Your day will come

Being of a certain age, I take offense at being called a "senior."  Since I'm a half century away from being enrolled in a school, I find it to be inappropriate, but of course the real offense is the carefully crafted image of anyone over 65 as a doddering, inept, technophobic imbecile.  For years, Mammon, in full knowledge of my age (and everything else about me) has been sending me advertisements for burial insurance, walk in bathtubs, old age homes and most annoyingly, special idiot phones designed for people held to be less able to make phone calls than those "tech savvy" younger people who rarely can tell a NAND gate from a flip-flop, a J-FET from a Unijunction or a beam tetrode from a tea caddy.

In my experience most of those TS people couldn't tell you how any of their prized electronics work, but that's another matter. Yes, of course more people of my age are in poor health and some have passed away, but the 70 and 80 year old folks in my circle of friends hardly fit the image designed to make the young and inept feel as superior as apparently they need to do.  Not only do few of us have problems with our smart phones, many have had careers designing complex equipment. Friend Walter helped design and launch the first communications satellites, Friend Will helped design the Lunar lander and other fellow codgers of my acquaintance are building a private wireless network using old WiFi routers so that we can phone each other outside the apparatus of the phone companies. All of us of course enjoy being talked down to by 15 year olds who assume we're unable to comprehend the miracle of text messaging.  PSK, RTTY, PACTOR?  Huh? Wazzat?

Sometimes I think I'm of the last generation that knows how things work, but wait, there's more.  Yes, I design and build electronic equipment for fun. Yes, I still ride a heavyweight motorcycle, I still navigate a yacht crammed with electronic equipment and I know people in their 90's who do as well: who build and race cars  and fly planes. Of course some don't, but who the newborns choose as a comical stereotype has more to do with ego boosting than reality -- and age being the last socially acceptable characteristic to mock.

So if you will forgive my digression, I have to turn my ire toward those that corporation named so aptly for a fruit, for making "special" iPads for "seniors."    Your day will come. Some kid now stinking up his diapers will in a few years time, joke about you wearing diapers, call you a Senior and ask in a loud voice if you know how to use something you invented.

To Every Thing there is a Season

Well maybe not to everything, but to some things there is a season.  The Flu comes around in the Autumn, at least in South Florida when the tourists arrive with their runny noses. Hurricanes come around in the Summer.  For other things, like bigotry and propaganda however; like ignorance and intellectual laziness it's constant.  Other things come and go but the bullshit never stops.

Got an e-mail today with a massive address list.  It began HOORAY and told the recipients that we had narrowly escaped a fatal attack on the sacred second amendment when the Senate voted down a UN treaty that would demand confiscation of guns.  Of course the Evil Black Man was behind it but we should remember all those Democratic Senators who voted against our divine right to run guns to terrorists and vote them out of office.

Strange to say, that vote was in May of 2013 and unfortunately many of those Senators now have to work for a living.  Did this fabricated charge  help the GOP hijacking of the Senate?  And of course the treaty in question would have no effect on domestic gun laws or rights whatever. It was aimed at restricting international arms trade -- and remember the US is a major player -- to prevent sales to terrorists, insurgents and to countries violating human rights treaties. HOORAY!  Hooray for the liars and Hooray for the damned fools who support them at their own expense because there is nothing too stupid, too dishonest, too ridiculous for the moon motivated morons of America to believe. No conspiracy too unlikely, no slander too foul to attribute to the gun-grabbing, big spending and N**** loving Democrats

You have to wonder who supports arming ISIS or Boko Haram or any such groups, but of course the answer is right in front of us:  the NRA and the GOP and all the ignorant, hate-filled and demented Americans who spread this crap like special sauce on a shitburger in the hope of poisoning Democracy and ousting the Dreaded Black Man in the White House.

Remember when Clinton secretly turned over the command of our armed forces to the UN?  Of course not, because, like all the other lies, slander and libel it wasn't true and so far all the predictions, accusations and "revelations" about Obama have not and likely will not materialize, but when this country finally fails, and the Bible-quoting, weapon-waving big buck barbarians pick over the corpse of American liberty and prosperity who will remember that they supported it?

The sins of some Fathers

Earth, cover not my blood. Let my cry have no resting place.

Job 16:18

The conceit we show in the invention of our gods is well matched by the assertion that they can do only as much as and no less than we say they can and require our assistance in the small matters of human thought, government and behaviour.  Thus the oldest profession is that which created the need for and the definition of prostitution: the priest and not the whore.  Who will rid us of these troublesome priests?

The lying priest of Vero, as though to spite the name itself,  by his dishonest maledictions and bloody libels against doubters, unbelievers and free thinkers, would have us distracted from  the history of atrocity and repression by attributing the Church's own heinous abominations and bloody handed tyrannies to those who make the rights of man, the freedom and justice for us all their cause.  Our country was not founded nor our constitution drafted by priests or churchmen nor was the concept of our right to take the reins of  government into our own hands part of Christian tradition. Our country was founded in armed and bloody defiance of Church teachings and kings who ruled by divine right. 

The Renascence with its advances in the arts and sciences and architecture and living standards and concepts of justice was met with burnings of men women, books and paintings by the Church of Rome and indeed by others. The age and philosophers of enlightenment and democracy was not the work of  nor was it approved by the Roman Church.  1700 years of human sacrifice, torture and oppression by or with the permission of the Mother Church grants no license to refer  to "Christian" values by any of its members, nor the right to slander Judaism with any false association therewith.

 It's no longer as easy to make scapegoats of the Jews, with some of the world still old enough to remember the bloody history of genocide and murder, but the current assault on secularism, on disbelief and indeed the very right to such opinions is simply a substitute.  Of course the persecution of science and scientists, of poets and philosophers, the suppression of  knowledge, even to the point of  keeping the Bible off limits to those who would read it. . . All this and more is as old as Christianity and the stench of burning astronomers and engineers and heretics and freedom fighters still lingers in the halls of Rome. While the Vatican tries to make amends and to recognize the ability of their God to do as he pleases without consulting parish priests, these evil provincials in black dare to defy and presume to continue the tradition of nearly a hundred generations of treading upon the human soul and the spirit of  freedom that lives there. Are the attacks on Church power he cites better described as a fight for freedom?  Let my cry find no resting place.

Did Hitler slaughter millions because he was an Atheist?  That's a dishonest conjecture at best, but that The Church and it's pope cooperated, received vast sums of bloody money for looking the other way is well documented -- and what can we say of  a "holy" Father who refused not only to excommunicate him and his henchmen, but even to speak out against it  while Jews were being rounded up in full view of the Vatican.  A church that granted the Nazis the power to appoint teachers at Catholic schools.  A Church that wants to make a saint of the Pope who made deals with Hitler, that portrays itself as the real victim?  To talk about God and goodness with such mouths!

If the road to redemption begineth with confession, whither goest the road that begins with denial, is paved with lies, and the pilgrim's progress impelled by venomous rage against the innocent? 

When Religious Freedom Means Religious Intolerance

To read this hate screed, click on image to enlarge.

By (O)CT(O)PUS

The above advertisement appeared in two consecutive issues of our local newspaper.  Two years ago, a controversy disturbed the peace of this sleepy beachside community.  The mayor refused to let a member of the Ethical Humanist Society address the Town Council. Why? EHS members are scorned as atheists.  As George Orwell once said, some citizens are more equal than others, and City Hall is filled with animals.

In response to the above advertisement, I wrote an opinion letter that will be published in our local newspaper next week, as follows:

Our national debate on the role of religion in our public life has taken a troubling turn. Clerics and politicians alike have upped the ante on rhetoric by mischaracterizing opponents with inflammatory language intended to dehumanize, disenfranchise, and silence stakeholders holding opposing viewpoints.

Recently, a paid advertisement called “Religious Freedom?” appeared in the pages of this newspaper. Ostensibly a plug for a book, the advertisement blames the worst atrocities in modern times on the evils of atheism and secularism: “From 1917 to 2007 approximately 148 million people were killed by atheist run countries.” The author employs a cherry-picking fallacy that weaves selected historical events, although true, into a subjective and self-serving narrative that is decidedly untrue.

Ninety years of modern history is a false equivalence compared to a millennium of Crusades, Inquisitions, apostates burned at the stake, forced conversions under penalty of torture, ecclesiastical corruption, simony and the selling of indulgences, the Reformation culminating in the Thirty Years War – all are examples of unrelenting violence in the name of religion that ravaged Europe for a thousand years.

Appeals to prejudice are another fallacy that equates atheism and secularism with Nazism and evil. Was Adolph Hitler an atheist, as implied by the author? In fact, Hitler attended a monastery school, and his vaunted 'Wehrmacht' bore this inscription: “God is with us.”

The worst atrocities always begin with words – incendiary words that deprive people of their citizenship, their human rights, and ultimately their lives. Frankly, I am concerned when a religious leader employs the same techniques of propaganda -- used by demagogues and despots -- to advance a sectarian agenda.

Free speech is not free without the right of reply, nor is it a platform from which others must only listen. In demonizing people, the goal is to shut down democratic discourse and bully those who stand in opposition.

Constrained by a 300-word limit, there is a lot more I could have said.  I could have mentioned the anti-establishment clause in our Constitution, the one that keeps the peace between denominations and ensures religious freedom for all.

I could have mentioned this statement spoken by Pope Francis two years ago, the one that said:  All good people, including atheists, are redeemed in Christ and go to Heaven.  Apparently, the message has not yet reached these humble shores.

Needless to say, I expect flack.  Angry villagers brandishing pitchforks will write letters and demand my neck in a noose.  My next letter will be short and sweet:

Atheists are voters. Baptists are voters. Buddhists are voters. Catholics are voters. Episcopalians are voters. Ethical Humanists are voters. Evangelicals are voters. Jews are voters. Lutherans are voters. Mennonites are voters. Methodists are voters. Mormons are voters. Muslims are voters. Presbyterians are voters. Seventh Day Adventists are voters. Unitarians are voters. Have I left out anyone?

Who among you shall love your neighbors less by depriving them of their right to vote? Who among you shall revoke your neighbors’ citizenship and violate their human rights? Who among you shall vilify and persecute a neighbor on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin, partisan affiliation, or sexual orientation? Who among you shall cast the first stone?

Sophistical Refutations and the Supreme Court

It's too early to predict the Court's ruling on gay marriage, of course, but it's tempting to look at what's been said so far. Perhaps it's impossible to resist it. 

Chief Justice John Roberts:

"You're not seeking to join the institution, you're seeking to change what the institution is. The fundamental core of the institution is the opposite-sex relationship and you want to introduce into it a same-sex relationship."

"If you prevail here, there will be no more debate. I mean, closing of debate can close minds, and it will have a consequence on how this new institution is accepted. People feel very differently about something if they have a chance to vote on it than if it's imposed on them by the courts."

"If Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn't that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?"

(on the question of forcing states that ban same-sex marriage to recognize those unions formed in other states.)

 "It'd simply be a matter of time until they would in effect be recognizing that within the state, because we live in a very mobile society and people move all the time. In other words, one state would basically set the policy for the entire nation." 

Justice Samuel Alito:

"Suppose we rule in your favor in this case and then after that, a group consisting of two men and two women apply for a marriage license. Would there be any ground for denying them a license?"

Justice Elena Kagan:

"It's hard to see how permitting same-sex marriage discourages people from being bonded with their biological children."

Justice Anthony Kennedy:

"The word that keeps coming back to me in this case is millennia, plus time. ... This definition (of marriage) has been with us for millennia. And it's very difficult for the court to say 'Oh well, we know better.'"

"Same-sex couples say, of course, we understand the nobility and the sacredness of the marriage. We know we can't procreate, but we want the other attributes of it in order to show that we, too, have a dignity that can be fulfilled."

We have to allow that some questions that seem to show a negative attitude may simply be of the Devil's Advocate variety, challenging the proponents to present their case differently, but we have to suspect that the preponderance of the Argument from Tradition, generally classed as a fallacious one is being used as a cause to restrict what many if not most see as part of an assumed right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as equal protection under the law.  "It's always been done that way for a long time and who are we to question it?"  

It doesn't take a wit or a historian to suggest the traditional practices of slavery and segregation or debtor's prisons (or worse if we want to look at the Western World of past millennia) persisted mostly because of such arguments.  The difficulty of ruling against tradition is hardly an excuse and in my opinion explains the need for an independent court: a court independent of politics as well as of tradition and religious bias.  "you're seeking change" is hardly an argument for the status quo.  

What about two men and two women?  Well what about it?  Is this the time-worn slippery slope fallacy?   

Roberts argues that recognition of marriages made in other states is likely if not inevitable, which is equally an argument for a positive ruling as a negative one.  Is it like claiming that because murder is on the decrease we don't need to forbid it. That's a fallacious argument and once was used to argue against the emancipation of slaves.  Nobility and sacredness? Are these matters for the courts or for preachers?  What about the nobility and sacredness of the "Rights of Man" that we once defined ourselves as defending?  God is not a citizen, has no Human Rights or rights as a legislator or judge allowed under our laws. God has as many opinions as people put in his mouth and cannot be relied on in questions of law and government. 

People don't like court rulings, says Roberts as though that were an excuse for not making them.  Indeed a constitutional amendment would be one possibility, but it's very difficult and has at least once required bloody war to bring about. But the case is being made on existing law and it would seem to some that the ball is in the other court - the Supreme Court. The question is "why not?" and perhaps the answer has to be better than "Tradition."  All the great advances in liberty have required unpopular, bold and difficult decisions; have involved all sorts of legalistic and casuistic debate, but if the manifest destiny of us all is to advance the cause of personal liberty against the bulwarks of ecclesiastical tradition -- and I think it is -- it's time to just do it.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article19852440.html#storylink=cpy

Rea

Bonfire of the Vanities

Private morality does not seem to me to be the state’s business unless it compromises the public welfare.

-Bishop Shelby Spong-

____________________

It's not the sort of thing that demands a reasoned response, but a local Catholic priest has been buying a lot of ad space in the local papers to excoriate Humanists, Atheists and free thinkers for being the main reason for the world's wars, persecutions and acts of genocide. Heretics and unbelievers you see are attacking "freedom of religion."

I used to say the ability to feel shame was the first victim of  authoritarianism but the ability to see irony obviously rides the adjacent horse. Religious freedom is under attack from those who would extend it to all, he says, quoting the party line. Why put forth such fraudulent history and demented reasoning, why demand that we persecute good people for their thoughts and beliefs by stripping them of their guaranteed rights and protection under the law? Why now?

The Beast is running scared now that 36 states recognize the right to marry whomever we wish and the fear is that freedom of  worship will be broadened to protect those with any beliefs at all, including the belief in reason alone or a belief in the dignity and freedom of mankind.   It takes a certain kind of mind to see freedom as the enemy of freedom, but as I said, shame and irony, those two things that can lead one towards legitimate morality have left the building -- or left the Church if you prefer.

But here I am, leading up to the obviously useless argument from reason and fact.  As any  historian should know, it takes violence and threats of violence to convert us, there being no valid arguments for what they've been selling for so long. The appeal to the ignorant and tribal mob, to the tinhorn crusaders against the fulfillment of the promise of liberty is of course an attempt to bypass the Supreme Court, which is scheduled today to hear a case that could result in a decision to extend marriage rights to all, regardless of  one's State of residence. I can smell the desperation and fear and it smells like burning witches.

The argument that the Federal Government does not have the right to overturn state restrictions on personal choices would seem to have been rendered moot or at least Stare Decisis after the 1967 Loving V. Virginia ruling but the persistence of ugly, irrational and often vicious tyranny is the nature of churches as Thomas Jefferson and his friends often and emphatically noted. They will not give up if they have to cut a swath through the law and decency itself to get at the devils they see everywhere and the demand that states be able to nullify Federal Law ad libidum  or according to their Bibles will not disappear any time soon.

Religious leaders are urging "liberal" members of the court to recuse themselves from hearing today's arguments in a move that seems unique to me. Asking a judge to refrain from using the law as a basis for decision is arguably bizarre if not shameful and ironic, Demanding that the courts not be able to allow sin and heresy is illegal, shameful and ironic, but as I said. . .

The Restrain the Judges on Marriage Act of 2015 -- The Protect Marriage from the Courts Act: bills to forbid "Liberal" judges from ruling on cases that might lead to decisions unfavorable to the dictates of  certain Christian churches have been introduced in the Senate and the House by the usual religious wackadoodles like Ted Cruz.  Evidently it isn't only the job of President they wish to take over by fiat.

No, I'm not trying to argue with madness, it would be madness again to do so. I'm only begging you to write your senators and congressmen and demand they respect the letter and spirit of the US constitution and vote against turning over the reins of government to would-be tyrants, waving flags, carrying Gospels and shitting on Liberty.

Criminalizing Childhood

Are we living in a virtual police state?  My question goes beyond recent news accouts of brutal force meted out by law enforcement officers.  My question refers to less publicized reports of official bullying inflicted upon children and parents by schools and government agencies that exceed all reasonable standards of common sense.  Apparently, we have engendered an attitude of law-and-order so severe, we have consigned ourselves to “behavioral modification hell.”  Here is one example, Autistic Eleven Year Old Arrested and Handcuffed:

When Kayleb Moon-Robinson, an eleven-year old diagnosed with autism, kicked a trashcan in frustration, his school issued a new rule that required him to wait for other students to vacate a classroom before he would be allowed to exit.  When he violated the rule, the principal sent a ‘school resource officer’ — their euphemism for a police officer employed by the school — who arrested him. 

Kayleb was not only charged with disorderly conduct, but also felony assault on a police officer.  His mother, Stacey Doss — herself the daughter of a police officer — was shocked by the callous treatment of her son.

This case is not unique.  The state of Virginia leads the nation in treating students with disciplinary problems as law enforcement matters.  The school-to-prison pipeline is filled with special needs students who do not conveniently conform to the assembly lines of public education - children with AD/HD, children with developmental disabilities, children with learning disabilities, and far too many minority children from hardscrabble backgrounds.

A qualified teacher should know the stereotypic signs of childhood autism - agitation, irritability, and frustration – and know how to deal with them.  We should not be turning developmental disability disorders into a criminal offense!  Postscript:  A juvenile court found Kayleb guilty on all counts charged against him. Next: Free-range kids and our parenting police state:

In a bizarre war over how much freedom children should have outside the home, the youngest combatants are Rafi and Dvora Meitiv - a pair of siblings age 11 and 6 respectively.  The siblings were 2 1/2 blocks from their home when local police received an anonymous call that reported them - walking together.

The children insisted that they knew where they were, knew their way home, and had the permission of their parents.  Undeterred, the officer ordered the Meitiv siblings into the patrol car.

“The police … kept them trapped there for three hours, without notifying us [my bold], before bringing them to the Crisis Center and holding them there without dinner for another two and a half hours,” their mom said. “We finally got home at 11 pm, and the kids slept in our room because we were all exhausted and terrified.”

In the small rural community where I grew up, my parents often sent me on errands.  Since my playmates lived on farms far from town, long walks and even longer bicycle rides were routine.  Today, families no longer have the easy freedoms of a bygone era, and parents no longer have authority over their own kids.

Postscript:  A Montgomery County Court found the parents guilty of ‘unsubstantiated’ child neglect. Next: Eighth Grader Arrested and Charged With Cybercrime for Changing Desktop Wallpaper:

Eighth-grader Domanik Green, 14, of Holiday, Florida, was arrested and charged with unauthorized access of a computer system - a felony offense.

The County Sheriff's department took action after the boy used an administrative password to log onto a school computer. While accessing the machine, he changed the background wallpaper to an image of two men kissing.

Eighth-grader Green discovered the password by watching his teacher. The password was easy to remember, the boy admitted, because it was the teacher’s last name.

Originally suspended from school for three days, Green was later arrested when the school filed additional charges. The computer contained state standardized test questions, although they were encrypted. The police say Green did not access them.

In other words, the boy was punished, not for the childish prank he did commit, but for the crime he didn’t commit.  Kids have always been kids, and most reasonable adults recognize these growing pains.  These days, however, callously insensitive officials are abusing their authority by imposing strict conformity - thus turning normal kids into felons.

Are you as outraged as I am?  Not enough?  How about this incident: Police Taser Ten-Year Old Boy:

A ten-year old boy attending a Career Day event at his local school expected it to be educational and fun.  Instead, the boy ended up in the emergency room.

According to papers filed in Federal court, police officers drove onto the school grounds, where one of the officers asked a group of boys to clean his patrol car.

When one of the boys refused, the officer said:  “Let me show what happens to people who do not listen to the police." He then fired his Taser gun at the boy's chest. The officer claimed his Taser gun misfired accidentally.

Instead of calling paramedics, the officer took it upon himself to yank out the wires imbedded in the boy’s chest, which required emergency medical care.  As a result of the battery, the boy now suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.

This is what we get when we let brutal authority take control over our lives. Are you angry enough now!

Deeply Troubling...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Here we are, held spell bound by the nuttery and irrationality of a Tea Party and Evangelical favorite.

If this is even remotely representative of the intelligence and mentality of a large number on the right this nation is in deep doo-doo should it ever get control of all three branches of government.

Think a Christian Theocracy, one every bit as dangerous to individual liberty and religious freedom as any theocracy anywhere on the globe.

These people are a serious threat to the enlightened principals and ideals this democratic republic was founded on.




Read MORE HERE.

Obama makes voting mandatory!

Or not.

I'm waiting in line for a hot dog. To me, it's the best of times.  I'm at an annual event put on by Amateur Radio enthusiasts with seminars and a flea market selling all sorts of things only understood and desired by techno-nerds like me. But it's the worst of times too of course, and you can't go anywhere where people congregate without seeing people with pamphlets and bumper stickers, whispering and nudging about the bad news:  "Obama is going to" do this or that or has already done it.  Some of it is distorted truth, much of it, nearly all of it is unadulterated bullshit.

So this raggedy looking guy wearing a filthy Yaesu hat is chatting up the woman handling the cash box.

 "Did you hear that Obama is going to make voting compulsory? The next step is universal military service and. . ."

"Bullshit" I said.  "He doesn't have the authority or any reason to do either of those and he isn't running for office or starting any wars."

" Executive order!" he replied. Yaesu boy seemed taken aback to have anyone fail to answer, "yeah, that Obama. . ."  Not in these parts, not in rural America.

I seem to remember Rush once telling us that the president had arranged to allow only black people to vote in some town or other, but hey. . .

Last week a flatbed truck passed me on the Interstate and yes, I was doing just under 90.  It had a large plywood sign across the tailgate declaring that THE BIGGEST DANGER TO OUR FREEDOM IS THE WHITE HOUSE. The word 'white' was printed in red. Get it?  Red, 'cause ya see he's a Communist, hahaha. . .

Somehow the building at 1600 Pennsylvania seemed less immediately dangerous than a filthy truck full of angry and deranged rednecks weaving through traffic at nearly a hundred.  The quick eye could see the rear window bearing vinyl letters saying " Muslims killed 4 Americans and he went over there and apologized to them"

Of course he didn't nor did he seriously declare a mission to make us vote or to draft us into the military but facts never matter, do they?


Wednesday's paper had a political cartoon showing something that looks like Daffy Duck declaring that Obama's desire to force us to vote stemmed from the truth that the only people who would vote for him were lazy, shiftless parasites. I know what it would have said had the editor not balked at the n word.  Was he elected twice by a majoity of voters who DID turn out?  Bullshit heaped on bullshit, smeared with racism and served on a steaming bun of self-contradiction. Think Obama would want these people to vote? Get it? 'Cause they're psychotic idiots!

Want some Freedom Fries with that?

All Lives Matter

There was a thing called the Niagara Movement.  Founded over a hundred years ago to make a case for a confrontational approach to the problems of segregation and against the idea of negotiation, accommodation patience and compromise that the movement's leaders associated with Booker T. Washington.

In a way, it's typically American and we can look at the way we sing "Bomb Bomb Iran" on one day and try to negotiate a rational outcome on the other and seem not to be successful either way except to argue about what can be said, and how and by whom.

There is another thing called the Niagara Principle, according to which a single episode implies widespread occurrence. Movements of all sorts use it, to cherry pick examples and make them the paradigm and usually without statistical support. Having become cynical in this age of warring movements, I'm tempted to distrust them all and see a nest full of baby birds, mouths open and competing for attention.

So it is with war, revolution, genocide and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in a world shuffling toward armageddon, the question of which puppets and patsies and spokesmen for which warring movements will be selected to be our next president?  -- we're not going to hear about it for another period of time.  A black man was shot in the back by a South Carolina cop and the national passion play will begin anew. Entropy increases and in America, so does partisanship. When those things increase, so does the power and influence of those who profit by it.

We'll be told the call and response  is a "conversation" but anyone attempting to make it one may well be called a racist and have to tearfully retract such an eminently Humanist statement as "all lives matter" because it does not fit the mandated terminology of some movement dedicated to promote one problem and one view of it over another. Stick to the slogan. That's all, and it's not a subset of a greater, nobler and more enlightened principle.

I'll be blunt. We have a problem with over-armed, under-trained and fearful police. It's compounded by the fact that the police have to deal with a high percentage of poor and minority criminals and that leads to prejudice. We have a problem with indigent populations having inadequate opportunity for advancement or even the will to hope for it.   But it isn't enough to recognize this or to attempt to improve it, we have to use prescribed language, we have to ignore, forgive or explain away crime insurrection, rioting and violence and we have to stress that any picture must have a prescribed frame.  We can't call it prejudice, it has to be racism and we can't call it that unless we dictate who the target is. Shut up  -- we're having a conversation here.

We have a problem with every moral and legal and political principle and the language we use to describe it being hijacked by self-appointed authority. We have a problem with honesty and zeal and distortion and hyperbole and tunnel vision and  partisanship and  most of all, we have a problem separating the cause from the leaders and the institutions. Stating the case isn't making the case and the case we state isn't always more than a small part of a great Niagara washing us all to hell and oblivion and chaos.

If all lives don't matter, then life doesn't matter, yours or mine.