WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
NEW
Movie Links
08/13/2026
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 08/027/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 08/13/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Friday, September 11, 2026

RL: American Voters Are Easy

 The title of this article was inspired by the Earth Girls Are Easy movie title with 'RL' standing for Real Life.

Of course, saying that any girl is easy in today's venacular means that it does not take much time or effort to gain sexual favors from them. And so when one says that American voters are easy, what is being said is that their voting favors are easy to win.

There are a variety of reasons why American voters are easy. One reason is that we have, for as long as I have been alive which goes back to the Eisenhower Presidency and that preceded the 9/11 attacks,  a lazy, bipolar Democracy. BTW, I actually had to confirm the timing of Eisenhower's Presidency to a high school kid when we were discussing history.

By lazy, I mean that we take relatively little to no both time and effort in deciding for whom to vote. For too many of us, our party affiliation determines how we vote. For too many of the rest of Americans, political commercials settle our decisions.

I use the word 'bipolar' because of our two-party system that consists of the Repubican and Democratic parties. Both of those parties hate third party competition from their respective share of voters from the conservative-liberal divide in our nation. Each of those parties has worked to suppress the exposure of names of third party candidates on the election ballots. And so for almost 100% of the time, the behaviors of the major political parties  during the elections fixes the election. In addition, either party loyaty or fear/hatred of the opposing party keeps us voting for either Democrat or Republican candidates. In addition, the viability of a third candidate also keeps us corralled into the Republican or Democratic herd.

But what about "independent voters"? Here, we should also focus on the laziness of American voters. Certainly, our two-party system makes our voting choices easy to make. And so it makes us lazy voters. Lazy voters are easy voters. And so, again, what about the independent voters? Have they escaped the laziness of other voters?

The answer is a firm 'NO!' They might be a bit less lazy than our counterparts who are too loyal to their respective parties. but they are not off the hook. Why is that the case? For most independent voters, their laziness has to do with the kind of society we have.

There are two factors that drive our society that can cause voters to be lazy. The first factor is that we have a consumer society. And in a consumer society, the tendency is for people to find a large part of their personal significance in what and how much we consume. Our consumerism not only dulls our concerns for higher values, it bestows on us a political Attention Deficit Disorder so that we don't have the patience or interest to weigh through the details of the tradeoffs that each candidate brings to the table. Those previously mentioned higher values incluse human rights, a non-toxic environment, a good education system especially for low income neighborhoods, law enforcement and the justice systems, and an economic system that, tragically,  currently revolves around shareholders. That reductionism eliminates other stakeholders of our economic system from consideration like the environment, respect and adequate compensation for all employees both foreign and domestic, consumers, neighborhoods and even educational institutions. 

Now add to that the role that advertising plays in our purchases. Advertising relies on selling a statu, that possession of a product can bring, or it relies on a single benefits that owning a given product brings. What we will never hear from any political advertisements are the tradeoffs that come with the selection of any candidate. And so our political advertisements mirror our product advertisements in that they rely on, using a Rush Limbaugh phrase, symbolism over substance.

Think of many of the car advertisements we are shown. They often focus both on the looks of a car and the image it projects more than on any other quality. Think of how our food is advertised. Restaurants focus on the taste of the food so that its nutritional provision and its safety in terms of preparation and added contents are overlooked. And what about the advertisements for clothes? Advertisements of focus on the status that wearing such clothes will bring and neglect to inform us about the plight of those who actually make the clothes.

Now think about how our political candidates are advertised in their commercials. Again, it's all about image. When political issues are included, they are greatly reduced to perhaps  one or two positions so that the potential of a given candidate is based on overly simplistic thinking. Candidates must project a strong, patriotic image who will help return America to a place of strength and leadership while reducing taxes and normal costs.  

But what makes our nation strong? Is it military capabilities or dominating others? Also, what is the price of reduced taxes if such reductions require that our national debt continues to spike so that it can cause our economy to collapse?

Like the claims made by the advertisements for the products we buy, the tradeoffs of the suggestions of the advertisements are not in sight. And the same goes for obeying the political campaign advertisements.

BTW, what are tradeoffs? A tradeoff includes the costs and benefits of any choice we make. For example, I am told that while I might enjoy the taste of the food and the speed at which fast food is delivered, there are costs. The fast food might have unnecesary ingredients that improve the appearance and taste of the food while toxically prolonging food storage. And its preparation might be harmful to my health, especially in the long-run. Such food might also not be as nutritious as I have been led to believe. Or so I have been told.

Because we have been consumed with consuming and advertising has been designed to kill our curiosity, we tend to put little effort into discovering the tradeoffs that come with electing the candidates we are favoring. 

Take the 2024 election of Donald Trump as an example. We had already seen, first-hand, how his first administration left the nation in utter chaos. And that state existed before the January 6th attempted coup. But because the Repubs painted such a negative image of Biden and Harris while strongly promoting Trump's abilities and positions, too many of us fell for the Republican claims for Trump hook, line, and sinker. 

For the most part, American voters are easy. And because of that, we have Trump as President and a worsening of the candidates we choose from in our elections. The old line, 'you get what you pay for,' applies here. That is because the quality of our candidates corresponds not with money, but with disruption, patience, research, anxiety, reflecting, and investigating the candidates and the issues before we vote. Though right now, not voting for Trump seems like the best alternative, perhaps some day in the future, neither of our two political parties will be way off the rails like today's Republican Party. And should that time occur, it would serve us well to consider voting for third party candidates as much as we feel comfortable with voting for candidates from our nation's two major political parties.





Tuesday, September 8, 2026

Views From The Outside For September 8, 2026

 Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

  • France24
    1. Germany’s Domestic Spy Agency Designates AfD As 'Right-Wing Extremist' Party
    2. Russian Drone Strikes Ukraine Security Service HQ
    3. Why Early Warning Signs Of Glacier Collapse In Nepal Were Difficult To Detect
    4. Iran Hits US Targets In Mideast, Wedding Strikes Being Probed, Vance Says
    5. Israeli Attacks In West Bank At 'Unprecedented' Level, PNI Leader Barghouti Says

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>


Friday, September 4, 2026

In These Midterms, A Vote For A Republican Is A Vote For ...

Trump and his agenda. Why is that? It is because Republican members of Congress have overwhelmingly supported Trump's agenda and appointments. Look past the commercials describing how a Republican candidate is on your side because of a particular issue they supported, that candidate is more concerned with Trump's approval than yours. And that is despite the fact that there are only a few instances in which enough Republicans broke ranks to challenge a Trump supported  policy. And so a vote for a Republican is a vote for the following.

  • Climate Change Denial
  • Medical Science Denial
  • Using threats of withdrawing important research funds to coerce Universities to submit to his will.
  • An increasingly authoritarian Executive Branch
  • A hierarchical society where some groups are privileged over other groups. A hierarchical society comes with authoritarian governments.
  • Opposition to the basic foundation of Democracy which is diversity, equity, and inclusion (a.k.a., equality) without which there is no Democracy regardless of the democratic procedures being followed.
  • An increase in systemic racism. This is evidenced by gerrymandering that reduces black representation in government and restricting blacks from the telling of black history in America in order to promote an American history that is approved of by conservative whites.
  • An future increase in sexism as is evident in the Project 2025 proposals.
  • An increased intensity in oligarchic control of the government and the economy. To find our shadow government, one must follow the money, not the bureaucracy. An attack on the bureaucracy has resulted in attacks on democratic controls on business.
  • A foreign policy that is cozying up to dictators and attacks  now former allies. That is because the criteria that Trump uses for a successful President consists of domination and acquisition. This is primarily seen in the use of tariffs. But it is also seen in the use of military force and military foreign aid.
  • A domestic policy that rewards oligarchs and slashes social safety net programs for those who are vulnerable. Trump has already publicly said that because of his plans for the military, social safety nets like Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs must be turned over to the states because his federal government cannot support social safetnet programs and what he is planing for the military. It is the Military Industrial complex that most benefits from many of Trump's plans.
  • A ballooing National Debt that could, in the near future, cause our nation's economy to collapse.
  • A President who constantly, lies and gaslights us about the news, and berates almost every source of dissent.
  • A country that is becoming more and more like Russia whose government is an oligarchy that displays a religious façade.
  • Putin and his agenda. After all, Putin wants a weak America and E.U. Trump seems to be doing his best to weaken both entities.

Obviously, the above list is incomplete, but it should be adequate enough to deter rational voters from voting for those Republicans who have supported and enabled Trump's agenda.

Under the Republican control, Congress has simply provided a rubber stamp to what Trump wants. In other words, Congress no longer functions as a check on the Executive branch. If we want to Make Congress Relevant Again, we cannot afford to vote for almost any Republican candidate. Because Congress has been bowing down at Trump's feet, we are watching our government, political system, and nation become like a truck heading down a mountain road with no brakes and no steering. It is only a matter of time before the damage done by Donald Trump to our government and nation becomes irreversible.

Finally, we should be able to ascertain that Trump needs professional help, not power. He is a very damaged person who should be encouraged and invited to resign in order to be able to acquire the help he needs.




Saturday, August 15, 2026

Blog Break

Please note that the dates from the last posting of this blogpost have changed.

For personal reasons I am taking a blog break from posting from Saturday, August 15th to Thursday, September 3rd.
 The next new post will be on Friday, September 4th. In the meantime, you can visit some of the other pages on this blog accessed through the tabs shown above or the incomplete list below. 

Other Pages

  1. Audio-Visual Library Page (this is my favorite page on the website)--has recently been updated
  2. Activism page
        Needs updating
  3. Favorite Articles page
        Needs updating
  4. Favorite Websites page
        Needs updating
  5. Past Blog Posts page
       Needs updating

Friday, August 14, 2026

Has Iran Been Using A Rope-A-Dope Strategy On The U.S.

The Rope-A-Dope was a fighting approach that came from Muhammad Ali's training for his fight with George Foreman. That fight was entitled, The Rumble In The Jungle.

The fight occurred when I was in college. I remember talking to a friend about it and we both thought that Ali had bitten off way more than he could chew. Why? Ali had, by that time, 2 epic fights with Joe Frazier. Frazier won the first fight and it took Ali all he could muster to beat Frazier in their second fight. They fought a third time after Ali's fight with Foreman.

Meanwhile, Foreman easily disposed of Frazier in their first match in the second round. Their second match occurred after Ali's fight with Foreman. Foreman knocked down Frazier 3 times in each of the first two rounds. The 6th knock down ended the fight.

And then we considered the age difference. Ali was in his early 30s and Foreman was in his mid 20s. And so the end of the fight seemed almost predestined in favor of Foreman. However, Ali shocked the world. 

How did Ali win? One of the tactics he used was the Rope-A-Dope. That is where Ali would cover himself and lean back on the ropes while letting Foreman to flail away. By minimizing the damage that Foreman did while letting Foreman exhaust himself, Ali took control of the fight and knocked out Foreman in the 8th round.

The question becomes whether Iran is employing an equivalent Rope-A-Dope strategy. Is Iran allow America to continually attack it until America is too exhausted to continue the fight? Being too exhausted in this war would mean that America would no longer have enough weapons and/or the political will power to continue the fight. We should note that America has experienced that kind of defeat before such as in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

My one source tells me that the Iranian people are very proud people who will not surrender. Perhaps, neither Trump nor Netanyahu considered that resolve before deciding to start the war. In the meantime, being as transactional as he is, Trump sees the war as both a boon for the Military Industrial Complex and somewhat of political liability. That degree of liability will be mitigated by the level of control which he tries to exert over the midterms.

Yes, every nation has a limit as to how many attacks it can survive and Iran is no exception. Perhaps, the damage that America has inflicted is not counted as being as crucial to Iran as Trump hopes. And that leaves us with the question of which nation can outlast the other. Trump's taste of blood from the Venezuela incursion is still strong. And his strategy for how to protect himself from the midterm results may help strengthen his resolve. In the meantime, Trump's spending on the military and internal security for the US is putting our nation perilously close to a financial knockdown if not a knockout. And one has to wonder whether putting our nation at such financial risk is part of Trump's plan and his vision for America's future. After all, no one really knows what Trump owes Putin for the latter's help in his past election efforts. And we can already see that despite some of his rhetoric, Trump has taken no significant steps to pressure Putin into stopping his invasion of and atrocities in Ukraine.





Tuesday, August 11, 2026

Views From The Outside For August 11, 2026

Views From The Outside

The purpose of this page is to list news stories and reports from mostly Western sources outside of the U.S. You can use Google Translate to translate articles that are printed in another language. 

So far, news sources include:

International

From Canada

From England

From France

From Germany

From Russian Source 

From Spain

From Switzerland

From Ukraine


<< Previous Views                                                        Next Views >>


Friday, August 7, 2026

How Shall We Then Live With Unbelievers

The title of this article is based on the title of a multipart documentary by Francis Schaeffer. His work was trying to call America to return to a Christian base for thought. However, here, we need to examine what the New Testament tells us believers regarding how we should relate to unbelievers in our society. This is a very important subject seeing the rise in cultural and societal Christian hubris that is evident in many religiously conservative American Christians including those who are Christian Nationalists and a significant number of those who aren't. I wanted to write about this despite the fact that the biggest current threat to American Democracy is the oligarchy.

Before disussing how those of us Christians should live with unbelievers, we need to face one of our own liabilities. This liability is our penchant for authoritarianism. We are told to submit to so many biblical authority structures and figures that it is difficult for us to turn off the authority switch. Thus when we experience life in society, we are seemingly always looking for proper authority figures to give us orders to obey, and we expect all others to follow suit. After all, misery loves company. And since we are always looking for authority figures to submit too, we often conflate a biblical submission to authority figures with authoritarianism.  And what we miss is that there are times and places where we can turn off the authority switch and live with others as equals.

And so we religiously conservative Christians can unknowingly embrace authoritarianism. We'll describe authoritarianism in terms of the relationships that exist between the authoritarian leader and their authoritarian followers. Authoritarian leaders want total control over what their followers believe. One way they do that is to use labels to reduce a person to just one characteristic, act, or a piece of slander. Such a use of labels is designed to get people to automatically or reflexively accept or reject what is said by a given source. Laudatory labels are used to persuade people to assume that what a given source says is correct while the pejorative use of labels are used to persuade people to assume that what a given source says is false. Notice the black/white thinking involved here.

As for authoritarian followers, they are looking for nanny thinkers. They are looking for leaders with whom they can automatically agree. Therefore, authoritarian followers are much more concerned with who made a claim rather than why the claim was made. If we want to escape from being an authoritarian follower, then we will invest more time into examining why a claim is being made than who made the claim.  The approach  taken by authoritarian followers can be best expressed by making a slight alteration to a bumper sticker about the Bible which I used to see:

'God said it. I believe it. That settles it'

Now if we insert a fill-in-the-blank for the word 'God,' then we get a picture of the sentiments of the authoritarian follower:

_________ said it. I believe it. That settles it. 

For religiously conservative Christians, names that authoritarian followers might insert could include Calvin, Arminius, Luther, Jonathan Edwards, J. Gresham Machen, Tim Keller, Charles Stanley, Charlie Kirk, Rush Limbaugh (for yous psuedo old-timers), Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, John Hagee, Dr. David Jeremiah, and Robert Jeffress. Skipping over the Liberals here, leftist leaders drawing authoritarian followers include Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Chris Hedges, Bernie Sanders, Martin Luther King Jr., Mao, and Karl Marx. We should note here that  not all of the people just mentioned act as authoritarian leaders. Just because a leader has authoritarian followers does not imply that that leader is an authoritarian leader.

We should note another reason why my fellow religiously conservative Christians have a penchant for authoritarianism. That reason can be observed by looking at the quoted bumper sticker. We sometimes project the same characteristics that we attribute to God or God's Word to our pet leaders and/or ideologies. For example, some believe that their favorite form of Capitalism works in all times and situations. For others, it is there favorite form of Marxism. Note that neither Captialism nor Marxism are monolithic. In addition, we prefer to become authoritarian followers because it makes life more simple and safe. We don't have to critically examine what our adopted leaders have to say, all we have to do is to trust and obey them. And as with authoritarian followers of different religious or ideological stripes, becoming such a follower of someone who is famous or seems to be an impressive leader can give us a sense of significance and even belonging.

I believe that it is the penchant for authoritarianism that us religiously conservative Christians have which has provided a significant driving force to the recent emergence of today's Christian hubris. We believe that our leaders know what's best and because we have been trained to look for authority figures to follow, and, again, misery loves company, we not only fall in line, we expect, or demand, that everyone else in society do the same

Now we can examine what the New Testament says about how we are to live with unbelievers in society. Note that this discussion will be incomplete in the Scriptures that will be mentioned. But that does not imply that nothing of value will be said. Our first stop is John 3:1-8 (click here for the source).

'Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus at night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”'

Why is the above passage important? It is because one of the justifications why some are promoting Christian Nationalism is that Jesus charges us to make disciples of every nation--a.k.a, the Great Commission. Despite the fact that the declension of the word for nation used in the Great Commission (click here for the source of the passage) most often refers to ousiders in the New Testament, one cannot be a disciple without faith. And note, in the passage quoted above, what determines when faith comes. Though we Christians are charged with evangelizing, we can't control the results. We can't control whether faith comes to a person. And so how can any set of laws or leaders make anyone into a disciple of Christ as defined by the New Testament? And yet that is what Christian hubris, especially Christian Nationalism, tries to do.

Or let's look at other New Testament Scriptures. For example, in Matthew 10:12-14 (click here for the source), Jesus told his disciples that if people do not listen to what they say, then leave and walk away.

In addition, both Jesus and Peter instruct us not to dominate others (click here and there for those sources). And though those instructions were about how Christian leaders were to treat believers under their care, why does that not have at least some application to how believers should treat unbelievers.

We could also look at I Corinthians 5:9-11 (click here for the source). There, Paul tells fellow Christians to not associate with church members who are immoral. But note that he does not say that we shouldn't associate with immoral unbelievers. What those with Christian hubris want to do, to varying degrees, is to use their laws to remove unbelievers who are immoral as described in the I Corinthians passage from the presence of God's people in society. That would have the same effect as what Paul said should not be done: to remove Christians from the world.

Another passage that is quoted to justify Christian hubris in society is a passage like Romans 13 and in I Peter 2 (click here and there for the sources). In those passages, the government's purpose is to punish those who do evil and honor those who do good. And since all sins are evil, those with Christian hubris believe that we need laws that are only based on God's laws. There are two problems with such an approach. First, again, we are sharing society with unbelievers and so we, in many instances, would have to require an obedience that can only come with and after faith and we can't manufacture faith in people. In addition, such an approach causes governments to only represent believers and to be apathetic or hostile to unbelievers. Such an approach would allow believers to use the government as a proxy to dominate unbelievers. We should also note that the evil mentioned in those two passages was not defined but assumed to be understood by that audience.

Another justification for Christian hubris in society which I have seen consists of a logic that says because we, unlike those in New Testament times, have an opportunity to make society a Christian one, we should do so. And so the examples and the teachings of the Apostles become irrelevant. But such opportunism ignores the New Testament and forgets the dynamics involved when people come to faith and start to become obedient to Christ.

The New Testament tells us that God is patient and wants all to come to repentance and believe. And the question becomes whether Christian hubris practices that patience. Yes, we need certain laws from the Scriptures to protect a nation's citizens from each other and others. But most, if not all of those laws, have been repeated by other sources and provide no privilege to Christianity in society. Those laws that would privilege Christianity above the beliefs of others and would put us religiously conservative Christians into positions of treating unbelievers as subordinates and thus in ways that are not supported by the New Testament. Tim Alberta emphasizes this point when he talks about Peter. For example, when Jesus was being arrested, Peter responded with the sword and Jesus rebuked him. But in I Peter 2, when Christians are being persecuted by unbelievers, Peter tells us to imitate Christ when He was put on trial and was crucified. Christ didn't trade insult for insult. Instead, he suffered quietly so that He could  be take our place by being crucified. Peter goes on to say that how Christ responded set an example for us to follow (click here to see that portion of I Peter 2).

The final argument for Christian Nationalism rests on the claim that God made a covenant with America and so, to keep that covenant, America must follow God. Such a view, however, ignores how covenants were made in the Bible. It was always God who initiated and defined a covenant, not the people. And those covenants are recorded in the Scriptures. In addition, the fulfillment of every covenant was seen in Christ and in Him only. Claiming that God made Americans his covenant people removes Christ from the center of the revelation about the covenant and the covenant itself. Instead, we need to ask whether proclaiming that Americans are God's covenant people is more a result of corporate self-promotion rather than preaching Christ.

And so, just perhaps, we should examine whether democracy with equality puts us religiously conservative Christians in the most optimal situation for how we should share society with unbelievers. That we should look at ourselves as peers with unbelievers in sin because we are. We should look at unbelievers as peers in society, because they are Thus, we can work side-by-side with unbelievers in shaping society knowing that not only do we need to give them, what is for us, an uncomfortabe amount of leeway, we also have much to learn from them. In addition we have Christ's first coming as our example, not His sescond coming. And at that point, we should focus on bearing the fruit of the Spirit in their presence, as Kristin Kobes Du Mez constantly tries to remind us (click here for the list of the fruit of the Spirit). We really need to get how we share society with unbelievers right because the reputation of the Gospel is, in large part,  riding on it. Here, we should note that when Christians dominated many nations during Christendom, all sorts of injustices were practiced then and thus became associated with the Gospel.