands.
No, slavery is not okay in the Bible. The point is that if the Bible figure is a slave, then he is to conduct himself with love toward others, etc., in spite of the captivity.
We behave in order to please God. None of us would ask for your approval.
Your next comments are unclear as to context as well as meaning.
If you read the Bible, you are reading other people's mail. You are not expected to understand it, as it was not written for outsiders."  Yep, that's what she said! What follows is my response, once I stopped laughing.        

   

XXXX, this may well be the most well phrased and yet nonsensical defense of the deprecation of women I've ever read. I must assume from your post that you are a Christian, which means that nothing related to how we treat others (some of which you include in your apologia) which drives from the Old Testament is valid anyway, since your boss described a “New Covenant”, consistent with his teachings and personal behavior as described in such of the synoptic gospels as we have traditionally been “allowed “ to read.

The secondary status of women which evolved in early Christianity, and continues to a great extent in Evangelical settings, doesn’t stem from Jesus in any sense, but rather generally reflects the personal opinion of Paul; and even more so, the early Bishops who were, by the third century, creating a hierarchy (translates as "positions of authority and power") for themselves.

 As non-royalty, the only other option for a power-driven person in the Roman Empire was religion. This continued even into medieval Europe and later, where, typically, the eldest son inherited land and title and the second son entered the Priesthood. As recently as 2011, Bishops are still automatically granted seats in the House of Lords in the UK. There is only just very recently a proviso that one of the minor Bishops seats may be filled by a woman. Even a Methodist and a Chief Rabbi, (men only!) have been so seated. All this was cemented by the early systematic reduction of women to relatively inconsequential positions in the Church. Even those women who were sainted and were reverenced, had essentially no temporal authority over males.

Your claim that someone is "reading someone else's mail" would seem to indicate that you believe that the Bible was written, not for the world, but for select individuals (like you), and definitely not for anyone who can think critically. That’s just sad. It also implies than no one who is not already a believer could read the Bible and become one.  And finally, understand that the Bible you read isn't all the writings from the period which relate to Jesus.

The Old Testament, of course, was not written contemporaneously, but as much as a thousand years after many of the described "events," so it is much less "history " than fable. Heck, even Homer was writing of events (The Trojan War) at a time much closer (within about 400 years) to the alleged events.

Likewise, the synoptic gospels were not written by the apostles who accompanied Jesus, since almost all of them (like Peter) were semi- literate. It is a sure bet that Peter never wrote in Greek, if at all. Additionally, some of the most powerful scenes in them (the synoptics) cannot possibly be even first-hand accounts (Jesus conversation in the wilderness with Satan, for which there is no witness, yet there is verbatim dialogue), or he scene in the garden where even with all the Apostles asleep, we again have verbatim dialogue between Jesus and God? Really? and who wrote that down?

 Paul, however, raised in a well to do family in a formerly Greek, later Roman city (Tarsus), schooled there and later, Jerusalem, was well educated, and literate in Greek and used that skill to create the image of Jesus as he wanted the world to see it, yet he never met the man either (don’t give me that “Road to Damascus” bunk). 

So, in summary, claiming to "know" what Jesus said, or even meant, was wishful thinking. Even if we assume that what is attributed to Jesus is what he actually taught, it was soon distorted into a different focus, from a personal religion to a “corporate” one. Every nation state (all of Europe) which made Christianity the state religion also derogated and relegated women to secondary status, while (exclusively male) Church primates quickly became advisors to kings.

The first step was to make the scriptures unavailable to the common person, who, generally illiterate, was reliant upon the newly empowered, literate, clergy to read it and interpret it for them. This would result in the Catholic Church continuing the Mass in Latin, understood by essentially no one not of the elite from, at the latest, the 6^th century into the late 20^th century (1965), when the first vernacular Mass was celebrated in Ireland.

By the late 200’s AD, most of the “traditional” Gospels which supported the new theme of a male dominated clergy and a secondary status for women, were accepted as such. Reasons for this are several and easily understood. First, converting Jews and Greeks, both of whose cultures subordinated women by religious credo, custom and tradition, was much easier if Christianity followed suit. Secondly and just as important was the opportunity for men, in societies already male dominated, to gain power without being born to it. This became even more obvious after Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople. Now, endorsed by the Emperor, Christianity’s early power brokers had the highest authority to form the Bible as they desired, regardless of those “other" books, which tell a slightly different story.  

The "gospels” (Mary Magdalene, Timothy, Peter, Levi and around 30 other scriptural writings which didn't "make it" were rejected by an early Church council. What do they have in common? All differ from the “accepted” version as early church power brokers wanted it. More significant for the purposes of this discussion, several show the importance and equal status of Mary Magdalene as an apostle. (Here is a snippet of the “Gospel of Mary:” “Levi answered and said to Peter, Peter you have always been hot tempered.  Now I see you contending against the woman like the adversaries. But if the Savior made her worthy, who are you indeed to reject her? Surely the Savior knows her very well.”  Why might Peter have acted as he did? Perhaps the “non-included’ Gospel of Philip is instructional. Here’s a verse or two: “And the companion of the [savior] was Mary Magdalene. He loved her more than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The rest of the disciples… [damaged text]. They said to him "Why do you love her more than all of us?" The Savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness." Apparently, in Jesus case, he liked what he saw!

So, feel free to rationalize why you accept or condone the Far Right’s relegation of women and their right to control of their own bodies to the trash heap of religious dogma, but don’t claim it’s because the Jesus you claim to worship wanted it that way.

Pretty Well Sums It Up!

The picture below is borrowed from a website called the Far Corner Cafe. I highly recommend you give them a look every day, as I do

  http://farcornercafe.blogspot.com/

This expresses the Far Right's position on women's rights and the Me Too movement as well as anything I've ever seen. In their eyes every man is a helpless victim of slander and every woman is predatory. Just ask Roy Moore (or Mr. Trump). Look at it. Evaluate it. If  what it expresses doesn't t bother you, drink a shot of Chlorox. Repeat as necessary.

The Far Right is so confused on so many issues that I’ve concluded that it is their RELIGION that is the catalyst for their views — their bible tells women to be subservient to men, and also tells them that slavery is OK. Mix in some basic “golden rule” of JC and they have no idea whatsoever how to behave. Along come Southern Ministers (of one of 20,000 Protestant variations) who turn the slavery-OK-in-Bible into their right to minimize black people and you have the American Far Right of 2018. Trump adds HIS rich man variant right to grab pussy (and every other form of misogyny) and extends black slavery to brown criminality. Ain’t we exceptional??
(male respondent)

Art should speak to you, move you. Well, this piece certainly SHOUTS at me, moves me, upsets me as a woman who can relate. Sadly, I don't believe either Mr. Moore or Trump would ever understand the image or even notice the comments. Thanks for sharing,
(female respondent)

 Let us talk about RELIGION and the disgusting influence on the conservative "right" and this current gang of thugs and criminals the rubes and Russia has put into power: "Religions usually are androcentric
Some leadership roles still restricted to males
In many religions, only men are ordained
Religious traditions, law and cultural factors treat women differently than men
Religion provides the structure on how women should live their day-to-day lives
God is traditionally portrayed as a masculine figure
Sex segregation is still present
Stress on modesty is usually focused on women
Religious texts and practices are patriarchal
Protocols are more strictly applied to women
Women are more regulated than men
Women are not part of the decision-making machinery
Proponents indicate that although women have overcome barriers in various spheres, religion seems to be the hardest nut to crack."
(male respondent)

Lifes Lessons Learned

      Sometimes while reading Social media posts, I am reminded of something Mark Twain once said; and, truth told, on some days, many things he said. The observation in question goes something like this: “When I was twelve, I thought my father the stupidest man I’d ever met. By the time I had reached twenty- one, I was amazed at how much the old man had learned!”

       On this occasion there is no one particular instance in mind, but over twenty years of teaching high school and parenting and yes, grandparenting, instances have reminded me of Twain’s wisdom. It isn’t uncommon to see earnest young people decry the ignorance or (insert favorite pejorative descriptor here) of “older people” when waxing enthusiastic or offended about a particular issue. It seems to go along with the territory on the way to maturity.

        I am often tempted to point out to these delightfully naïve (sometimes) youngsters two salient facts:

Fact the first: “No one is born with the wisdom which comes from experience and maturity. You can’t buy it, or even rent it for a bit. You have to slog through the swamp that life can sometimes be.  You have to live through the process, and even then, there are adults to whom it seems never to have “stuck.”  (perhaps not enough mud, too much riding on someone else’s back?)  I would offer recent tweets by POTUS as evidence of the latter.   

       Fact the second: No one has ever been born and gone directly to age thirty. No one. Ever. This physical fact means that every adult has been an infant, child, and teen; all of ‘em - even your parents and grandparents. It doesn’t mean they’re always right, but it does mean, that a whiny, “You can’t understand” is probably incorrect. What their response may well mean is “Yes, I can, and I caution you or reject the idea because I know from experience that it’s fraught with peril.”
 In the words of the late Brian Dennehy, “At some point, life will sink its fangs in the back of your neck and shake the s--- out of you.”

To reiterate, this is not based on any recent episode in my life, rather just on a long time here on the water planet.