The other day I was standing in line at the bank and a guy there asked me if I believed in Jesus Christ. I said no.
He told he why he did, how he could go to sleep knowing if he died in the night he'd be all set, on his way to Heaven or whatever.
"It's a no brainer!" he said. "You just accept Jesus as your savior and the rest is automatic."
I said, "Sounds like it might be too easy."
The line moved, and he sort of pivoted away, his confidence clearly unshaken. Later I considered what I might have said—though I could think of no good reason why I would have bothered to say it. But let's pretend:
"You say it's a no brainer," I might have said. "Maybe I can make it a 'brainer' for you."
See, there's a great deal of slack built into the thought processes of a religious person. Like: Is any of this stuff real? The average Joe has no reason to doubt, of course. Being human, he knows it's real. Everything in a human brain is real. I mean, what's it doing in there if it's not real?
(Seriously, why in the world would God allow nonsense to take up room inside our lovely noggins?)
But just to amuse myself:
"What if the Jews are right?" I might have asked the guy in the bank. "What if God is real, but Jesus of Nazareth is a fictional character?"
Which is something to worry about, because Christians might be putting themselves in mortal danger. They show up at Heaven's Gate with an all-access pass signed by Jesus and God is like: "Hold up there, cowboy! I got no children—that I know of!"
"That can't be!"
Sure, it can.
"This is getting old," God says. "I long ago got tired of seeing you guys at my door. So I built a special place in Hell for you. Enjoy!"
And down you go. Forever.
Could be the same deal with folks playing along with Pascal's Wager. Believe in God (the gambling philosopher says) because it's easy and the rewards are awesome! Costs you nothing if you're wrong.
Yes, but only if you're wrong. The real problem comes if you're right.
God, presumably, can see into your heart—into your cynical, conniving heart. What are the odds there's not a hot corner of the Pit set aside for Wager people? Still feel like betting?
Asked if atheists can get into Heaven, Pope Francis said yes, because God's mercy is infinite.
(I suppose that's meant to be good news for folks who can't make up their minds on the evidence provided, but since Heaven is described as a never-ending snuggle with the Big Guy, I'm not so sure it's such a good deal for me. Though I may be wrong. Perhaps in the "flesh" the dude is a delightful companion. Barring that, God might reach into my ethereal head and make me think I'm having a good time.)
But get this: The outcome for sincere atheists might actually be better than that for folks trying a popular work-around to get past the gatekeeper to Heaven.
Point is: Nobody knows—though almost everybody thinks they do. Which leads to a tricky conundrum: A little "knowledge" might set you up for infinite trouble.
I wish us all luck with that one.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Friday, May 18, 2018
MESSAGES
Kim Jong-un threatens to pull out of the June summit, citing at least two gripes: 1) joint US-South Korean military exercises taking place at his back door, and 2) statements from National Security Advisor John Bolton to the effect we are looking for the Libya model of nuclear disarmament to be used on North Korea.
The White House responded to the first issue by pointing out these exercises were typical of the region and long in the planning. Despite our interest in the denuclearization of North Korea, once a thing is planned it cannot be canceled. The schedules had been printed up and everything. Sorry.
(Besides, stopping now would be a sign of weakness, right?)
As for Bolton's statement, the President blithely contradicted the man (who was standing right there). Apparently we are not interested in regime change. Libyan leader Qaddafi gave up his nuclear aspirations and soon found himself dragged from a desert culvert and beset by murderous thugs.
Kim, on the other hand, is to be given "protections" that will prevent such rude treatment, and will be, as Trump says, "very very happy."
(We've offered to make his country rich, but all he wants is the lifting of sanctions.)
Here's an idea: Would it be possible to conduct these discussions at the time of the discussions, and not months before, unilaterally and piecemeal?
One of the problems with this administration is that every vague thought is broadcast or tweeted out or leaked by concerned staffers within seconds of that thought crossing the presidential mind. The level of chatter coming from the White House is always set at maximum, implying action is imminent across the board.
War with Iran? Any minute now. Missiles headed to North Korea? Sure, why not? Fire and fury, baby! Elsewhere, we'll pull out of Syria so we can double-down on Afghanistan. Plus Yemen, the US ganged up with Saudi Arabia.
Chaos is our brand now.
Whatever it is, we don't have time to think it through. Things have to be set in motion at once, to avoid getting caught up in the government shutdown triggered by Trump not getting his Wall funded.
Meanwhile, the very existence of the Trump Administration is undermined by the steady drumbeat of charges and guilty pleas coming from the Mueller investigation.
(Twenty-five hundred pages of testimony about the "dirt" meeting at Trump Tower!)
Rudy Giuliani now claims the meeting led to no collusion because the dirt wasn't used by the Trump campaign. Another mistaken statement? Or was dirt produced by the Russians after all?
Giuliani is like the dog that traipsed through the OJ murder scene, covering the place in bloody paw prints. Will it ever be possible to piece this thing together?
The White House responded to the first issue by pointing out these exercises were typical of the region and long in the planning. Despite our interest in the denuclearization of North Korea, once a thing is planned it cannot be canceled. The schedules had been printed up and everything. Sorry.
(Besides, stopping now would be a sign of weakness, right?)
As for Bolton's statement, the President blithely contradicted the man (who was standing right there). Apparently we are not interested in regime change. Libyan leader Qaddafi gave up his nuclear aspirations and soon found himself dragged from a desert culvert and beset by murderous thugs.
Kim, on the other hand, is to be given "protections" that will prevent such rude treatment, and will be, as Trump says, "very very happy."
(We've offered to make his country rich, but all he wants is the lifting of sanctions.)
Here's an idea: Would it be possible to conduct these discussions at the time of the discussions, and not months before, unilaterally and piecemeal?
One of the problems with this administration is that every vague thought is broadcast or tweeted out or leaked by concerned staffers within seconds of that thought crossing the presidential mind. The level of chatter coming from the White House is always set at maximum, implying action is imminent across the board.
War with Iran? Any minute now. Missiles headed to North Korea? Sure, why not? Fire and fury, baby! Elsewhere, we'll pull out of Syria so we can double-down on Afghanistan. Plus Yemen, the US ganged up with Saudi Arabia.
Chaos is our brand now.
Whatever it is, we don't have time to think it through. Things have to be set in motion at once, to avoid getting caught up in the government shutdown triggered by Trump not getting his Wall funded.
Meanwhile, the very existence of the Trump Administration is undermined by the steady drumbeat of charges and guilty pleas coming from the Mueller investigation.
(Twenty-five hundred pages of testimony about the "dirt" meeting at Trump Tower!)
Rudy Giuliani now claims the meeting led to no collusion because the dirt wasn't used by the Trump campaign. Another mistaken statement? Or was dirt produced by the Russians after all?
Giuliani is like the dog that traipsed through the OJ murder scene, covering the place in bloody paw prints. Will it ever be possible to piece this thing together?
Friday, May 11, 2018
THE NOBILITY OF DONALD TRUMP
President Trump will meet Kim Jong-un next month in Singapore to discuss the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Best outcome, the two Koreas will start on the path to reunification and reasonable—if not stunning—economic success in the future. (Assuming Kim's idea of a united Korea is not just a bigger, nastier version of the current North Korea.)
Trump was asked if he should get the Nobel Peace prize for this. The man grinned. "Everybody thinks so, but I would never say it."
Since "everybody" has to include the Nobel selection committee, the award must be a lock. After all, Obama got one, and if Obama can do it, the Anti-Obama should also be able to haul one in. Seems only reasonable.
So, what was Trump's contribution to the peace process? Insulting the man personally and threatening the utter destruction of his country.
Clearly, an American president is entitled to any number of awards for behaving like this, representing, as it does, the very essence of diplomacy and statesmanship.
In reality, this show is all Kim's. His desire to reunify North and South, if achieved, will make his contribution to Korean history impossible to ignore. He will emerge the greatest of the iconic Kim family, and his image will straddle the peninsula like a colossus. He will be remembered long after Trump's name has sunk to the level of a corroded footnote.
And the timing has nothing to do with the American president (whoever it might be).
Kim only needed to demonstrate the ability to send nuclear-tipped ICBMs to every state in the US. And he's done that. (Ignoring, for the moment, the technicality of testing the protective measures needed to insure his warheads could function after reentering the atmosphere.)
Having this bargaining chip in his arsenal allows him to more forward with his mission to bring the two Koreas together again. And the victory goes to his country's scientific prowess, as urged on by Kim's relentless (and brutal) leadership.
Trump can't make Kim's plan succeed. He can only stand in the way of it happening.
He's got to hope they give out Peace Prizes for starting wars, too.
Trump was asked if he should get the Nobel Peace prize for this. The man grinned. "Everybody thinks so, but I would never say it."
Since "everybody" has to include the Nobel selection committee, the award must be a lock. After all, Obama got one, and if Obama can do it, the Anti-Obama should also be able to haul one in. Seems only reasonable.
So, what was Trump's contribution to the peace process? Insulting the man personally and threatening the utter destruction of his country.
Clearly, an American president is entitled to any number of awards for behaving like this, representing, as it does, the very essence of diplomacy and statesmanship.
In reality, this show is all Kim's. His desire to reunify North and South, if achieved, will make his contribution to Korean history impossible to ignore. He will emerge the greatest of the iconic Kim family, and his image will straddle the peninsula like a colossus. He will be remembered long after Trump's name has sunk to the level of a corroded footnote.
And the timing has nothing to do with the American president (whoever it might be).
Kim only needed to demonstrate the ability to send nuclear-tipped ICBMs to every state in the US. And he's done that. (Ignoring, for the moment, the technicality of testing the protective measures needed to insure his warheads could function after reentering the atmosphere.)
Having this bargaining chip in his arsenal allows him to more forward with his mission to bring the two Koreas together again. And the victory goes to his country's scientific prowess, as urged on by Kim's relentless (and brutal) leadership.
Trump can't make Kim's plan succeed. He can only stand in the way of it happening.
He's got to hope they give out Peace Prizes for starting wars, too.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
IRON-BOUND ALIBI (REVISED)
White House lawyer Rudy Giuliani, apparently with President Trump's backing, recently described the $130,000 hush money payout to porn star Stormy Daniels in such a way as to avoid any possibility critics could say that bribe was an illegal use of campaign funds.
Giuliani seemed quite pleased with the result, the way he demolished claims the campaign had acted incorrectly. Instead, he proved Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, did indeed break campaign financing laws.
Nice going, Rudy!
So, how did he do that? The man made it clear Trump reimbursed his lawyer after the election. (Does this mean Trump was lying when he claimed he knew nothing of any payment? Maybe. See below.) Because Cohen had ponied up his own money, no campaign funds were used, and that makes all the difference, according to Giuliani.
The problem is, the fault in Cohen's action was never about an illegal use of campaign funds. It was about an illegal contribution to the campaign. And the fact Trump paid the guy back after the election—if it is a fact; Cohen seems to say otherwise—doesn't nullify that illegal act.
(Here's the thing: Cohen may not realize he was paid back because Trump assigned the man's monthly retainer to the task; it's not clear if even Trump knew he was doing it at the time—this interpretation may have been designed to keep the hush money from being paid with campaign money, retroactively.)
By paying off a troublesome porn star, keeping her from making salacious statements just before the election, Cohen performed a monetary action in furtherance of the Trump campaign. In effect, that's a $130,000 contribution to the campaign, an amount of money beyond the limits dictated by campaign finance law.
Sure, the campaign is now off the hook, which makes Trump happy. But is this the right message to send to Cohen at a time when he's being pressured to flip on his famous client?
Further, Daniels's lawyer showed a document on Late Night With Stephen Colbert that suggests the California Attorney General might have jurisdiction over the hush money payment (which was made through a San Francisco bank)—rendering any secret promise by the President to pardon his lawyer out of bounds.
Again, not what Trump needs Cohen to hear while the man is deciding whether or not to cooperate with authorities.
Trump, of course, is always eager to claim he's done nothing wrong at any time. ("No collusion, and everybody knows it!") And if that attitude negatively impacts on those around him, folks loyally acting on his behalf, so be it.
But in this case, the President's reflex to claim innocence might just trigger an action aimed directly at his heart.
Ah, the irony.
Giuliani seemed quite pleased with the result, the way he demolished claims the campaign had acted incorrectly. Instead, he proved Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, did indeed break campaign financing laws.
Nice going, Rudy!
So, how did he do that? The man made it clear Trump reimbursed his lawyer after the election. (Does this mean Trump was lying when he claimed he knew nothing of any payment? Maybe. See below.) Because Cohen had ponied up his own money, no campaign funds were used, and that makes all the difference, according to Giuliani.
The problem is, the fault in Cohen's action was never about an illegal use of campaign funds. It was about an illegal contribution to the campaign. And the fact Trump paid the guy back after the election—if it is a fact; Cohen seems to say otherwise—doesn't nullify that illegal act.
(Here's the thing: Cohen may not realize he was paid back because Trump assigned the man's monthly retainer to the task; it's not clear if even Trump knew he was doing it at the time—this interpretation may have been designed to keep the hush money from being paid with campaign money, retroactively.)
By paying off a troublesome porn star, keeping her from making salacious statements just before the election, Cohen performed a monetary action in furtherance of the Trump campaign. In effect, that's a $130,000 contribution to the campaign, an amount of money beyond the limits dictated by campaign finance law.
Sure, the campaign is now off the hook, which makes Trump happy. But is this the right message to send to Cohen at a time when he's being pressured to flip on his famous client?
Further, Daniels's lawyer showed a document on Late Night With Stephen Colbert that suggests the California Attorney General might have jurisdiction over the hush money payment (which was made through a San Francisco bank)—rendering any secret promise by the President to pardon his lawyer out of bounds.
Again, not what Trump needs Cohen to hear while the man is deciding whether or not to cooperate with authorities.
Trump, of course, is always eager to claim he's done nothing wrong at any time. ("No collusion, and everybody knows it!") And if that attitude negatively impacts on those around him, folks loyally acting on his behalf, so be it.
But in this case, the President's reflex to claim innocence might just trigger an action aimed directly at his heart.
Ah, the irony.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)