When Morons Attack!

I would post the meme in question if Blogspot's server would allow it but, alas it won't so... The meme shows a person shrugging and a cigarette smoldering. The text (top to bottom) reads:

"THE CDC CLAIMS THAT SMOKING IS DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR 480,000 DEATHS YEARLY, INCLUDING 25,000 FROM JUST SECOND HAND SMOKE

YET THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER FORCED ANYONE TO STOP SMOKING TO SAVE A LIFE.

SO THEN, WHY ARE YOU BEING FORCED TO WEAR A MASK?

STILL THINK THIS IS ABOUT 'SAVING LIVES'?"

    This imbecilic piece of crap was posted (with appropriate sarcastic comments) by a friend whose former childhood friend, and now Trump supporting village idiot (redundant?), posted it because he believes it is reasonable and makes sense. Snopes and most thinking humans have done fact checks on this, but many stopped short of the “Full Monty” so here goes.

The meme is right, only in the sense that “the government” has never forced anyone to “stop smoking.” However, it is illegal and prosecutable, as of February 2020, to sell tobacco products to anyone under the age of 21. So yes, while not mandating “stopping” there are restrictions in place aimed at preventing “starting.” Additionally, 27 states ban any and all smoking in public buildings, actions aimed directly at second-hand smoke.

Of course, there are parents who routinely subject their kids to second-hand smoke on a regular basis. These are, more than likely, the same folks to whom seatbelts are just an annoyance. In fact, there seems to be a direct congruence between intelligence and compliance in these areas.

The other aspect that makes this meme so terribly wrong is that the mask mandate is pretty much aimed at the same circumstances as the smoking bans, i.e. in public places where others are exposed to the smoke. No one has even suggested the necessity of masking at home or when alone. (unless contagious and quarantined),

There is, however, a key difference here. If you are smoking, in my vicinity, I can ask politely (only once) that you not do it, Failing any rapprochement, I can leave, calling you an inconsiderate prick as I do. The key difference here is that I will always be aware of your smoking and, if I so choose, leave the area. In any case, the fact that you smoke is visible. Additionally, any smoke you personally inhale stays with you. You don’t enter my space and them exhale it. The damage it does is limited to you, unless of course you b!ow it in my face, in which case it's gonna get western!

Contrariwise, you may be contagious with COVID and be asymptomatic. This doesn’t mean that you aren’t contagious. In fact, you can spread the disease to those with whom you come in contact and neither you nor they will be aware of it until, perhaps, grandma sickens and dies! Masks aren’t to protect you, moron, they are to protect others from you. If you are contagious, you can leave the remnants of a sneeze as a present for others. While visible “spray” droplets generally fall out of the air rapidly within seconds to minutes while close to the source, they can remain infective for up to four hours on copper, up to 24 hours on cardboard and up to two to three days on plastic and stainless steel. Smaller droplets and particles formed when small droplets dry very quickly in the airstream can remain suspended for many minutes to hours and travel some distance from the source.

Here’s the authority for a nationwide mandate if necessary: “Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S. Code § 264), the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to take measures to prevent the entry and spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states.” So why no nationwide mandate? Ask your lame duck President, whose failure to do just that is responsible for our outrageous death toll! Some state governors acted because of the Trump failure to lead. And as to your smoking analogy; as incredibly stupid as it is, smoking is not “communicable.”

So, it isn’t about you. It’s about those who you may infect because you are simply too selfish to take reasonable precautions. Now, since you seem to think mask rules are a gross violation of your right to do as you damn well please, here are some other government rules which you probably don’t think are unfair but are just as restrictive.

Speed limits. Having to buy car insurance. Driver’s license. Hunting and Fishing licensure. Marriage license. Seat belt requirements. Legal age to purchase alcohol or drink.

None the above, except legal age to buy alcohol are actually federally mandated but are under state authority. So, when a Governor, doing what POTUS hasn’t the sense to do, mandates masks in public, they are on the side of the angels. You, when you whine, gripe and moan about a temporary inconvenience are, simply put, a self-centered dick! In your defense, your President has set you that example for some time.

It’s Just not That Simple

 

It’s Just not That Simple

        “The economy is great because the stock market is at an all-time high.!!” The current occupant of the White House has ballyhooed this for the past 3 years and 10 months. He does so because, as every single US commercial banker knows, having all closed their doors to him for loans, he is an economic dunce. He is not alone, as many before him have also suffered the same tunnel vision that the sole valid index of prosperity of an economy is the stock market. This seems to me a bit like believing a trip to Vegas to play roulette with ones 401k is a good retirement strategy. Here are some other “whistling in the dark” quotes re: “the market.”

         "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months."   Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929

                 "I see nothing in the present situation that is either menacing or warrants pessimism... I have every confidence    that there will be a revival of activity in the spring, and that during this coming year the country will make steady progress."     Andrew W. Mellon, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury December 31, 1929

        An even more outré approach has been taken by some revisionists who blame the Great Depression solely on “excessive government regulation.”  Here’s an excerpt from a Forbes article citing that viewpoint:  “In short order, beginning in 1930, we had the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, an income-tax increase led by a top-rate hike of 150%, a 50% increase in government spending, enormous real increases in state and particularly local tax rates, government seizure of the American people’s gold holdings, and regulation like never seen before. The idea that investors did not peer into the future circa 1929 and ascertain the outlines of these things is preposterous. Government, not the market system, caused the Great Depression in whole.”

        There’s so much wrong with this that I am truly amazed that it ever made print: First: The Smoot Hawley Tariff was passed in March 1930.  Like all tariffs, it isn’t as much “regulation of business” but rather an ill-advised attempt to generate income by taxing imports and protecting domestic producers. In a global economy, as the Trump China tariffs have re-proven, this is sheer folly, and the Smoot-Hawley was just that, too.  Smoot-Hawley seriously backfired as furious European countries imposed a tax on American goods making them too expensive to buy in Europe, and restricting trade which contributed to the economic crisis of the Great Depression. Economists warned against the act, and the stock market reacted negatively to its passage, which more or less coincided with the start of the Great Depression. It raised the price of imports to the point that they became unaffordable for all but the wealthy, and it dramatically decreased the amount of exported goods, thus contributing to bank failures, particularly in agricultural regions.

        Without the $32 billion in additional farm subsidies necessitated by the loss of China markets due to Trump’s China tariffs this might have had a modern rerun. In any event, the Trump tariffs generated the expected response from China, whose new tariffs have cost each US household an estimated $850 annually since their inception. That’s another yearly $104 billion (nine zeros) in unnecessary spending paid by US importers and passed along to consumers.

        Second: While the top marginal tax rate was increased, it didn’t “cause" the Depression, which began in 1929, since the rate was 25% in 1928, reduced to 24% in 1929, increased back up to 25% in 1931 and 1932, (by which time the Depression was  two years old) and then increased in 1932 to 63%. This was, remember, the highest marginal rate and affected perhaps 2% to 5% of all Americans. The top rate remained at 63%. However, the rate on $10,000 rose to just 11% from 10%, and the rate on $50,000 rose to just 34% from 31%. The estate tax rose to 60%. Of course, the “average” household income in 1938 was just $1368…. annually!

        Third; “A 50% increase in Government spending.” Well yeah, as unemployment sky-rocketed and incomes dipped. Of course, allowing mass starvations might have been an alternative, but no one signed on for the pilot program, so agencies like the WPA and PWA paid workers to build such “wasteful” public works projects as the Lincoln Tunnel, Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, Blue Ridge Parkway, LaGuardia Airport, Triboro Bridge, the TVA and much more. The Civilian Conservation Corps put idle young men to work and taught job skills in the process. CCC projects included 3,470 fire towers erected, 97,000 miles of roads built, 3 billion trees planted, 711 state parks created and over 3 million men employed. So, yes, government spending increased but the money was far from wasted and was not “welfare.”

        Fourth: There were indeed, increases in state and local taxes during the Depression, which makes sense, since many more Americans needed the sort of help best administered centrally/locally. It is almost impossible to find historical data for all states and average them for purposes of this essay, so I chose California. I’m fairly sure most other states’ aggregate taxes were lower then, as they are today.

         Reality shows that in 1933, the combined state and local tax rate (sales and property) in California was 2.5%, increasing to 3% in 1935, and back to 2.5% in 1943. Hardly punitive, “enormous” (as the writer claimed) or dramatic. Note: When listening to “anti-taxers” whine about increases (and boy, do they) remember that an increase of 1% to 1.5% is a “50% increase,” just like a rise from 40% to 60%, but obviously the impact is not the same.

        Fifth: the issue of leaving the Gold standard is too abstruse for a short essay, so let’s move on. In any case the phrase “seizure of the American People’s Gold holding” is grossly misleading, since no one’s gold was seized, but traded for equivalent currency or credit. (also, in the depression, the average American had no gold, before, during or after. Period.)

        Sixth: “Regulation like never seen before.”  This of course reflects Trump’s fondest desire – that men and women like him be allowed to plunder in the marketplace, extort and what have you, free from any restrictions on what they may inflict on the rest of us. This is a key motivator for the Trump administration’s attempts to reduce Dodd-Frank’s consumer protections and Commercial Banking and Securities trading limitations. One other well-known apostle of this stance is John Stossel, who might best be characterized by his statements in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, defending price gougers charging $99 for a flat of bottled water as “honest market economy.” This is in the best Morgan, Rockefeller and Gould tradition which holds that any regulation of business is “bad,” if it limits profit in the interest of public well-being.

         Another, earlier Roosevelt, fought this sort of battle when private interests attempted to own the Grand Canyon. Barack Obama fought this when he signed stronger clean water legislation, since rescinded by Trump. Automobile manufacturers whined about new required safety features, and mileage and emissions controls until they were enacted, and the industry then readily did what they could have all along. Their advertisements now extol those same safety features as if they never resisted them.

        This presents the question of who is the Government supposed to serve? All of us? Those of us with the most money?

        Back, now, to the original issue of whether a strong stock market is the true index of a strong economy. As I showed above, many of those same who tout it as such, disavow the importance of it when the economy soils its linen, shifting blame at will. Who’s right? Well Jethro, it just ain’t that simple.

        While some, like Trump, self-proclaimed genius who couldn’t complete his BA with honors (yes, I’ve seen the graduation program;  he “graduated” period.), view “the Market” as the be all and end all, and one true index of economic health,  real economists are quick to point out other indicators, which require a better depth of knowledge. Some of these other indices are called “leading” indicators, since they are useful in forecasting economic performance. Others are “lagging” indicators because generally they tell us “What happened” and are more diagnostic and analytical tools than instructions. Without great detail (too long to do) they include:

Leading Indicators:

        Manufacturing activity:  Manufacturing activity is another indicator of the state of the economy because it influences the GDP (gross domestic product) strongly; an increase in which suggests more demand for consumer goods and, in turn, a healthy economy. Moreover, since workers are required to manufacture new goods, increases in manufacturing activity also boost employment and possibly wages as well.

        Inventory Levels: High inventory levels can reflect two very different things: either that demand for inventory is expected to increase or that there is a current lack of demand. In the first scenario, businesses purposely bulk up inventory to prepare for increased consumption in the coming months. As consumer activity increases, businesses with high inventory can meet the demand and thereby increase their profit. Both are good things for the economy. However, high inventories can reflect that company supplies exceed demand. This may indicate that retail sales and consumer confidence are both down, which is a negative. In the market runup to the 1929 crash, inventories were ahead of demands.

        Retail sales:  strong retail sales contribute directly to GDP, which also strengthens the home currency. When sales improve, companies can hire more employees to sell and manufacture more product, which in turn puts more money back in the pockets of employees who are also consumers.

A significant downside to this indicator, though, is that it doesn’t account for how people pay for their purchases. If consumers go into debt to acquire products, (like with credit cards!) it could also indicate an impending recession if the debt becomes too steep to pay off.

        Housing market:

Declines in housing have a negative impact on the economy for several key reasons: They decrease homeowner wealth, if housing prices drop, equity follows. They also, perforce, reduce the number of construction jobs needed to build new homes, which increases unemployment. They reduce property taxes, which limits government resources. Homeowners are less able to refinance or sell their homes, which may force them into foreclosure. Read The Big Short!

        New Business Startups: The number of new businesses entering the economy is another indicator of economic health. In fact, some insist that small businesses (in aggregate) hire more employees than larger corporations and, thereby, contribute more to addressing unemployment. Also, small businesses can contribute significantly to GDP, and they introduce innovative ideas and products that stimulate growth. Therefore, increases in small businesses are an extremely important indicator of the economic well-being of any capitalist nation.

Lagging indicators:

        Changes in Gross Domestic Product (GDP): GDP is typically considered by economists to be the most important measure of the economy’s current health. (Have you ever heard Donald Trump speak of the GDP? I haven’t) When GDP increases, it’s a sign the economy is strong. In fact, businesses will adjust their expenditures on inventory, payroll, and other investments based on GDP output.

        Like the stock market, however, GDP can be misleading. For a current example, the government has increased GDP by 4% as a result of stimulus spending and the Federal Reserve has pumped approximately $2 trillion into the economy. Both of these attempts to correct recession fallout are at least partially responsible for GDP growth. Both also are contributors to a whopping 2020 deficit on top of the already planned Trump budget shortfall.

        Corporate profits: Strong corporate profits are generally correlated with a rise in GDP because they reflect an increase in sales and therefore encourage job growth. They also increase stock market performance as investors look for places to invest income. This however can also be misleading depending on variables such as economic sector. As an example, If I consider the profit only of economic entities related to home learning and conferencing (ZOOM, for example) the picture is rosy. If I consider "dining out" businesses, not so much.

        Interest rates: Interest rates represent the cost of borrowing money and are based around the federal funds rate. Too high, deters borrowing, slows investment. Too low can lead to inflation.  Current interest rates are thus indicative of the economy’s current condition and are at an all time low. The effects of this over time remain to be seen.

        Whatever happens, the stock market will be just one of a number of valid indicators and remember, much of the investing currently is on a “what if” basis, chief among which is the strong performance ---so far, of the drug sector because of the obvious necessity for a COVID-19 vaccine. Meanwhile, while speculators run wild, US unemployment - 4.5% in March, is 6.9% in November, and that’s a 65% increase!

    So, the next time someone hypes the economy referring to the Stock Market, respond with "Yeah, but what about that debt to GDP ratio?" when their eyes glass over, explain that Debt to GDP ratio is the ratio of the percentage of the total national debt compared to the GDP. a generally accepted "good" number is about 60% ( a simple example : you owe $6, your GDP is  $10) that's a debt to GDP ratio of 60%, Currently the US debt to GDP ratio is over 100%!  Trump was told about this two years plus ago, and when warned by an advisor that a fiscal cliff was coming he responded, "Yeah, but we won't be here."

Feelin' the love yet?   

A Tale of Two Transitions

 

A Tale of Two Transitions

There was a time when, with few exceptions, the incoming President elect, regardless of partisan affiliations, was shown the courtesy and cooperation we have come to accept as “normal” for our 230-year-old republic. This meant that the incoming administration was given appropriate aid, assistance and cooperation by the outgoing one. This typically included not “tampering” with personnel in place at the time of the election, and leaving such matters up to the incoming administration.

        This is not to imply that incoming and outgoing POTUSs have not had their differences. FDR and Herbert Hoover had mercilessly carped at each other on the campaign trail in 1932 over deep seated differences of opinion regarding the economics of how to deal with the great depression. 

    That aside, their staffs worked fairly well together to assure a smooth transition at a time when the nation desperately needed a sense of unity. Oddly enough and eerily familiar, media pundits and especially Evangelical radio “clergy” such as Father Charles Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith labeled Roosevelt as a “Communist”, “Jewish dupe”, “Socialist”, etc.”

        Truman and Eisenhower had worked well together during the final days and aftermath of WWII and, in 1952, Truman had actually approached Ike about running on the Democratic ticket to be his successor. Ike demurred, deciding he was probably a Republican. He and Truman had major disagreements regarding the best way to deal with the Korean conflict and even more to Truman’s disliking, Eisenhower, sensitive to the need not to alienate Republican voters during the campaign, refused to condemn Joseph McCarthy’s ranting in  the Senate about a “commie under every bed.”  Even so, their staffs cooperated in transition, putting politics behind the national interest.

        Bill Clinton and Bush 43 couldn’t have been more dissimilar, in intellect, political savvy, or types of personal indiscretion. That said, there was an orderly transfer of power even though Vice-POTUS Al Gore had been “stiffed” by the USSC in the 2000 election Florida farce. The concern shown by the Clinton administration included a fairly detailed terrorism brief, sadly ignored with tragic results, identifying Osama Bin Ladin and Al Qaeda as the major extant threat to US security.        

         Barack Obama, having been slandered for eight years by Donald Trump and conservative media in almost every way imaginable, still conducted and oversaw a transition which placed the nation above personal politics. This included having his staff coordinate and conduct a run-through, a week before Trump's inauguration, of the scenario (with a 60-page playbook) the Obama administration had developed for dealing with a widespread pandemic. Mitch McConnell would later claim there was no “playbook,” although his wife, Transportation Secretary Chao was an attendee, as was Energy Secretary Perry, now gone, another victim of the revolving Trump cabinet door.

        Likewise, President-elect Biden, then VPOTUS, tweeted on November 10, 2016: “I just met with VP-elect Pence at the White House to offer our support for a smooth, seamless transition of power”

        In contrast, 4 years later, the Trump Administration (if one can call the current chaos machine an administration) still refusing, 13 days after the election, to concede the inevitable, refuses to participate or to allow staff to do so.  In fact, as of this writing the GSA has not released funds for transition planning, and very few Republicans have developed enough backbone to say, “Stop, enough!”

As a contrast, here’s a day by day, "blow by blow” timeline, contrasting 2016 and 2020:

        Day 1, 2016: Election day was November 8^th in 2016. Hillary Clinton conceded/Trump golfed, insisting that he won. Mrs. Clinton called Trump at around 2.30 a.m. the night of the election to concede his win.  The very next day, funds for the transition were ordered released by the General Services Administration (GSA). By noon the next day, Clinton had made her concession speech and (Obama Defense Secretary) Ash Carter gave the formal order for a peaceful transition of power.

        Day 1, 2020: In 2020, Trump was again at the golf course as most major networks called the race for Joe Biden. At the same time, Trump personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, held a press conference in the front yard of Four Seasons Total Landscaping(!), announcing the president's intention to litigate over alleged voter fraud.  Later that night, Trump tweeted: "I WON THIS ELECTION, BY A LOT!" (He lost by over 5 million popular, and at least 58 electoral, votes as of this writing)

        Day 2, November 10, 2016: On November 10, 2016, Vice President Joe Biden met Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, and Melania Trump met First Lady Michelle Obama. Trump and Obama spent an hour and a half together in the Oval Office  and Obama shook Trump's hand in front of the cameras. Both men (Obama and Biden) made statements indicating their intentions to facilitate a smooth transition.

Day 2, November 4, 2020: Republicans were soliciting calls to a fraud hotline set up by Trump, which was then flooded with prank calls. The same day, Melania Trump made her first public statement in support of Trump's fraud allegations, tweeting: "Every legal — not illegal — vote should be counted."

Day 3, November 11, 2016: The White House announced details of Obama's global farewell tour, in which the President said he would be helping prepare allies to work with Trump!

Day 3 November 6, 2020:  Three days after victory in 2020, with no concession or acknowledgement of defeat  from Trump, Biden met with and announced his coronavirus advisory board, designed to mark a break with Trump's chaotic handling of the pandemic.

        Meanwhile, on Twitter, Trump continued promoting claims of election fraud. He sent a total of 25 tweets with links to right-wing media supporting him, or rumors about the count in some states — many of which were flagged by the platform as disputed, most of which are since dismissed as false and/or un- founded.

Day 4, November 12, 2016: Trump designated Chris Collins as the head of his transition team. His transition team also signaled to The New York Post that he planned to pull the US out of the Paris Climate Accords, reversing an Obama policy.

Day 4, November 7, 2020:   In 2020, four days after the result, Trump's administration was still holding up Biden's progress. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joked in a press conference about preparing for a "second Trump administration," for which he was later praised by the president.

        President-elect Biden addressed the lack of cooperation at a press conference, telling reporters in Delaware that he was moving ahead anyway: "We don't see anything that's slowing us down, quite frankly," He called Trump's refusal to concede "an embarrassment," adding, "It's not of much consequence.”

Day 5, November 13, 2016:  Trump named Reince Priebus as his chief of staff and Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, The Guardian reported. On CBS's "60 Minutes" Trump shifted from his former hardline position on Obamacare, moderating some of his campaign positions ahead of taking power. Note: At the same point in 2020, Trump continued flinging accusations. Attacking both ABC News and The Washington Post, he claimed that a joint Wisconsin poll they published purposefully understated his chances to discourage his supporters from voting. (a claim since debunked)

On day 6: Trump sought unjustified security clearances for his elder sons, Ivanka, and her spouse. Meanwhile Biden was still denied access to messages of congratulation from world leaders by the State Department, CNN reported.

Day 7 and 8, 2016 / 2020:  More of the same: in 2016, Trump got a  National Security briefing, putting him on a par with Obama in that area. Allowing this was an Obama decision, deemed to be in the best interests of a smooth transition and preparing an unexperienced President-elect.

Seven days after Biden's win was confirmed in 2020, he still did not have access to these briefings. Despite the Trump administration's refusal to acknowledge Biden's victory, China officially did so. This left Russia as the only major world power not to accept the results.

Day 9, 2020: Trump appeared to accidentally concede the election by tweeting that Biden "won because the Election was Rigged." He quickly recanted that, tweeting: "He only won in the eyes of the FAKE NEWS MEDIA. I concede NOTHING!" (Ed note: Trump loves the word “rigged” because in his mind it absolves him of any admission of losing.)

Present:  The Trump shit-show rolls along, denial the name of the game, meanwhile President-elect Joe Biden soldiers on, wisely refusing to engage Trump, who is off the rails and evidences no concern for the nation.

        Yet, the Republic will, as it has before, in times of trial, endure.

The "Parable Hoax" and Other Observations

 

    Below is a small sampling of excerpts from the writings, inscribed on stone steles, ordered by Ashoka, third emperor of the Mauryan dynasty (India and as far east as Iran).  These “Rock Edicts” were placed as widely apart as 2000 miles across this huge empire from Colombo, Sri Lanka to Kandahar, At least one was inscribed in Greek and Aramaic. Ashoka was a Buddhist, who valued all beliefs’ moral teaching. He died more than 200 years before the birth of Christ

“Meritorious is obedience to mother and father. Moderation in expenditure (and) moderation in possessions are meritorious.”

“But the just man does not value either gifts or honors so (highly) as (this), that a promotion of the essentials of all beliefs should take place. But its root is this: guarding (one's) speech, (i.e.) that neither praising one's own (belief) nor blaming other (beliefs) sects should take place, but other sects ought to be honored in every way.

“If one is acting otherwise than thus, he is both hurting his own religion and wronging others as well. For whosoever praises his own religion or blames others — all (this) even if out of pure devotion to his own belief — if he is acting thus, he rather injures his own sect very severely. But concord is meritorious, (i.e.) that they should both hear and obey each other's morals.”

“Obedience to mother and father, obedience to elders, proper courtesy to friends, acquaintances, companions, and relatives, ...piety and self-mastery in all the schools of thought; and he who is master of his tongue is most master of himself.(italics are mine) And let them neither praise themselves or disparage their neighbors in any matter whatsoever, for that is vain fact hurting themselves. It behooves one to respect one another and to accept one another's lessons.

Socrates

Socrates, born in the fifth century BCE, even predating Ashoka, died in 399 BCE of his own hand rather than recant his philosophical beliefs. His great “sin” was teaching the young to think for themselves and question dogma. Although he never outright rejected the standard Athenian view of religion, Socrates' beliefs were nonconformist. He often referred to God rather than the gods and reported being guided by an “inner divine voice”. He lived and taught in relative poverty, most of his students being young and of somewhat similar circumstance.

        Since he wrote nothing, most of what we know of Socrates words come from the “dialogues” of Plato and Xenophon. This is further complicated by the fact that Aristophanes, the dramatist, used the character in several plays which provide divergent views of Socrates, although Aristophanes, being a satirist, often skewed the nature of those he limned in plays.   

        In 399 BC, Socrates went on trial and was subsequently found guilty of both “Corrupting the minds of the youth of Athens and of “impiety” for "not believing in the gods of the state". As punishment, he was sentenced to death: the drinking of a mixture containing poison hemlock. He did this rather than flee Athens.  In other words, he died for his beliefs and teachings, condemned by those who favored the traditional state religion. Sound familiar?

From Plato, ascribed to Socrates:

“You are mistaken my friend, if you think that a man who is worth anything ought to spend his time weighing up the prospects of life and death. He has only one thing to consider in performing any action — that is, whether he is acting right or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one.”

“the unexamined life is not worth living.”

“One's true happiness is promoted by doing what is right. When your true utility is served (by tending your soul), you are achieving happiness. Happiness is evident only in terms of a long-term effect on the soul.”

        I mention Socrates primarily because his method of teaching was to encourage students (“disciples” – the word isn’t religious, as many believe, but simply means “a follower or student of a teacher, leader, or philosopher “) to question dogma in search of truth. This is precisely what is ascribed to Jesus, for example: “But who do you say that I am?” Pure Socratic method. 

    Socrates also used the parable, or story with a moral, as a teaching medium. He was far from unique in this, considering that Aesop’s fables (6^th century BCE) are also moral teaching tools. In fact, this whole essay is the result of reaction to the arrogant assumption which many modern Evangelical Christians believe, which is that Jesus was the originator of the parable, or that he originated those ascribed to him in the Gospels.  Neither is true. More on the “parable hoax” later.

Buddha:

    Siddhartha Gautama was the son of a king, raised in sheltered opulence following his birth in Lumbini, Nepal, in about 567 BCE.  On a carriage ride outside his palaces he first saw a sick person, then an old man, then a corpse. This was his revelation, that privileged status would not protect him from sickness, old age, and death. Siddhartha renounced his worldly life and began a spiritual quest. Eventually, he realized that the path to peace was through mental discipline. According to tradition, he sat in meditation beneath a Ficus tree, “the Bodhi tree,” until he awakened, or realized enlightenment. From that time on, he would be known as the Buddha. In his search for self-awareness (enlightenment) he taught, using (wait for it) parables. And developing some guidelines for moral living and achieving inner peace.

     Without diving too deeply into Buddhist doctrine: in Theravada Buddhism ― the dominant school of southeast Asia ― it is thought there is only one buddha per “age of humankind”; The buddha of the current age is the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. There are other major traditions of Buddhism, called Mahayana and Vajrayana, and these traditions put no limits on the number of buddhas there can be. However, for practitioners of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism the ideal is to be a “bodhisattva”, one who vows to remain in the world until all beings are enlightened. (and a pretty good Steely Dan song).

So, what did the Buddha teach?

·       Refrain from taking life. Not killing any living being. ...

·       Refrain from taking what is not given. Not stealing from anyone.

·       Refrain from the misuse of the senses. Not having too much sensual pleasure. ...

·       Refrain from wrong speech. Not lying or gossiping about other people.

·       Refrain from intoxicants that cloud the mind.

Notice how similar these are to the “commandments?”  What is missing is the systematic relegation of women to secondary status found in essentially all other contemporaneous religions.

The four vices:

1.  The destruction of life

2.  Stealing

3.  Sexual misconduct

4.  Lying

The four things which lead to evil:

1.  Desire, meaning greed, lust, clinging

2.  Anger and hatred

3.  Ignorance

4.  Fear and anxiety

        But the common man or woman was not the only one for whom Buddha provided guidance.  I especially like the tone of the advice he held for temporal rulers:

The Ten Duties of a King - From the Pali Jatakas (scriptures developed from Buddhist teachings:

1.  Dana:  Liberality, generosity, charity, concern with the welfare of the people.

2.  Sila:  High moral character, observing at least the Five Precepts.

3.  Parccaga:  Willing to sacrifice everything for the people -- comfort, fame, even his life.

4.  Ajjava:  Honesty and integrity, not fearing some or favoring others.

5.  Maddava:  Kindness and gentleness.

6.  Tapa:  Austerity, content in the simple life.

7.  Akkodha:  Free from hatred, ill-will, and anger.

8.  Avihimsa:  Non-violence, a commitment to peace.

9.  Khanti:  Patience, tolerance, and the ability to understand others’ perspectives.

10.  Avirodha:  Non-obstruction, ruling in harmony with the will of the people and in their best interests.

Sound like virtues we should seek out and treasure in a President, don’t they? Every single one of these is exemplified in the opposite by Donald Trump

 

        Now, as promised, the rest of the parable “paradox” (sounds better than hoax). The point here is that many fundamentalist Christians use the parables ascribed to Jesus in the New Testament Gospels and believe that Jesus was the greatest teacher and story-teller of all because he invented the story with a moral lesson, No, just no. Plato’s parable of the cave, (third century BCE), preceded Jesus by centuries. “But wait, how about Jesus’ ‘original’ ones, you know, like the Prodigal Son?” Plagiarized, probably not by Jesus, who may (or may not have even told it, but by the writer of  Luke, himself a Greek speaker who got 70% of his material, according to modern scriptologists from Mark, who doesn’t mention it. Odd, huh? Of course, neither man actually knew Jesus, anyway, and were writing, at a minimum, a generation after his death.

     Below is the Buddhist “original” of that parable, which may have been known to Greek intellectuals. Why? Because Plato is said to have left Athens after Socrates’ death and traveled extensively in Asia Minor and Egypt. There is speculation that during this period of ten years he might well have come in contact with Indian religious philosophy, i.e. Buddhism. Plato’s own “Cave” parable appears in volume 7 of “The Republic” written after his eastern travels.   

The Lost Son

     "There was a householder's son who went away into a distant country, and while the father accumulated immeasurable riches, the son became miserably poor. And the son, while searching for food and clothing, happened to come to the country in which his father lived. The father saw him in his wretchedness, for he was ragged and brutalized by poverty, and ordered some of his servants to call him. When the son saw the place to which he was conducted, he thought, "I must have evoked the suspicion of a powerful man, and he will throw me into prison." Full of apprehension he made his escape before he had seen his father.

        Then the father sent messengers out after his son, who was caught and brought back in spite of his cries and lamentations. Thereupon the father ordered his servants to deal tenderly with his son, and he appointed a laborer of his son's rank and education to employ the lad as a helpmate on the estate. And the son was pleased with his new situation. From the window of his palace the father watched the boy, and when he saw that he was honest and industrious, he promoted him higher and higher.

        After some time, he summoned his son and called together all his servants, and made the secret known to them. Then the poor man was exceedingly glad, and he was full of joy at meeting his father. Just so, little by little, must the minds of men be trained for higher truths."

A few minor adjustments by Luke, maybe 400 years later and…! “Lost” becomes “Prodigal” and Bob’s your uncle!

Here with some minor tweaks but essentially the same message is the Good Samaritan with a bit of Mosaic fiction thrown in

        “But the Bodhisattva said to himself, "If I lose heart, all these will perish, and walked about while the morning was yet cool. On seeing a tuft of kusa-grass, he thought: "This could have grown only by soaking up some water which must be beneath it." And he made them bring a spade and dig in that spot. And they dug sixty cubits deep. ( Here it must be noted that the unit “cubit” was never used in India and has no corresponding meaning in Pali, I point this out because it seems to indicate that the unit was translated as “cubit”, probably by the Greeks)  And when they had got thus far, the spade of the diggers struck on a rock; and as soon as it struck, they all gave up in despair. But the Bodhisattva thought, "There must be water under that rock," and descending into the well he got on the stone and stooping down applied his ear to it and tested the sound of it. He heard the sound of water gurgling beneath, and when he got out, he called his page. "My lad, if you give up now, we shall all be lost. Do not lose heart. Take this iron hammer, and go down into the pit, and give the rock a good blow.

        The lad obeyed, and though they all stood by in despair, he went down full of determination and struck at the stone. The rock split in two and fell below, so that it no longer blocked the stream, and water rose till its depth from the bottom to the brim of the well was equal to the height of a palm-tree. And they all drank of the water and bathed in it. Then they cooked rice and ate it and fed their oxen with it. And when the sun set, they put a flag in the well, and went to the place appointed. There they sold their merchandise at a good profit and returned to their home.

        After the Teacher had told the story he formed the connection by saying in conclusion, "The caravan the Bodhisattva, the future Buddha; the page who at that time despaired not, but broke the stone, and gave water to the multitude, was this brother without perseverance; and the other men were attendants on the Buddha."

 

Several parables in one here: but all these concepts are used in the Gospel parables.  

The Sower

"Bharadvaja, a wealthy Brahman farmer, was celebrating his harvest-thanksgiving when the Blessed One came with his alms-bowl, begging for food. Some of the people paid him reverence, but the Brahman was angry and said: "samana, it would be more fitting for you to go to work than to beg. I plough and sow, and having ploughed and sown, I eat. If you did likewise, you, too, would have something to eat."

The Tathagatha (honorific title of a buddha) answered him and said: "Brahman, I too, plough and sow, and having ploughed and sown, I eat." "Do you profess to be a husbandman?" replied the Brahman. "Where, then, are your bullocks? Where is the seed and the plough?"

The Blessed One said: "Faith is the seed I sow: good works are the rain that fertilizes it; wisdom and modesty are the plough; my mind is the guiding-rein; I lay hold of the handle of the law; earnestness is the goad I use, and exertion is my draught-ox. This ploughing is ploughed to destroy the weeds of illusion. The harvest it yields is the immortal fruits of Nirvana, and thus all sorrow ends." Then the Brahman poured rice-milk into a golden bowl and offered it to the Blessed One, saying: "Let the Teacher of mankind partake of the rice-milk, for the venerable Gautama ploughs a ploughing that bears the fruit of immortality."

 And, straight out of John: 4 (but centuries earlier)

The Woman at the Well

"Ananda, the favorite disciple of the Buddha, having been sent by the Lord on a mission, passed by a well near a village, and seeing Pakati, a girl of the Matanga caste, he asked her for water to drink. Pakati said: "Brahman, I am too humble and mean to give you water to drink, do not ask any service of me lest your holiness be contaminated, for I am of low caste." And Ananda replied: "I ask not for caste but for water"; and the Matanga girl's heart leaped joyfully and she gave Ananda to drink.

Ananda thanked her and went away; but she followed him at a distance. Having heard that Ananda was a disciple of Gautama Sakyamuni, the girl repaired to the Blessed One and cried: "Lord help me, and let me live in the place where Ananda your disciple dwells, so that I may see him and minister to him, for I love Ananda." The Blessed One understood the emotions of her heart and he said: "Pakati, your heart is full of love, but you understand not your own sentiments. It is not Ananda that you love, but his kindness. Accept, then, the kindness you have seen him practice to you, and in the humility of your station practice it to others. Verily there is great merit in the generosity of a king when he is kind to a slave; but there is a greater merit in the slave when he ignores the wrongs which he suffers and cherishes kindness and good-will to all mankind. He will cease to hate his oppressors, and even when powerless to resist their usurpation will with compassion pity their arrogance and supercilious demeanor."

 The Hungry Dog

"There was a great king who oppressed his people and was hated by his subjects; yet when the Tathagatha came into his kingdom, the king desired much to see him. So, he went to the place where the Blessed One stayed and asked: "Sakyamuni, can you teach a lesson to the king that will divert his mind and benefit him at the same time?"

And the Blessed One said: "I shall tell you the parable of the hungry dog: There was a wicked tyrant; and the god Indra, assuming the shape of a hunter, came down on earth with the demon Matali, the latter appearing as a dog of enormous size. Hunter and dog entered the palace, and the dog howled so woefully that the royal buildings shook by the sound to their very foundations. The tyrant had the awe-inspiring hunter brought before his throne and inquired after the cause of the terrible bark. The hunter said, "The dog is hungry," whereupon the frightened king ordered food for him. All the food prepared at the royal banquet disappeared rapidly in the dog's jaws, and still he howled with portentous significance. More food was sent for, and all the royal storehouses were emptied, but in vain. Then the tyrant grew desperate and asked: 'Will nothing satisfy the cravings of that woeful beast?' "Nothing," replied the hunter, nothing except perhaps the flesh of all his enemies.' 'And who are his enemies?' anxiously asked the tyrant. The hunter replied: 'The dog will howl as long as there are people hungry in the kingdom, and his enemies are those who practice injustice and oppress the poor." The oppressor of the people, remembering his evil deeds, was seized with remorse, and for the first time in his life he began to listen to the teachings of righteousness."

Having ended his story, the Blessed One addressed the king, who had turned pale, and said to him: "The Tathagatha can quicken the spiritual ears of the powerful, and when you, great king, hear the dog bark, think of the teachings of the Buddha, and you may still learn to pacify the monster."

 

The Marriage-Feast in Jambunada  (or the wedding in Canaa?)

"There was a man in Jambunada who was to be married the next day, and he thought, "Would that the Buddha, the Blessed One, might be present at the wedding." And the Blessed One passed by his house and met him, and when he read the silent wish in the heart of the bridegroom, he consented to enter. When the When the Holy One appeared with the retinue of his many bhikkhus, the host, whose means were limited, received them as best he could, saying: "Eat, my Lord, and all your congregation, according to your desire."

 

While the holy men ate, the meats and drinks remained undiminished, and the host thought to himself: "How wondrous is this! I should have had plenty for all my relatives and friends. Would that I had invited them all. all." When this thought was in the host's mind, all his relatives and friends entered the house; and although the hall in the house was small there was room in it for all of them. They sat down at the table and ate, and there was more than enough for all of them. The Blessed One was pleased to see so many guests full of good cheer and he quickened them and gladdened them with words of truth, proclaiming the bliss of righteousness:

(Part wedding miracle and part feeding the 5,000!)

"The greatest happiness which a mortal man can imagine is the bond of marriage that ties together two loving hearts. But there is a greater happiness still: it is the embrace of truth. Death will separate husband and wife, but death will never affect him who has espoused the truth. Therefore, be married to the truth and live with the truth in holy wedlock. The husband who loves his wife and desires for a union that shall be everlasting must be faithful to her so as to be like truth itself, and she will rely on him and revere him and minister to him. And the wife who loves her husband and desires a union that shall be everlasting must be faithful to him so as to be like truth itself; and he will place his trust in her, he will provide for her. Verily, I say to you, their children will become like their parents and will bear witness to their happiness. Let no man be single, let everyone be wedded in holy love to the truth. And when Mara, the destroyer, comes to separate the visible forms of your being, you will continue to live in the truth, and will partake of the life everlasting, for the truth is immortal.

 There was no one among the guests but was strengthened in his, spiritual life, and recognized the sweetness of a life of righteousness; and they took refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha."

Walking On Water

"South of Savatthi is a great river, on the banks of which lay a hamlet of five hundred houses. Thinking of the salvation of the people, the World-honored One resolved to go to the village and preach the doctrine. Having come to the riverside he sat down beneath a tree, and the villagers seeing the glory of his appearance approached him with reverence; but when he began to preach, they believed him not.

 When the world-honored Buddha had left Savatthi Sariputta felt a desire to see the Lord and to hear him preach. Coming to the river where the water was deep and the current strong, he said to himself: "This stream shall not prevent me. I shall go and see the Blessed One, and he stepped on the water which was as firm under his feet as a slab of granite. When he arrived at a place in the middle of the stream where the waves were high, Sariputta's (Peter’s?) heart gave way, and he began to sink. But rousing his faith and renewing his mental effort, he proceeded as before and reached the other bank.

 The people of the village were astonished to see Sariputta, and they asked how he could cross the stream where there was neither a bridge nor a ferry. Sariputta replied: "I lived in ignorance till I heard the voice of the Buddha. As I was anxious to hear the doctrine of salvation, I crossed the river and I walked over its troubled waters because I had faith. Faith. nothing else, enabled me to do so, and now I am here in the bliss of the Master's presence."

 The World-honored One added: "Sariputta, you have spoken well. Faith like yours alone can save the world from the yawning gulf of migration and enable men to walk dryshod to the other shore."

Some coincidences, wouldn’t you say? Or perhaps just Plagiarism.

    So, what’s the takeaway here? Actually, there are several.

Parables as, moral teaching tools are not even close to being original with Christianity.

The concepts in the parables attributed to Jesus are not original, nor are they necessarily Christian.

Finally, I think it likely that the Greek speakers who wrote the Gospels long after Jesus death, may have embroidered what little (if any) actual written material they had, with moral lessons via parable “poaching” from Buddhist practice and scripture. 

    The same is true of the “Golden Rule.” Not originally Abrahamic even, never mind Christian.  In fact, circa 1800 BCE an Egyptian parable known as "Eloquent peasant" story has been said to have the earliest known golden rule saying: "Do to the doer to cause that he do." Confucius stated it in writing 500 years before Jesus is alleged to have said it, to be recorded 70 years later.   “What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others”. An English paraphrase would be “do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.” 

        Don’t show this to your Fundamentalist friends. They won’t care for it. They like to think they’re the only moral people on the planet.

 

 

Why the Angst?

 

Why the Angst?

        Contemplating the shirt rending and hair tearing of many on the Far Right makes me reflect on other presidential election outcomes throughout my life as a politically aware American. I confess that I’ve never seen such gut level splenetic venting in any of them. I didn’t like Richard Nixon but didn’t see his election as the end of the world. Same for Reagan, I knew he was a dunce, but I thought he’d muddle through somehow.

        To varying extents, since 1954, presidents have played to the post Brown V. Board racial bigot backlash in the United States. Advised and encouraged by Lee Atwater and others, Richard Nixon ran a whole campaign in 1968 about "law and order," which was basically a coded way to talk about, in his perspective, what radical civil rights organizations were doing to the health of the country.

     In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan constantly spoke about "welfare queens" and often characterized poverty as an African American issue and was criticized rightly for using that kind of rhetoric and tapping into this kind of anger and anxiety in white America. That said, their bias was somewhat less personal belief and more political strategy, not to excuse, but to explain it. In any case they didn’t publicly air pure racist diatribes regardless of private convictions.

        With Trump, however, it is also personal animosity and bias. The following quotes, which he knew were for publication, are instructive: “I have black guys counting my money. … I hate it,” “The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes all day.”  “‘Laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that.”  This is not inconsistent with much remaining Southern, learned from parents, dogma.

                I “liked Ike”, and, along the way, actually voted for Bush 41, perhaps, at least on paper, the most experientially qualified candidate in the election of 1988. (besides, little Mikey Dukakis in that tanker helmet…really?) Sadly, George H.W.’s boy was a far cry in either experience or intelligence. With the Obama election, I felt like we might have turned the corner, but to those of the Far Right the vibe was different, since like Clinton, (and in truth Bush 43, to a surprising degree), Barack Obama saw the job as being the Executive representative of all of us. This went down hard for those of the populace of a certain mindset. And that’s what this is about.

        Donald Trump realizes this and has exploited it for the past four years. Nothing drives extremism like hatred, and Trump plays to several distinct sources. Racism had already become far more public, as Barack Obama continued even handed diplomacy both foreign and domestic. The irony and the sad reality is, that by stressing equality (of treatment, not of condition, as some have incorrectly maintained) for all, he became the focal point of animus for those who saw equal treatment and opportunity for all of us  as somehow anti-American as well as a threat to their continued social superiority. When a Rightist repeats the mantra “Obama divided us” it’s actually more a code for, “He was Black, unapologetic and didn’t sugar coat reality.” 

    For just one example, mentioning that Blacks were three times as likely, as a percentage of the population, to be killed by police while unarmed or even handcuffed, rather than identifying a societal ill, became an indictment of the victims, vice the police who were the murderers. Those who Trump has inflamed with sometimes veiled and sometimes blatant racist rhetoric were delighted that their guy “got it.”  The same applied to immigrants and, the darker skinned, the easier to disdain and discriminate against. It is the sort of “dog whistle politics” that every racist idealogue since Caesar has understood (Ficking Celtae!) The British understood it throughout their empire, especially South Africa, Americans re: Native Americans, The Chinese against their Muslim minority, Japan against Korea, Turks against Armenians, and the list goes on far too long. 

         In the post-election of 2016 euphoria, it became not uncommon for MAGA hat wearers, feeling empowered and justified by their leader  to single out persons (including children) of color or “non-white” ethnicity in grocery stores and question their right to be there. It also manifested itself as one of those “very fine people” committing vehicular homicide in Charlottesville, Virginia.

        Likewise, Trump appealed to the Xenophobia bubbling beneath the surface of his acolytes. Without several paragraphs or details, suffice it to say that he marketed the biggest big lie - “They take American jobs,” as well as the “They’re mostly criminals” mantra. For a bias “daily double” he again appealed to bigots, as well as xenophobes, by branding African nations as “shit hole” countries.

    In 2020, voter suppression, aimed along racial lines and elevated to a new level not seen since Reconstruction, was added to the Trump toolbox where it snuggled between bigotry and faux religious conviction.

        The man who, per his own older sister in a candid moment, cares for no one or nothing but Donald Trump, has been characterized by her thus: “He has no principles. None. None. And his base, I mean my God, if you were a religious person, you want to help people. Not do this.”   “He doesn’t read.” “Donald is cruel.”  “You can’t trust him.”  “His goddamned tweeting and lying, oh my God; I’m talking too freely, but you know. The change of stories. The lack of preparation. The lying. Holy shit.”

        None of this matters, of course, to (too) many self-proclaimed Christians who use the cloak of faith as if it rendered their actual motivation invisible. 

    So, what’s my take on why Trump continues to resonate with his fan base? It’s simple really. Fear. Specifically, the deep concern that if they (White conservative racists) cease, at some point, being a white majority, they might face the same sort of treatment they now so readily dole out to minorities. For Conservative Christians, the fear that they may find themselves more restricted in attempting to cram their beliefs down the throat of those who don’t accept their dogma. It’s also based on centuries of being told that they, Northern European Caucasians, primarily, are superior to other races.

     Asian immigrants prove the error in this, just as the Irish And Italians were forced to in the 19^th century. Being identified by skin pigment has made it easier for haters to focus on Black and Brown persons. Adding LGBT persons to the mix is Trump’s stock in trade. It has also made almost every Republican office holder hesitant to call him out for fear of voter reprisals.

        And, because It’s what I do, here’s the history lesson: This isn’t even the first time that Republicans moved immediately to discredit a Democrat who won the presidency. It’s not even the second time. The practice of hamstringing a new Democratic President by suggesting that his victory wasn’t “genuine” goes back 28 years, to Bill Clinton.

        In 1992, Clinton won an overwhelming 370-to-168 electoral college majority over then-President George H.W. Bush. Clinton beat Bush in the popular vote by 5.8 million. (as I write, Joe Biden has an over 5 million popular vote edge) But the businessman Ross Perot ran a serious campaign as an independent and won 18.9 percent of the popular vote. As a result, Clinton’s share was 43 percent. Republicans then, smarting from the real loss, asserted that, even though Clinton won a huge Electoral College mandate, he was actually a loser. Then-Republican Senate leader Bob Dole declared the day after the election that Clinton had no “mandate” because “57 percent of the Americans who voted in the presidential election voted against Bill Clinton.” I only dredge this up for younger readers who might otherwise think this bullshit is new.

        What a sad, sorry mess. We need the election hoo-hah settled and President Biden to begin healing. That is simple for me to say, but the struggle will be uphill and arduous. People of character need to stand fast and keep their eyes on the greater prize. What’s the “prize?”  Read the Constitution. It’s all there.