Trump rips the cover off the Evangelical Right

6/21/2015

Trumps meeting with hundreds of leaders of the Christian Right on Tuesday was closed to outsiders, but somehow much leaked out, including this hidden video  that begins with words to the effect, “...there nothing out there about Hilary’s religion, nothing.  I think it will be an extension of Obama, at least with him we know what we were starting with and could be alert”  Interpretation in plain English:  “There is no evidence that Hillary is a Christian, and could well be a Muslim, like we know Obama is.   But at least we were on the lookout for him, while Hillary is “passing” as Christian so she is not only  but could be anti-Christian like that other deceiver.

Evangelists relate to this and know that the Devil is also known as the great deceiver, they know this passage:
-----------------

2 Corinthians 11:3

Verse Concepts

But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.”
------------------
The crowd knew well of Donald Trumps life, his repeated adulteries, which far from asking for forgiveness he boasted about on the air.  They also knew that for most of his life he had been in favor of Abortions, Pro-life, or in their perspective, allowing the murder of unborn babies.  But none of this mattered at all.

Trump has done what could not have been done by any atheists, humanist or progressive.  He has  ripped off  the facade of the Christian Right having anything to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ.  What it has evolved to in this country is a special interest group, that along with all organizations that say the magic words “I am a Religion” are given tax subsidies.  And if it’s the Religion of the Majority the right to allow prayers in Government legislatures.

What they have not be allowed to do in order to retain these benefits is to be overtly political, to endorse a given party or candidate.   This is basic to the rationale of government subsidizing of and support religion, in that it transcends these secular mundane battles, to look to higher principle of unification. loving  one’s neighbor and being responsible to a higher moral authority.

Donald Trump, being what he is, is oblivious to his principle, and so as a special bonus for the Christian right’s ignoring that his life is the antithesis of Christianity, promised them he will as President allow churches to become overtly and blatantly promoters of a chosen political movement.  Under a Trump presidency,  the organized Christian religion in America will be part of the the Trumpian regime, with the legal right to preach the message that Christianity is engaged in a war, not with the Devil, but that other deceiver, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.

I realize that it’s difficult for readers here to handle more condemnations of Trump destroying the core values of this country,  but this should be a meaningful landmark in his quest to change the essence of this country.   His clarion warning against outsiders, Muslims, Mexicans, Blacks and Asians; his opposition to the movement to replace the wars of the previous two centuries with a developing openness to free trade in commerce and ideas has now been extended.  This meeting, this secret meeting, was his message to Christians that even though he isn’t a very good one, he wants them in his coalition.

Mike Huckabee was the M.C  of this event, and said words to the effect, “We certainly would not be considering you to be a pastor at one of our Churches.”  This was acknowledged with laughter from the crowd meaning that we know you are no model of Christianity and maybe not even “born again.”  But, so what.  They did not want that from from Donald Trump.  The deal was we will support you, if you give us even more power.  We, with the help of your Supreme Court, will be allowed to infiltrate public schools and local city councils, and plant the symbols of Christianity, which means our Church will subtly become what America is.

We will be closer to the religio-facism of Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, if the current neo-Islamist President succeeds in his country..    This is the meaning of Tuesday’s secret meeting, that if Trump becomes President will go down in history as one of the markers in his path of transforming this ostensibly secular democracy into something very different.

Coast News article on four way stop signs

Posted on July 1, 2016


Printed in Coast News June 24, 2010

Traffic scofflaws rejoice

Yes, I’m talking to you — those who probably this very day were guilty of an infraction of the California Code that requires coming to a full stop at every stop sign, even those four-way signs where the cross street gets a car or a pedestrian every few minutes at most.

You may have slowed down to a few feet a second, scanned both directions safely, but as long as those wheels are turning, according to the law it is exactly the same as going through the intersection at full speed.

About a year ago when some people in my neighborhood suggested that they were going to propose another stop sign on the road along the wide greenbelt that is the delight of residents of Village Park, I decided to do a bit of research. I presented my findings to the Encinitas City Council, that the results of dozens of studies show that inappropriate multi-way stop signs, far from preventing accidents, actually increase them.

It’s really not that hard to understand, as good drivers actually have their attention diverted, not by looking for cars or children who could dash into the intersection, but for the police car that might need another ticket to top off his day. To make it worse they often make up lost time by speeding up between stop signs, rather than driving at a steady safe speed all along the corridor.

My arguments about the deeper “moral hazard” of turning law-abiding citizens into law breakers fell on deaf ears. Inertia is a powerful force — whether in multilevel systems of government, like those that determine traffic regulations, or the amount of force converted to heat required to bring a 2-ton vehicle to a full stop. And herein lies the hope for us law-abiding scofflaws who commit the routine crime of performing “California rolling stops.” It is copper. The element that happens to make up as much as 25 percent of brake linings.

Copper is just fine as we normally use it, as wires in our homes and in the pots of upscale cookery. But when heated to high temperatures during breaking there are problems, as a recent editorial in the Union Tribune stated, “ Copper is Toxic. As motorists use their brakes, copper dust is released and settles into roadways … to be washed into storm sewers and roadways. It destroys marine life, plants and animals.”

The editorial does not suggest ways to lessen the use of brakes, but approves of a law to require less copper in them, even though they acknowledge that “not enough is known about the potential environmental hazards from replacement materials.”

Multi-way stop signs, although shown to be worse than useless, are a product of bureaucratic inertia. (Need I mention it also being a sweet piggy bank for cash-strapped local government?) The energy required to change public perception has been too great; but now there is a new force, that of the conservation movement, those of us who care about the environment that provides a home for all the flora and fauna of our world … which just happens to include us.

Unlike traffic lights, which are the best way to regulate two major arteries that cross at an intersection, multi-way stop signs have long been known to be subject to political pressure, and defective in many ways. Now there is this new disclosure. Beyond the waste of millions of gallons each year in starting those cars from a full stop, we have the biological hazard of a toxic material being added to the food chain with each unwarranted stop.

In a world full of intractable problems, this one is amazingly simple to correct. It’s as easy as changing a few words in the California code, or the replacement of most four-way signs with yield signs. But inertia is a powerful force of nature. So while we are waiting for the law to be changed, remember those tickets for rolling stops are expensive, and quoting this column probably won’t get you off.

Stop Signs - When Moral "Hazard" becomes Reality

July 1, 2016

When I wrote an article on four way stop sign for a local weekly newspaper six years ago, we lived in a different country.   "#blacklivesmatter" and all that it represents didn't exist.  We had never had a presidential campaign where the criteria for election is which of the major candidates is less hated, rather than more respected.  When I wrote that article, actually with a touch of irony, to be read in a  white, wealthy coastal city, the following two sentences didn't resonate with the audience.
------
"My arguments about the deeper “moral hazard” of turning law-abiding citizens into law breakers fell on deaf ears...." "Multi-way stop signs, although shown to be worse than useless, are a product of bureaucratic inertia. (Need I mention it also being a sweet piggy bank for cash-strapped local government?)"
------
About an hour ago, I stopped to chat with a sheriff's deputy who was on a side street waiting to ticket those who did not come to a complete stop (details available).  He welcomed a short conversation, but said he had to do his job, and pointed past me to one car that had slowed down, and with no pedestrians or cars nearby, then slowly went through the sign.  "I have to go after him" the officer said, as  he pulled away to come back a few minutes later saying he missed him.   Our conversation continued.  I explained my position, that carefully slowing was preferable to a complete stop, acknowledging that he had to follow the law as written; his then said that this would require a  yield sign. I told him about the proposal for a hybrid sign that would be a virtual roundabout, and explained that most four way stop signed are not "warranted" based on federal criteria but rather installed because of resident's demands to elected officials.

 In justifying his ticketing drivers for an infraction that is all but universally breached, he said something interesting on a larger societal level.  "Stop means stop.  If someone is pummeling someone with a bat,  he must stop, not slow down."  This is telling, as for this police officer, there is no differentiating between a lethal assault that would cripple or kill someone, and a careful rolling though a stop sign that presents not even a heightened risk for harm.  For this officer observing someone breaking the law triggers a reaction, the apprehension and meting out punishment.  If the law breaker is compliant, there will be the issuance of a traffic summons, and perhaps even a cordial "Drive carefully."  If not, if bad moods coincide among the two parties, there can be a tragedy such as I describe below.   

After the officer said that he personally always comes to a complete stop, I asked if members of his family do.  He said they do when the is in the car with them. (I had had this conversation with another deputy who acknowledged his family does not).  While six years ago, the moral hazard I alluded to could only be predicted; but after Ferguson, Baltimore and Sandra Bland -- who driving to her interview for a university position, where a questionable traffic stop set off a chain of events that ended with her death -- it is no long a hazard, but a reality.

While Bland's story is rare, we now know that for many in this country a traffic ticket that can't be paid can change a life.  For those in north coast San Diego, it's usually just an annoyance, but the money to pay traffic fines is there and won't supplant vital medicine or food for the family.   Most even accept the randomness of traffic tickets, that driving 80 on a highway should be suppressed even though only one in a thousand get caught.  Since accidents increase with speed there is a legitimate purpose for suppressing this. This is not the case with carefully rolling through multi way stop signs.

With four way stop signs, the problem is not those who enforce the laws but those who make them.  There may be intersections where a full stop is appropriately mandated, but they are the exception rather than the rule. This is being written to provide tools to city councils to explain that what appears to be enhancing the safety of their children is not doing so, and actually causes other adverse consequences.
 ----------------
Compendium of 70 studies on four way stop signs.
pp2, paragraph 6
  

Safety of pedestrians is decreased at unwarranted multi-way stops, especially small children. It seems that pedestrians expect vehicles to stop at the stop signs but many vehicles have gotten in the habit of running the "unnecessary" stop sign. Thirteen references found this to be their finding.

 

Fourth Jewish Justice- Cause for Celebration or Concern

Today, in the U.S., antisemitism, I prefer the expression "Jew hatred," is only expressed in earshot of those sharing the same sentiments.   Social media has provided private channels, echo chambers, among groups of all persuasions, facilitating out-group animosity.  Religious discrimination is unlawful, as is age, race and sex, yet the campaign promise by Donald Trump to bar every member of a major religion shows how the potential for this exists. This article, "Obama Nominates Another Left Wing Jew to the Supreme Court" conveys the alternative reaction that is not reflected in the main stream media. As these restrictions accumulate, with accompanying norms against even expressions of disdain, more and more people feel oppressed, the phenomenon itself, described as "political correctness," becomes a cause celeb  and a political rally cry for freedom from these restraints.

With freedom to discuss such issues there is often released an overt hostility that had been incubating among those who only spoke about the issues among themselves. What I'm describing is analogous to a supersaturated gas that requires only a seed crystal to cause precipitation, a liquid manifestation of what had been present, but invisible. Out of a clear day first comes clouds and then a downpour. The Trump example of his promise to exclude all Muslims from entering the country, legitimized religious discrimination and made the unspeakable into a mass movement in hours.

This physical phenomenon is a metaphor for the perception that in the United States antisemitism does not exist since there is no public manifestation of it.  In fact the mere addressing the subject, as this writer is now doing, is easily construed as introducing Jew hatred into the existing atmosphere of toleration and respect for Jewish people.  The messenger becomes the problem, rather than the message.   

This article in N.Y. Jewish Week expresses a common viewpoint among many Jews I have spoken to:   

“It is a remarkable testament to America that a fourth Jew can be nominated to the court and that his religion is not an impediment,” said Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Committee.

If confirmed, Garland would fill the seat held by Antonin Scalia, who died last month.

Stern said he believes it unlikely that Garland’s religion will “generate substantial opposition from those who would say there are too many Jews on the court. Nobody is threatening violence against the Jews, as happened in Europe when they thought the Jews were too powerful. … It’s unprecedented in the long history of the diaspora that you have an institution as powerful as the Supreme Court and that there could be four members who are Jewish when Jews constitute less than 2 percent of the population.”

Mr. Stern is saying, "We have arrived, and this disproportionate representation on the high court is cause for celebration.  This sentiment was echoed by the chair of Jewish History at UCSD, along with the writer of  "The Frankfurt School, Jewish Lives and Antisemitism" a book that examines an era exactly like today's when Jew hatred was subtle, shortly to be expressed in catastrophe of  the Nazi genocide.  Both of these scholars Debora Hilton and Jack Jacobs in a private discussion, echoed Mark Stern's position above.  

There was a time when there wasn't a single Jew on the Supreme court, and I would agree that the appointment of Louis Brandeis in 1916 would deserve the celebratory tone of Mr. Sterns article.  Yet, I would argue that being the first, breaking a barrier for this important post, is qualitatively different than being one more of an existing over-represented demographic.

My argument would be the same if the situation were reversed, and there it was a Republican President and his nominee was Catholic.   Then it would be, as it had been when Scalia was alive, that those of this religion being the entirety of the conservative bloc.  The analogy falls apart because Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity, and it's social values on current social issues around abortion and gender is similar to conservative protestants.  While Catholics are vastly over represented,  Christians are still under-represented.
     

Let's jump forward for an unspecified period, and assume that there has been a series of Supreme Court decisions that, from the conservative perspective, has fostered the murder of millions of unborn babies and impeded the teaching of Gods plan of defined gender roles.  And, it could be pointed out that these cultural changes were made by a faction of five un-elected members of the Supreme Court, known as the Liberal Bloc.

Those, such as the writer of the above article, choose not to accept that Jew hatred, something that has existed in various forms for millennia, could surface again.  There are dozens of jurists with credentials comparable to Merrick Garland who could be nominated for this position with similar juresprudential and partisan values; many who are Protestants as are a majority of American citizens with not a single Justice on the Supreme Court, as Antonin Scalia pointed out in the Obergefell decision  This anomaly, and problematic nature of skewed demographic and religious representation on the court was echoed recently by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, specifically stating......“I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,”  

While I do not believe that President Obama gave this representational aspect much thought, and just worked the political calculus of this nomination, it behooves others to look at the possible adverse consequences.  When someone attempts to discern the reality of "Judeo-Bolshevism," the contribution of Jewish values on the Russian Communist Revolution of 1917,  the first question is the the proportion of Jews in the revolutionary leadership.  For objective investigators if there were an  insignificant number, it can be dismissed as a "canard" a lie as it is currently in Wikipedia .  For those who who want to validate their Jew-hatred, the dramatically larger percentage of Jews at the least provides a plausible argument for a connection between Judaism and the event.  The Bolshevik revolution evolved from complex historical causes, multiple demographic levels, such that no religious tradition can be a full explanation of this event.  The Supreme Court is structured, with correlation between religious background and political identification easier to quantify. 

I see this nomination as a time-bomb, that while unlikely ever to explode, there being no valid reason for it to ever exist.  As of now it is unlikely that Mr. Garland will be confirmed by the Senate before the election, yet if he is still the nominee should the Democratic candidate win the election, he would likely be confirmed in a lame duck session after the election but consisting of the  pre-election members of Congress.  Merrick would be the most moderate, and more importantly given his relitively advanced age,  with the shortest tenure to come from a Democratic President.  This will have two effects.   First is the potential for antisemitism due to the decisions by a liberal bloc that could be construed of representing Jewish values and power.  Second is that a younger nominee would have more impact over his/her career in support of liberal values.  

In recent years, the argument that the Supreme Court objectively evaluates the constitutionality of cases has become insupportable whether by statistical or content analysis. Numerous independent groups from both sides of the political spectrum have called for ending the life tenure of Justices, with some type of staggered system to end the random nature of Presidential appointments - some get many; others none.

Since such a constitutional amendment that would be required is unlikely, we are stuck with the randomness of occupancy of this branch. It has the capacity of defining social movements, and advancing those such as gay rights that the legislative-executive process could not. Since the Justices of the Supreme Court are not elected, an approximation of democracy lies in Justice's numerical representation of the public.  Certainly race, gender and ethnic origin  are broadly approximated,while religious identity has become skewed, with only Catholics and Jews on the court at this time.

With Garlands confirmation, the distortion will be exaggerated, which would be fodder for the right wing extremism, often including antisemitism, that appears to be on the march throughout the world.