Some Music Videos From the New Radicals

Now, here is another slate of music videos that I have been watching on Youtube as of late.

Both of these are from the New Radicals. They were probably best known for their smash hit "You Get What You Give," which broke out sometime in the late nineties (I think around 1998, if memory serves me correctly). It is a great song, and was enjoyable back then. It has a positive message, and a very upbeat feel to it. Plus, it is just a very catchy tune. In the video attached below, the New Radicals were doing a live version on the Late Night Show with Jay Leno. Cannot stand Leno, and never thought he was particularly funny or entertaining. Frankly, I mostly avoided watching his show. But this is a great version of this song, and so it certainly seemed worth sharing here.

Finally, there is another video from them, for "Someday We'll Know," which was another well-known song, although probably not as well known as that first song was. 

Take a listen, and enjoy!

Youssou N'Dour & Dido Sing an Amazing Version of 7 Seconds

Just lately, I have been listening to music quite a lot on Youtube, and decided to share some of the stuff that I specifically have been listening to. 

Here is one gem that I have been listening to over and over again. Back in 1994, I remember loving Youssou N'Dour's "7 Seconds," which was big for a while, but never seemed to quite get it's due. Some might remember it, but my guess is that most do not. 

But it is a great song, and this version, when Dido introduces N'Dour to the London crowd for the Live 8 concert, is a remarkable version. Some people were commenting that this song is sung too high for Dido, but that seems like nonsense to me. She sounds great, and adds a different feel to this particular song. Frankly, I think that her voice sounds great for it, although you can make up your own mind on that.

Take a listen:

Dale Hansen Speaks His Mind Like No One Else

Dale Hansen talks about sports, yet he does it often in a very different way than most others who talk about sports.

He seems incredibly open-minded and articulate when expressing opinions, even when those opinions are not especially popular.

Hansen has spoken out about many highly controversial issues facing the United States today, including false patriotism and the anthem protests, racism, about the NRA and school shootings, about corruption and the triumph of greed in America, as well as many other issues. 

I have been impressed with this guy for a couple of years or so now. When I encounter one of his spoken word pieces, one of his commentaries, I usually make a point of taking a few minutes to stop what I am doing and listen to what he has to say. He is intelligent, and has clearly thought quite a lot about the topics that he is discussing.

So, it seemed like something which needed to be shared, and so here is a sampling of some of his most impactful commentaries. Please take a look, and listen to what he has to say!

President Trump Revealed Why He So Relentlessly Attacks the Press

President Trump likes to create crises situations. That way, if they do not grow worse, and especially if they happen to get better, he can hog all of the attention and, of course, the credit - both of which he is clearly addicted to.

It is a tiresome approach, and one that requires that Trump plays with fire. Of course, he is assuming, as he always assumes, that he knows best, and knows how to handle the situation - or at least that he will pretend to. This was clearly not the case when it came to healthcare, when he promised the world to Americans, a better system that would cover everyone, and which would be significantly cheaper than Obamacare, to boot. In the end, he did not even bother to actually draw up such a system himself, and attached his name to the Paul Ryan plan, that would have booted tens of millions of people off of healthcare coverage altogether. Or, for that matter, his secret plan to defeat ISIS in 30 days, when in fact, nothing much had changed in the approach to ISIS. Or, let's face it, paying for the wall along the Mexican border, when he promised - repeatedly - to make Mexico pay for it, but obviously was never going to be able to deliver on that promise. He has attempted various avenues since, and often tried to elevate this funding to crisis level. As of now, he is still looking for funding for his damn wall. 

For those of us who recognize that he is, and always has been, a con artist out to scam people and convince them that he is far, far more than he actually is, this approach is obviously more than a little alarming. This man believes himself to be a genius - and a very stable genius at that - but the rest of us are far from convinced. That is especially true when he has such a limited attention span, that he often cannot complete his own sentences without interrupting them with some kind of new thought. His vocabulary is apparently limited, so he often does not quite get the right words that he wants, but he nevertheless attempts it time and again. Again, many of us recognize that this does not reflect well on the country, and it does not speak well of the man who we collectively as a nation decided to elect to the top office.

Another typical, and typically alarming, approach by President Trump is how he deals with the press. Obviously, he deflects any and all criticism of him and his approach by claiming that these criticism are biased and full under the domain of "fake news." 

His believers are convinced that he is a genius, and absolutely right on this point. And really, how do you argue against this? After all, literally every argument to suggest that Trump is less than perfect falls on deaf ears when facts literally do not matter. Even legitimate criticism, once backed by facts, simply becomes yet another unfair and biased attack on their beloved leader, and thus falls under the umbrella of "fake news." Meanwhile, Trump has shown himself to be quite a master at producing plenty of fake news in his own right, things that are demonstrably false and/or misleading. Needless to say, this climate has felt downright dangerous to democracy, for obvious reasons.

And these relentless attacks on the press by President Trump have just not stopped, or even slowed down. Literally, he plays this same theme time and time and time again. That's his argument, his defense, for literally everything. But his supporters do not seem to mind that their beloved leaders in a one trick pony.

Recently, and unfortunately off the cameras, Trump revealed to a prominent, veteran reporter why he does this. Indeed, during a recent interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes (on CBS), she had this following exchange, while the cameras specifically were not rolling  (see link below for access to the article where I got the following from):

"At one point, he started to attack the press," Stahl said. "There were no cameras in there." 

"I said, 'You know, this is getting tired. Why are you doing it over and over? It's boring and it's time to end that. You know, you've won ... why do you keep hammering at this?'" Stahl recalled. 

"And he said: 'You know why I do it? I do it to discredit you all and demean you all so that when you write negative stories about me no one will believe you.'"

He is not denying that the facts do not favor him. He is simply taking the approach that facts do not matter, that this is some kind of battle, and he obviously fully intends to win it. When he talks about "winning" all of the time, you kind of get the sense that he is talking about everything in terms of confrontations that need to be won. The United States versus the rest of the world. The Republicans versus the Democrats. The believers of extreme capitalism versus everyone else. And, of course, him and his tens of millions of supporters versus the rest of us, who are obviously not so quick to believe him, or jump aboard his bandwagon. 

It is not going to stop, or even slow down. Not even a little. This guy creates tensions, he sets up crises, and then takes a systematic approach towards these crises, one in which he tries to make the only alternative is to do things his way, or  everything will spiral out of control. The problem with this approach, of course, is that it creates not just tensions, but crises. Our allies in Europe are no longer allies, apparently, but this does not alarm Trump. Our national actions since Trump took over, particularly in breaking two major international agreements, also suddenly has fallen into crisis level, with the rest of the world no longer trusting whether the United States will even honor any deals.

Therein lies the problem - or at least one of the many problems - with Donald Trump, and his whole approach to what passes for leadership. When he is relentlessly boisterous and outright claims to be a "very stable genius," and now has the status as President of the United States to inflate his already oversized ego and embolden his already obviously exaggerated sense of importance and brilliance, you get some dangerous situations, as well as some ridiculous ones. Look at the whole Korea situation. It went from name-calling to threats which quickly escalated, and which had the world worried about nuclear war. Then, suddenly, Trump was about to become the first American President to meet with a North Korean leader, and he hailed it as a triumph, proclaiming victory before the meeting even took place. His supporters were cheering and chanting for him to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. And then, Trump released a very public breakup letter, done in typical Trump style, reflecting poorly on himself, and by extension, of course, on the country he now represents.

What a ridiculous situation, and what a farce this is. Trump is, and always has been, a ridiculous excuse for a man. Now, he is a ridiculous excuse for a president, and a fake president, at that. Yet, because people were not serious enough to take him for what he was, and instead indulged his fantasy and ego and took him at his word when he pretended to be so much more than what he is, much like the country itself, which has seen the standard of living decline, and hope along with it. Trump symbolizes this, too. But Trump is what he is, and unfortunately, he and his particular brand of fake news is the reality that we have to deal with now. 

President Trump told Lesley Stahl he bashes press 'to demean you and discredit you so ... no one will believe' negative stories about him Dan Mangan, May 22, 2018:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/22/trump-told-lesley-stahl-he-bashes-press-to-discredit-negative-stories.html

For a Fourth Straight Year, the NBA Finals Will Pit the Golden State Warriors Versus the Cleveland Cavaliers

NBA Finals

Photo courtesy of Keith Allison's Flickr page - Stephen Curry: https://www.flickr.com/photos/keithallison/5493668904

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

Photo courtesy of Keith Allison's Flickr Page - LeBron James: https://www.flickr.com/photos/keithallison/15662939969

Creative Commons License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

It's official now.

For the fourth year in a row, the Golden State Warriors will meet the Cleveland Cavaliers in the NBA Finals.

It seemed like a very remarkable feat the first time that I saw a North American professional sports franchise qualify for the championship round four years in a row. That was the New York Yankees, from 1998 until 2001. They won the first three, then lost the last World Series, to the Arizona Diamondbacks.

Then, a few years back, LeBron James left Cleveland (remember that?) and became the villain of the NBA when he took his talents to South Beach (actually, the Heat do not play at South Beach, but whatever). Miami already had superstar talent, of course, and Dwayne Wade had already led the Miami Heat to an NBA championship. Still, the Heat were obviously a strong team, qualifying for the NBA Finals four straight seasons. They were upset in the first Finals against Dallas, then won the next two, before losing a hard fought series to the San Antonio Spurs.

Now, to his credit, LeBron has brought a second franchise to four straight NBA Finals, and this makes it eight straight NBA Finals appearances for him. A lot of people now are making the argument that he is better than Michael Jordan, and I will have something to say about that a little later.

First, however, we must talk about the Golden State Warriors, because the Cavaliers are not the only team to have made it to the NBA Finals in the last four straight years. The Warriors went 67-15 in 2014-15, then had that amazing 73-9 season in 2015-16, although they actually fell short of the NBA title that year. But then last season, another 67-15 season, and they closed out Cleveland in five games, in a convincing championship win.

Here we are with chapter four of this NBA Finals rivalry. An instant classic, it seems, eh?

The thing is, you could kind of see this coming. It was fascinating to see the Golden State Warriors rise to prominence in 2015, and take the title against Cleveland in the Finals. Then, the Cavs got their revenge the next year against that record shattering Warriors team, denying them a shot at immortality, at history, as the winningest championship team in NBA history. It seemed that everyone was expecting a rematch last season, and that was exactly what we got. But with Golden State having added Kevin Durant, most people kind of expected the Warriors to win it all, which they did rather convincingly. It never felt like the Cavaliers were really in that series.

Somehow, it felt like a fourth meeting was not by chance. No, once again, this was what many people, myself included, expected. Truth be told, I was a bit surprised that the Boston Celtics and the Houston Rockets were actually able to push these two championship teams as far as they did.

The Warriors have just so many weapons at their disposal, that they have to be considered the deepest, most talented team in the NBA. When healthy, they simply seem impossible to beat. They looked a bit vulnerable when star Stephen Curry was out with an injury. But right now, with Curry back, and with Kevin Durant healthy and hitting those dagger in the heart shots like he did last night, and with Klay Thompson adding still more explosiveness and depth, and Draymond Green lending the team a physical presence, it just makes it very difficult to see how they can be beaten. I would hate to have to rely on any team, even the Cavs, actually finding a way to beat this team four times in  seven game series. Sure, the Houston Rockets came close, and for a while there, after they took a 3-2 series lead, it looked like they were indeed going to do it. But you knew the Warriors were not done, and sure enough, they got the job done when they needed to. They blew Houston out in Game 6, and then dominated when they needed to in Game 7 to take yet another Western Conference title.

Now, back to the debate that always seems to pop up, about whether or not "King" LeBron James has  earned the right to claim that he has surpassed Michael Jordan as the greatest player in NBA history?

Well, no, I do not agree. It took years for Jordan to get a team around him to contend for a championship. Unlike LeBron, he did not go away from Chicago when it seemed like they never could find a way to do it, to get past Detroit, which is what LeBron did (as well as Shaq, by the way). Jordan stayed with the Bulls, until they got good. Very good. When the Bulls finally did get past the Pistons to earn their first ever NBA Finals appearance, they were ready. Once Jordan was at his peak, the Bulls also were at their peak. And Jordan sparked that team to overcome all odds and all challenges. They got past Detroit, then after dropping the opening game against the Lakers, they swept the rest of the series to take their first title, largely off of Jordan's dominance. The Bulls dominated the next season, going 68-14, and battled their way through a tough seven game series against the very physical Knicks, and ultimately went back to the NBA Finals, once again dominating, this time against the Portland Trailblazers. They did it again the following season, overcoming an 0-2 series deficit to the Knicks to win the Eastern Conference, and then beating down Charles Barkley and the Phoenix Suns in the NBA Finals.

We all know that Jordan retired for a couple of years there, and when he returned in the spring of 1995, he was not yet at his best. This accounted for Chicago's being bounced out of the playoffs by the red hot and rising Orlando Magic. But clearly, the Bulls were ready by the 1995-96 season, as they went on to win a then record 72 games, a threshold that nobody at the time knew would be possible. Some teams had come close, but none had done it until those Bulls, which meant that they broke new ground. They dominated the Eastern Conference, and then beat the loaded 64-18 Seattle Supersonics in the NBA Finals. Chicago just missed another 70 win season in 1996-97, but they again dominated the Eastern Conference playoffs, and then had a tough series against the also loaded 64-18 Utah Jazz in the NBA Finals, but ultimately won that. The Bulls were not as dominant in 1997-98, and this time, they had to overcome a very tough, seven game series challenge against the Indiana Pacers, but they survived. Once again, they faced the Utah Jazz, and once again, they survived a tough challenge to win the Finals in six.

Jordan and the Bulls won six title in a span of eight years. During that time, the Bulls had regular seasons when they went 68-14, 72-10, and 69-13. Only two teams were able to challenge the Bulls strongly enough to push them to seven game series, and yet the Bulls ultimately won both of those series nevertheless. Chicago was tested by some great teams, teams that were capable of winning the NBA crown themselves, had it not been for the Bulls. The Pistons had won the two previous championships, and still were loaded, when the Bulls finally got the better of them. The Lakers had done it recently when they met the Bulls in 1991, yet they presented little challenge to the Bulls in that series. The Trailblazers came very close to winning it all a couple of times, and were a great team in their own right, but they, too, fell short. Both the New York Knicks and the Phoenix Suns were arguably capable of winning the title in 1993, but the Bulls denied them both in six. Then in 1996, no one could compete with the Bulls dominance, although in a more normal season, a team of the caliber that the Seattle Supersonics had that season would likely have won that NBA championship. The Utah Jazz had a damn solid team, both in 1997 and 1998, and were almost capable of wining the title even while facing the Bulls. Like with Seattle, in a more normal year (which is to say, one when Jordan and the Bulls were not so dominant), the Jazz would have surely won the title. But the Bulls denied them. And Chicago also denied the 1998 Indiana Pacers, who were extremely good and disciplined, and almost toppled the Bulls in that seven game series. They might have gone on to win the NBA title, but again, the Bulls denied them. Those teams included incredible talents like Magic Johnson, Clyde Drexler, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Karl Malone, John Stockton, and Reggie Miller - all incredible players in their own right. Among them, only one, Magic Johnson, managed to win any NBA titles, but he did that before Jordan and the Bulls were at their peak. Those guys were among the best players that the NBA has ever seen, yet they were all denied by Michael Jordan and the Bulls, every single time.

At his best, LeBron James never enjoyed anywhere near the level of dominance that Jordan and his Bulls reached. The very best season for him was when the Heat went 66-16 in 2012-13, and won the NBA title. Obviously, that is great, but the Bulls enjoyed three seasons where they were better. The championship season that he enjoyed in Cleveland, the Cavs finished the regular season at 57-25, and I do not believe that the Cavs had to face the level of talent that the Bulls did in the Eastern Conference in the nineties, with teams like the Pistons, the Knicks, the Pacers, and the Magic. Most importantly, snce LeBron broke through and qualified for his first NBA Finals, which is a mark when I think it can be argued that he was truly an elite and serious title contender, several teams have won multiple NBA titles, often at LeBron's expense. The San Antonio Spurs beat him in the NBA Finals - twice. Golden State beat him in the NBA Finals - twice. The Lakers never beat him in the NBA Finals, yet they also won the title - twice. During Jordan and the Bulls run in the nineties, only one team won NBA Championships other than the Bulls, and most people feel that you have to add an asterisk, because those were the two years when Jordan was retired, and when he came back late in 1995, he clearly was not at his best yet. When he was, the number of teams that managed to break through is even more daunting: zero. Nobody. No teams managed to beat Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls once they reached their peak. Maybe that would have changed had Jordan and the Bulls stayed together for the 1998-99 season. Maybe. But by that point, they had earned six championship rings, and were regarded by many as the greatest team ever.

LeBron won three titles with two different teams. He specifically joined Miami so that he could win some rings, and they were indeed impressive. Yet, while they were in the NBA Finals for four straight seasons, they won two championships, while being favored in all four Finals series. when he had the most talented team in the league, LeBron still managed to win two rings in four seasons at Miami. LeBron won three rings overall in his career, yet few people would argue that any of those teams rank among the very best in NBA history. Most people feel that the Bulls at the peak of their nineties dynasty, specifically, would have beaten them, and it is hard to even argue that.

Chicago dominated at a time when they had to go through some great teams just in the Eastern conference. From Detroit in the early nineties to the New York Knicks, Indiana,  and Orlando, they had some seriously tough and talented teams to get through. By contrast, LeBron had a weak and watered down cluster of teams to deal with to qualify for the NBA Finals each year that he made it there.

That is why I cannot buy into any arguments that LeBron is better than Jordan. Because better means more dominant, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind who dominated his era more. Quite literally, I do not know anyone who was old enough to remember those Bulls of the nineties, who thinks that LeBron is better or more dominant, and there is a reason for that. In the nineties, there was Jordan, and then a couple of notches down, came everyone else. With LeBron, you saw some other players seeming to dominate the league at different times, from Kobe Bryant out in Los Angeles, to Tim Duncan out in San Antonio, and finally to Stephen Curry and now Kevin Durant out in Golden State. Had Jordan been around, or someone of Jordan's caliber, and his obvious hunger and will to win, I think those guys would have been silenced, one way or the other. LeBron was unable to silence them.

In fact, I suspect that LeBron James will fall short in this NBA Finals series, as well. All of that talent out in Golden State? Too much. My suspicion is that the Golden State Warriors will win the NBA crown, and establish themselves as the dominant dynasty of the present NBA era. And if that happens, then on LeBron's watch, Golden State will have become a dynasty specifically against LeBron at his peak.

Yet, even if they do not, even if Cleveland somehow manages to win, the arguments as to who is the best are likely just about over, and not in LeBron's favor. After all, Jordan played in an era that was much tougher defensively. You can make the argument that LeBron would not have been able to do as much as he did offensively during such an era. Conversely, just imagine how much Jordan would have been able to average in terms of points, playing in an era that is as friendly to offenses as the NBA has become since.

So, I am not saying that LeBron is not one of the most dominant players in NBA history. But I would argue that he is not the most dominant, and not even close to the most dominant. That is reserved for Jordan. Eight straight NBA Finals or not, LeBron did not, could not, impose his will as convincingly as Jordan did at his peak. Jordan dominated on both offense and defense. His defensive game was not as well known or remembered, but it was also a huge asset for those Bulls.  And as solid as LeBron might be, I am picking Golden State to win the NBA title again, and I believe that the Warriors are officially favored, as well.

That, too, should tell you something. 

Trump Honors Himself For Memorial Day, Reminds Americans to Be Thankful for His Presidency

On this Memorial Day, President Trump wants you to remember...well, him, actually. He wants you to appreciate the sacrifices of the brave veterans who put their life on the line so that he could reach the White House, and to recognize just how blessed we are to have him serving as the president. 

As CNN aptly put it, Trump really puts the ME in Memorial Day. 

Here was what President Trump tweeted earlier today:

Happy Memorial Day! Those who died for our great country would be very happy and proud at how well our country is doing today. Best economy in decades, lowest unemployment numbers for Blacks and Hispanics EVER (& women in 18years), rebuilding our Military and so much more. Nice!  8:58 AM - May 28, 2018

For those of you who might not fully understand, I took the liberty of translating the tweet from President Trump on Memorial Day: 

Look at me! Brave veterans sacrificed everything so that this country could elect me President. Since then, I have rewarded their brilliant decision to vote for me by being the Greatest President in American history, and it's not even close! Things are great in America. They've never been better, and please don't forget to thank me, and vote for me. Oh, also, the brave men and women who actually served in wars and died for the country, so that I could dodge the draft myself and fulfill my destiny to become YOUR PRESIDENT!

Donald Trump just put the 'Me' in his Memorial Day tweet by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large, Mon May 28, 2018:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/28/politics/donald-trump-memorial-day-tweet/index.html

Patriotism & Memorial Day

This is a blog entry that I wrote a while ago and published here before for this holiday. Yet, it seems to me still relevant, and so I decided to go ahead and publish it again.

Given the whole trend of Trumpism that has come to dominate headlines in recent years, it seems now at least as relevant, if not even perhaps more relevant, than it was even when I first wrote and/or published it.

Here it is:



Let me say this upfront, right off the bat: I am not a big fan of the loud, boisterous version of what passes for patriotism these days, especially here in the United States. Perhaps some people would take exception to my singling my country out in this regard, but in this day and age when so many are grasping onto any and all remaining vestiges of what used to be great about this country, and when many of our so-called leaders are professing their self-serving belief in "American exceptionalism," it seems to me that waving flags and claiming this nation to be number one, or implying that it is somehow superior to all other nations, is rather counterproductive and, in fact, unpatriotic. The whole "America First" ideology is essentially a slap in the face, as well as a spit for good measure, to the rest of the world, and I wish that my fellow Americans would finally grow up and get past this limited and limiting way of thinking.

That is not to say that I am not patriotic. Frankly, I feel myself to be quite patriotic, and hope for and work towards seeing this country truly be the best that it can be. But my version of patriotism would require citizens to actually participate in knowing about the news and issues that effect the country, to indeed be the well-informed citizenry that our forefathers dreamed of for the future of the republic. The anti-intellectualism that seems to win out time and time and time again has grown more than a little stale and tiresome, and illustrates not this nation's greatness, but it's weaknesses in terms of a lack of imagination with trying the same old approach to dynamic and new challenges and opportunities. In short, my faith is strong enough to believe that we can do better, if we actually cared enough to keep informed and involved enough to make it work.

Okay, so that was a mouthful to start this particular blog entry with. Let me get on with this Memorial Day post. 

I believe that a strong reminder came on the radio this weekend about why we celebrate Memorial Day, or perhaps it was a meme (in fact, the more I think about it, the more likely it probably was a meme). Anyway, it showed a picture of a relaxing scene on the beach, and there was a message scrolled on top of this. To paraphrase, it said, roughly: "Your day at the beach is because of their day at the beach." And on the bottom was a black and white picture of the D-Day landings by allied (presumably American) troops during World War II. 

That much is true, and perhaps this is an especially timely message for this Memorial Day, because we are also celebrating the 100th anniversary of World War I. The United States entered that war in the spring of 1917.

Let us also remember that wars like those were likely necessary for the world to remain free. However, wars like that also occurred because of so-called leaders at the time who were hungry for war. We should not forget that people were celebrating in the major cities of all four major powers on the occasion when World War I finally broke out. The leaders of all of these countries led their citizens to believe that these wars would be won quickly, decisively, and relatively painlessly. They also convinced their citizens - especially the young men that were being sent to the fronts - that tremendous glory could be gained, that this war would be an opportunity to achieve serious heroism.

Anyone who knows anything about that war knows that it was the most brutal war that the world had ever seen to that point, and that far from quick and decisive, the war was a complete stalemate. The promises of opportunities for heroism were largely lost, as military leaders led their men into battles that wound up being slaughters, and those who survived often were forced out of the war with unbelievably horrific injuries that would have killed them in wars prior. 

You might think that the world would have learned something after this, or at least Europeans would have, since World War I was fought in Europe. However, one generation later, one particular madman in the very heart of Europe enthusiastically led his nation to start yet another world war. His nation was at first reluctant, and certainly did not celebrate the outbreak of war. However, when Hitler began to win in Poland, and then took over western Europe, Germans celebrated, and Hitler was seen as the savior of Germany. Less than five years later, most German cities were reduced to rubble, and the Germans suddenly had to deal with feeling responsible for horrors unprecedented in history, with the death camps and the systematic, and bureaucratic, abuses that their armies had been responsible for in occupied territories. 

During that same war, another nation was being turned ravenous for glory on the battlefield by their leaders. Japan had turned powerful and became aggressors, and in taking over much of the territories of China and Korea, their were now infamous abuses and horrors that Japanese soldiers were responsible for. These invasions and horrors actually came before World War II officially began, according to Europeans. Yet, it ended up very much the same way, as the Japanese went from enjoying victory after victory on the battlefield, to seeing many of their cities reduced to rubble from massive bombings and even fire bombings. Still, all of that is overshadowed by the two atomic bombs that were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an event that ushered in a whole new age, and the realization of just how horrible these weapons of mass destruction were. From that point on in history, a system of checks and balances on the power of any nation became necessary.

I mention all of this because we seem to be moving dangerously close to another such massive conflict, and even more alarmingly, many of the people living in some of the biggest countries responsible seem almost enthusiastic about the prospect of war. Indeed, we could move towards World War II, except that the extent of the damage that we will likely see during that conflict would likely exceed not only either of the two previous world wars, but most likely far exceed both of them combined. 

Yet, World War III is something that most people seem to think was an inevitability, ever since the end of World War II. Now, we see the rise of Donald Trump here in the United States, and he and his team have mentioned the possibility of using smaller nuclear weapons, and they already used the most powerful non-nuclear bomb in Afghanistan just weeks ago. He likes to talk tough, to appear tough, and has threatened North Korea, and even moved American ships into the region. He also launched a military strike in Syria, and seems to feel that he has an obligation to use America's military might in a very active way. Yes, Trump has been so busy with all of this nonsense, that it is almost surprising to realize that he has only been in office for a little over four months now, and still has most of the four year term left that he was elected to in November.

What's scary is that he's just the leader of the United States. There are other leaders who seem to represent this same anti-democratic, anti-peace sentiment. Leaders such as Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is grabbing more and more power, and effectively eroding democracy. Leaders like President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines, who has murdered thousands in the name of cleaning up the streets and establishing law and order, and who joked about rape to his soldiers. And, of course, we all know about Vladimir Putin in Russia. No, I do not feel that he is responsible for Trump getting elected president, but I also do not feel that he is good news, for Europe, for the United States, or for the world at large. And let us not even get into North Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or the always existing tensions in Israel, who is also led by a warhawk in Benjamin Netanyahu right now.

Yes, when you look at the world situation right now, it is scary! We have irresponsible leaders and, frankly, an irresponsible system that essentially make a profit machine for war toys. That is why we have wars still to this day, because it is profitable. Greed, which our President Trump strongly believes in, continues to make the world a more dangerous and miserable place.

All of this is why we need to remember not only the sacrifices of our veterans, but also the importance of taking a serious approach when it comes to issues concerning our nation. When I said that being an informed citizen is my interpretation of patriotism, I meant it. Just this past weekend, I was invited to a barbecue, and one of the guys there is a Trump fan. He said that he enjoyed the video of Trump shoving Montenegro's Prime Minister Dusko Markovic, and said that this bullying mentality was what he liked about Trump. This guy's girlfriend responded that it was classless. Hopefully, that kind of opposition from someone so close will make him think a little bit, but I would not hold my breath if I were her.

The sad truth of the matter is that here in the United States, far and away the biggest producer of weapons that the world has ever seen, many, if not most, Americans believe in war, because they have grown used to wars where so-called leaders bombs the crap out of people in faraway lands. Sometimes, this is given a fancy name that people can rally behind, like "Shock and Awe." But by and large, Americans like to hear that their responsible leaders go to foreign nations to kick some ass every now and then. Many Americans who prefer peace do not want to believe that so many of their fellow Americans - surely numbering in at least the tens of millions - actually like war. But the popularity of our military interventions, such as the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panama, the two wars in Iraq (at least the initial popularity of the second invasion, before that war became a quagmire), and other military operations suggests that, indeed, many millions of Americans very much like war, and want their nation to engage in it.

Sadly, the irony of all of this is that many, if not most, of these people would likely profess to be Christians, as if Jesus would have favored these wars, and this mentality. As if Jesus would have approved of a man like Donald Trump being the elected leader of the land, and trying to get excess and greed back in vogue. As if Jesus ever espoused the virtues of bullying, arrogance, and ignorance.

Indeed, these are times of mediocrity, frankly. The mediocre leaders that I mentioned are simply a reflection of mediocrity among the people at large, and this makes for potentially dangerous times, if and when things really hit the fan.

That is why, on this Memorial Day, it seems at least as important to me, if not perhaps more important, to not only honor the memory of the dead lost in our wars, but also to give serious thought as to why they were fighting in wars to begin with in order to give the ultimate sacrifice. It seems to me that the best and most patriotic thing that we can do is to give serious thought to the issues of our times, and to always, always try and avoid war whenever possible, and to truly make it what most people who truly have felt the horrors of war know more than anyone else: that war should always be the last and final option to resolve differences, after every other option has been completely exhausted. Until that happens, these kinds of patriotic holidays and sentiments to honor the nation's fallen veterans will always be tinged with a measure of hypocrisy, for the sentiment that saw them suffer and die will remain very much intact.

Below is a brief blog entry that I published on the meaning of Memorial Day, which effectively was to introduce a link to an article that I thought was worth reading:

The Origins of Memorial Day published May 26, 2014:

Now, I'll admit that I never really knew the origins of Memorial Day until I read this article.

No, that does not mean that I simply thought of it as a vacation day, or a day of barbecue and summer fun. I knew it had more reason than that.

But that it is a holiday that was originally created to honor black troops specifically, that much I did not know, admittedly.

Things you never know, until someone sheds some light on them.

And so, I felt it was something that deserved sharing, and I am helping to spread the word, so that more people understand the truth of the origins of this national holiday.

Forgetting Why We Remember by New York Times Op/Ed Contributor David W. Blight, May 29, 2011:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/opinion/30blight.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Movie Review - Solo: A Star Wars Story

Okay, so I took my son to see the new Star Wars movie. This one obviously featured Han Solo, one of the major characters from the first trilogy, and it also had some other major characters from the original trilogy - Chewbacca and Lando Calrissean. It would explain how Han and Lando met, as well as how Han and Chewie met, and it would feature everybody's favorite Star Wars spaceship, the Millennium Falcon. Also, this was also released in May, which is when the Star Wars movies used to be released back when they were still being done by George Lucas. This one was directed by Ron Howard, who I still think of as Richie from Happy Days, and it had Woody Harrelson, who I still think of as Woody from Cheers. I like them both quite a bit, as well. So, I hoped that this might make it really, really good.

The truth was that there were some aspects of this movie that worked, and some that did not work nearly as much.

I will try to make this a mostly spoiler free movie review, but there may be some aspects of the film that I mention which will serve as spoilers, so if you have not yet seen the movie, but intend to, you might want to stop reading here at this point.

Okay, you have been warned. Read on at your own risk!

So, right off the bat, some things that did not work so well. My son was really bothered by the lack of a conventional, signature Star Wars movie start. There was the black screen, with the words in blue about how this happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. But it did not then go into the famous John Williams score. I guess that makes sense, since this was the first Star Wars movie done without John Williams. Hey, it had to happen at some point.

Still, I would imagine that they could have worked it out that they could have used that score for the opening of the movie, but they did not. Another thing that bothered my son, who you can tell is a big Star Wars fan, was the lack of a silent ending. In almost every other Star Wars movie (with the possible exception of Rogue One, where I cannot even remember the ending, admittedly), the final scenes, and perhaps the final fifteen to twenty seconds or so, are done with no words, and with maybe some music playing over these final scenes. That was not the case at all in this movie, where they talked right up until the end.

Also, Alden Ehrenreich looks a bit like Star Wars, and pulls off some of the Solo-like humor. Yet, to me, he seemed to lack the easy charm of the character that Harrison Ford brought so effortlessly. I kept seeing him as another actor trying to play a legendary character, and that was distracting. I did not feel that way about Lando, or about Chewie. But whenever they showed Ehrenreich, I thought about this actor (who I admittedly was not familiar with at all before this particular film), and not Han Solo, who he was supposed to be playing. And that prevented me from simply getting into the movie and losing myself in it, which meant that I was all too aware of it actually being a movie that I had paid to see.

Another knock on this movie was the almost total absence of other iconic themes in Star Wars: the Force and lightsabers. It had just a little - a very little - of each, literally for maybe a few seconds. And there is a surprise return of a major Star Wars character in this movie that has something to do with the Force. However, it seemed to be added specifically for this reason, so that this would not be the first Star Wars movie with the dubious distinction of not having lightsabers or the Force.

Finally, the humor. I mentioned that humor and Star Wars seem to have a complicated history. The original trilogy strongly benefited from the humor, particularly the tense romance and banter between Leia and Solo, which helped to make the movies far more interesting, and added considerable charm to the overall story. The prequels, on the other hand, lacked much humor, and what attempts were made were often childish to the point of being distracting and taking away from the movie, particularly with Jar Jar Binks. They brought humor back in the newest trilogy, although even these have not always worked. This movie also has some humorous moments, although sometimes, it feels a bit forced. And again, Han Solo in this movie does not seem to have the same easy humor and quick wit that he showed in the original trilogy. Somehow, Ehrenreich does not seem to me comfortable in the skin of Han Solo, and this proved a bit distraction throughout the movie, at least for me. 

That said, this movie does have some strengths. For Star Wars fans, it explains some things that will surely be fascinating to man, including how Han Solo got his name. It shows how he and Chewbacca first met, and became such close friends. Obviously, it also shows how Han and Lando met, and the rivalry/friendship that developed. 

There is a romance, of course. Yet, this is complicated. We see a young Han on a very Earth-like planet, complete with slums and with an occupying police force of Stormtroopers - yes, Stormtroopers that clearly look and sound (and probably shoot) like those from the first trilogy. Han's love interest is Kira, and they get separated early on. They do meet up years later, but by then, there are some serious complications, which I cannot explain in more detail without seriously giving some things away. 

So, there are some reminders of the old Star Wars magic. There are scenes that are reminiscent of earlier sagas, such as the ones that took place on Hoth or Tatooine. And there are different versions of older characters. This movie will be a must see for passionate and loyal Star Wars fans, and I am sure that there are Easter eggs, if you will, that I missed, and which more serious and obsessed fans will easily pick up on.

Overall, this is not a bad movie. But it is a far cry from a great Star Wars movie. I was not entirely sure what to think of it when I first heard about it, and for the most part, this movie was, more or less, what I would have assumed it would be. I heard a critic on the radio suggest that it does not work. That he does not need to know the specifics about when Chewie and Han, or Lando and Han, actually met. That he did not need to hear Han Solo speaking in Wookie (which he does, within the first twenty or so minutes of the movie). In other words, he was suggesting that this movie did not necessarily enhance the Star Wars experience for fans much, which would suggest that only four movies in, Disney is already starting to run thin on fresh ideas. 

Maybe. But it is an entertaining movie, and not a bad movie. It will not please every Star Wars fan, because clearly Star Wars fans, whatever they think of the new movies and/o the prequels, generally come in with a certain set of expectations, and get offended and quite vocal when those expectations are not met. I would be willing to bet that many fans will say that they did not enjoy this movie. However, it is not a bad movie, and it will entertain you, if you let it. It felt like it was dragging a bit towards the end, and I am pretty sure that it clocks in at over two hours. This might not be the old Star Wars with the magic that seemed to come so easily during the first trilogy, but it is a good movie overall (although maybe not must see), and it should keep you entertained throughout, if you allow it to. 

Why the Rest of the World is Right to Detest Trumpism

There was a strange, yet morbidly fascinating, trend that has been growing for decades, yet which came to a head once Donald Trump rose to power in the United States. Tensions between the United States and Europe had been growing steadily for decades, even predating the end of the Cold War. There were signs of this tensions when DeGaulle kicked out the American military from France, and again under Mitterand, we saw France express obvious distrust towards the United States, and the American military in particular, when it refused to allow American jets to fly over French airspace en route to a military attack on Libya.

For the most part, these kinds of tensions remained in the background, and often, they were simply examples of the tensions which existed between the French and Americans, particularly. These tensions indeed were real, yet they were not the same as tensions between, say, Americans and the Soviets, or Americans and Nazi Germany, or more recently, the tensions between Iran, or North Korea, or Afghanistan under the Taliban. I actually heard one American - a supporter of Trump, actually - suggest just what kinds of tensions between France and the United States these were, and why they were not as serious as those others. She related them to family arguments, harkening back to this notion that there is more that unites the two countries, more that they have in common, than what separates and divides them.

However, those tensions grew more serious in the years immediately following the end of the Cold War, particularly between France and the United States but, more generally, between Europeans and Americans. This was especially true shortly after the events of September 11th.

Under President George W. Bush, the United States pursued a war of aggression in Iraq, suggesting it was a "preemptive strike." It claimed that it was not just necessary, but urgent to take immediate action. The United States had been attacked, after all.It was a different world, and now, it was necessary to engage in behavior that Americans had mostly avoided to that point. So, Americans suddenly were in favor of wars of aggression, of stretching the definition of torture to allow more, and in building detention centers which bore an eerie resemblance to concentration camps to indefinitely hold what many Americans would refer to as "bad people." Given the long history that Europeans had with such approaches, they were understandably skeptical, but Americans dismissed these concerns, to the point that we had Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld suggesting that "Old Europe" was out of touch and irrelevant, for all intents and purposes. 

Clearly, the tensions were real, and more prevalent than they had been in many decades.

But those tensions have blown up way out of proportion since the rise of Trumpism in America. The trend towards systematic suspicions and distrust, and the obvious tensions and conflicts that arise from these, has led to a definite break in what remained of goodwill relations between the United States and Europe. Within hours of meeting with now President Trump, several European leaders stated pointblank that they no longer felt that the United States was a nation that they could rely upon, and urged Europeans to rely on themselves. This, of course, was largely ignored by Trump himself, as well as his tens of millions of supporters back here in the United States. Even the Pope looked visibly dismayed and discouraged after meeting with President Trump, who evidently was even able to try the religious leader's patience and hope with his trademark, ridiculous antics.

Obviously, these are not the only examples of nations and leaders of the world acting in alarm in regards to Trump, and Trumpism in general. Trump has been slighted time and time again, with prominent members of the parliaments in both Ireland and the United Kingdom blasting him as a racist, and with him getting the dubious distinction of not being invited to the Royal Wedding. Mexico's leader rescinded an invitation to meet with Trump. Iran feels that Trump cannot be trusted, and that what he did in withdrawing the United States from the Iran Nuclear Deal was tantamount to breaking an international agreement, one signed by the United States itself. And, of course, much of the world has condemned Trump's actions and decisions quite consistently throughout this long year and a half or so since he came into office.

So, is the rest of the world being unfair? Donald Trump certainly seems to let it be known that he feels he is being treated unfairly, both by political opponents internally, and by other world leaders. It's almost amusing, frankly, that someone who so quickly blasts others for being delicate and oversensitive "snowflakes" himself seems to have such thin skin that he has a meltdown anytime that he suspects he is being slighted in any way. Seriously, has he ever restrained himself even once from going on the attack with his ridiculous tweets anytime he feels he has a score to settle with someone, even when the criticism is legitimate and, frankly, most deserved?

Let's face it: Donald Trump is a very different kind of leader than anyone we have ever seen in this country before. Everything that he does is done extremely loudly, which in itself is a stereotype of the United States at large. After all, this is a very loud culture. Loud and flashy, and if we are honest, often times crass and even increasingly trashy. With this reality television star now in office and so focused on ratings at every turn - seemingly to the exclusion of all else - that is not likely to change anytime in the near future.

This, however, was not always the case. The United States has, until fairly recently, had some inspired and quite enlightened leaders at the helm. When the thirteen colonies won their independence from Great Britain, the American experiment in democracy began. It was far from perfect, obviously. Yet, things generally consistently got better over time, and our elected leaders represented these improvements.

From the wisdom of the restraint of the Founding Fathers, particularly our first president in George Washington, but also extending to the brilliance of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, the earliest leaders for this nation were men who did the country proud by their example. They were not without their faults, yet they overcame personal egos and put their nation ahead of their own narrow interests, and the nation clearly benefited from this. We had Abraham Lincoln, who saved the country from the brink of an abyss that it very well might never have recovered from, and appealing to the "better angels of our nature," revealing a wit and wisdom that the nation has rightly taken pride in ever since.

Theodore Roosevelt aimed to make America's role in the world larger, and although this also seemed to reveal certain imperialist ambitions, his domestic policies reflected a more enlightened approach. He was a champion of the common man, and worked to place safeguards against big institutions, particularly banks and corporations, to protect the common folk. Also, he began the political conservation movement, establishing some of our first national parks. Woodrow Wilson was a very learned man who made a strong appeal to set up a world government body in order to try and promote peace, and this vision of his became a reality. He receives credit and is honored for this even today, even though we now know much more about his racist tendencies. Franklin D. Roosevelt lifted the nation out of it's worst economic crisis, and he led the nation through the most brutal war in the history of the world. He also championed the common people, and tried to set up an Economic Bill of Rights which was realized in other countries, but not here in the United States, unfortunately. We would be a better country for it had he succeeded. Dwight D. Eisenhower fought tyranny in that same war, and he showed restraint and stability during his years in the White House, and was seen as a war hero and a figure that could be admired and trusted.

Then, of course, we had John F. Kennedy, during the glory days of Camelot. Arguably more than any other modern American leader, Kennedy embodied the very best that Americans had to offer, at a time when the United States was the envy of the entire world. Kennedy seemed to exude a youthful energy, spirit, idealism, and wild image of success, which both inspired and seemed to represent the nation that he led more generally. His words stirred the entire nation, In short, Kennedy was himself the very picture of success, at a time when the American experiment with freedom and democracy as a whole seemed to have come to fruition as the best possible model for the rest of the world.

Yes, the United States seemed to have succeeded on a wild level by the early 1960's, and President Kennedy seemed to symbolize that success. It was far from perfect, yet the United States had seen a consistent expansion of rights to include more and more people. And many of these elected leaders, from Washington to Kennedy, indeed embodied the best that the country had to offer. Unfortunately, the trend largely seemed to end then and there.

I would argue that the leaders in the White House in particular since then, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, have all left something to be desired. Johnson was bogged down by a war that added skepticism to a general public that already had shown skepticism towards the official account of the Kennedy assassination as reported by the Warren Commission. Nixon's behavior and illegal actions cost him his presidency, and added still more skepticism. Reagan was wildly popular, yet he seemed to be style over substance, an actor playing the part that the public wanted to see, while his actual policies ultimately led the country down a road that it has not diverted from since, and which has led to a demonstrable decline in almost every aspect.

Reagan had been seen, quite rightly, as a sharp right turn politically for the nation. Yet his successor, George H. W. Bush, went even farther to the right. Bill Clinton was seen as "Republican light," and progressive politics truly seemed to be dead by this point. Plus, Clinton's personal conduct was reprehensible, and the man was untrustworthy. George W. Bush promised to restore confidence in trustworthy leadership in the White House, but did the exact opposite, lying in order to justify a war that was morally wrong, and fought under false pretenses. His entire approach seemed like a bumbling effort, and corporate scandals and corruption were through the roof. The nation's economy was hurting throughout most of the Bush years, and towards the end, the nation hit the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, and the economy very nearly was run to the ground. Obama was hailed as a savior and loved by much of the world, yet like Reagan, he seemed to be playing a very specific role, while his actual policies were more of the same, geared towards benefiting the rich and powerful.

You might think that after decades like this, Americans might finally wise up and realize that tax benefits and cuts for the richest and most privileged Americans does not work. Indeed, for a while, the rebel Bernie Sanders, bucking conventional political trends seemed to have momentum in the 2016 Presidential race with precisely this message.

Instead, the wrong rebel won. Trump also bucked political norms, but he did so while touting an even more elitist, more cutthroat extreme capitalist policies and approach. Instead of finally wising up and taking first steps to contain the damage and reverse the trends, we elected a man who, figuratively speaking, put those policies on steroids.

Trump is the most extreme version of what has been a culmination of a steadily worsening standard for our elected leaders. Where Washington showed the wisdom of restrain, Trump champions no limits. Where Jefferson wrote brilliant words and incredible vision, Trump betrays an incoherence and an inability to think beyond what is in his immediate best interests. Where Lincoln saved the country with wisdom and appealed to the "better angels of our nature," Trump divides the country with empty rhetoric and appeals to the very worst that we have to offer. Where Roosevelt championed the common folk at the expense of the elites and worked towards conservation, Trump champions the elites at the expense of the common folk and an attack on conservationist thinking. Where Wilson tried to push the world towards peace, Trump seems intent on pushing the world closer to war. Where FDR lifted the nation out of poverty, championing the cause of empowering common Americans, and also led his nation through the worst war in history, Trump seems intent on bankrupting the nation and returning the same policies that came close to bringing the country to it's knees again a decade ago, and he seems unstable enough that another World War hardly seems unthinkable. Where Eisenhower earned the world's respect and trust with stable leadership, Trump earned the world's distrust with clear instability. In demanding respect, Trump actually undermines the case for giving him that respect. Everything about this man is fake, not real. From his ridiculous hair to his fake tans to his claims of being the healthiest man ever in the White House, and his own claims to being a virtual superman, while he very clearly is as far from that as one can get, this man personifies a lack of dignity and honesty about himself that he carries into his approach towards others, whether in business or, now, on politics.

With Trump, unlike with some great leaders in our past, absolutely nothing is as it seems. He claims to be worth 10 billion, yet most people in the know feel he is worth far less, maybe even a quarter of his claims. Since there is no transparency with Trump, there is no way to know for sure. In short, nothing that Trump says can be taken literally.

In many respects, that is the same with our country at large. We speak of ourselves as being the "shining city on the hill," the example for the rest of the world to follow. Yet, we are the only industrialized nation that fails to provide it's citizens with some form of universal, affordable healthcare. We speak of stability, law, and order. Yet, we are the only industrialized nation that has gun violence on the level that we see it. We speak of being the beacon of freedom, yet we have far and away more people imprisoned here than any country in the world. We still speak of our diversity and our welcoming people into our country from the world over, yet we have seen a decidedly anti-immigrant stance and xenophobia prevail. We speak of inclusion into our society for all races, nationalities, religious beliefs and creeds, yet we have elected someone who wanted a registry for people of a certain religious faith, and who seemed to have a problem denouncing Nazis marching on American streets.

I have used the following quote numerous times already here on this blog, but it seems especially fitting for this post. Here is an incredible summary of what the rest of the world sees in Donald Trump, as expressed by Paul Thomas, a journalist with the New Zealand Herald (quote taken from "The Greatest Threat to America? Republicans" by Paul Thomas, published on July 17, 2015):

"Trump personifies everything the rest of the world despises about America: casual racism, crass materialism, relentless self-aggrandisement, vulgarity on an epic scale. He is the Ugly American in excelsis."

Has there ever been a man with as little to complain about as Donald Trump? Like it or not - and his supporters seem to conveniently forget this inconvenient fact - Trump is not from a typical background. This is a man who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He never had to wonder where his next meal was coming from, and he inherited a fortune by his father. Trump was born into wealth, and I guess to his credit, he was able to grow that wealth to make a bigger fortune out of it. But the family connections helped, as did his name. Again, Trump has benefited from extreme good fortune all of his life, and e has been blessed with many things that the vast majority of us never get within sniffing distance of. Instead of being appreciative, or the least bit humble, this man not only wants more and more, but he complains - very loudly complains - about when he does not get what he wants, when he wants, just like a child. In fact, he talks about himself as if he is actually a victim, such as when he actually suggested that he had been treated more unfairly than any politician in history. Just one more laughable notion by a man who never seems to decline the opportunity to make a fool of himself.

Likewise, the United States has little to complain about as a nation. Here is a country that has been blessed with an incredible abundance of natural resources, and which benefited from a relative isolation in terms of proximity to other powerful nations. Other powerful nations and empires throughout history generally shared borders with serious threats to their power. The Romans had rivals across the Mediterranean, and they had barbarians that obviously came to infiltrate the empire. China was invaded by rising empires right next to it, with the Mongolians and the Manchurians. The various empires in Europe had one another to contend with. But the United States did not have any strong rivals, and they benefited from this. No nation in history grew in power and influence as quickly as the United States did from 1870 to 1970, roughly, and Americans enjoyed a higher standard of living than any other nation had ever achieved in history during this time. Even with a noticable decline, Americans generally still enjoy a very high standard of living. Yet, many Americans complain that they want more and more, even when this emphasis on more betrays both a lack of appreciation of what they have, not to mention a measure of humility, but also a greed that has clearly undermined the very greatness that this nation once possessed. Like Trump, everything that America does is done extremely loudly, so that the whole world hears. And by turning to a man like Trump, Americans have collectively betrayed this characteristic of immaturity and selfishness and, ultimately, a self-destructive streak.

I hate to say and write these things about my fellow Americans, but I feel I have to at this point. You see, quite a number of the people who I grew up with in high school, and at least as many coworkers, are part of this problem. I had real hesitations to criticize Trump personally lately, because it seems that is exactly what his supporters want, to confirm Trump's interpretation that he is being singled out and victimized. But there is something wrong in this country, and the fact that Trump was elected to the top office was the most undeniable symptom yet of that sickness, that rottenness inside of the country. Famously, Trump referred to Mexicans as drug dealers, criminals, and rapists when he announced his candidacy for the White House. That did not shake people enough, and Trump was taken seriously. He advocated a registry for all Muslims in the country, and a ban for all Muslims trying to enter the country. People still were not shocked, an Trump's numbers grew. Trump infamously mocked a disabled reporter, yet this, too, was not enough to wake people up about who he really is. Trump has insulted decorated war veterans, famously questioning John McCain's status as a war hero, even though he himself used his bone spurs as an excuse to dodge the draft and avoid Vietnam. Trump also insulted gold star families. Not even a blip on the shock radar among his supporters, though. He showed staggering levels of crassness and immaturity, from name calling to bragging about grabbing women by the pussy, yet that also was not enough. When Nazis marched in American streets, waving Confederate flags and even swastika banners, he suggested that they were good people, and he refused to single them out for condemnation. Still, he is quick to condemn black players who peacefully protest racial inequality and violence against black men by taking a knee during the national anthem. He referred to nations of Africa and Central America, as well as Haiti, as "shithole nations," and still, few seemed to change their minds about Trump. This man claims to know more about ISIS than his own generals, he explains his version of science regarding hair spray and clearly does not believe the consensus of the world's scientists that climate change is real, pulling the United States out of the Paris Accord. Still nothing. Trump withdraws from another international agreement with the Iran Nuclear Deal, and still, no one seems shocked or appalled. Trump threatens to wipe another nation off the map before the United Nations, and still, his supporters seem emboldened, not discouraged. I just saw one person, an old high school classmate, literally post an illustration of a bearded Trump in a superhero outfit, apparently seen as some kind of heroic savior, despite all of the utter nonsense and idiocy that I just mentioned, which he surely must have seen and heard about, as well.

But the worst of it was that Trump warned us about this, did he not? After all, he outright said that he could point a gun and pull the trigger and kill someone on the streets before tons of people, and still he would have strong support. Trump keeps referring to himself as a "very stable genius," and this seems laughable. Yet, let's face it: Trump has a very special skill, and he is indeed a master at it. It is the art of manipulation, of getting enough people convinced that he is more than he actually is, and they bow down to him, time and time again. Not everyone, of course. Not even close. But obviously, enough people were convinced that he won the White House. And indeed, if that is not a sign that something is seriously wrong with this country, then I do not know what is.

If Kennedy had seemed to embody all that was right with the United States during it's seemingly finest hour, when it was enjoying it's golden age and served as a mostly positive example to the world, Trump represents exactly the opposite. While the American experiment during the 1950's and 1960's embodied an attractive alternative to the previous forms of government tht had oppressed much of the rest of the world, and a lifting of the common folk economically and politically, Trump now embodies a clear rolling back of those lofty standards of living, not to mention human dignity more generally. Trump is the living, breathing stereotype of how absolute power corrupts absolutely. He seems to symbolize an enthusiastic intoxication from power, allowing yourself to lose all sense of control, and to simply let your tongue and actions run free, ramifications and the opinion of others be damned. Like many corporations, he manages to make it sound attractive for many people, to make it sound enabling, even while his actual policies work to further erode the standard of living in the United States, all so that he and his friends can line their pockets at the expense of the rest of us. Trumpism champions vulture capitalism, where the elites feast on whatever pieces of the dead carcass  once known as the American Dream, so that they themselves can grow fatter still. This approach has failed the country for decades now, and it continues to take away from the dignity and sense of collective responsibility that many Americans worked so hard to attain.

To me, it seems that the United States has slid into a steady decline, ever since the glory days of Camelot, and the Kennedy White House. But with Donald Trump, we have been hitting all-time lows never before seen. It seems that tens of millions of my fellow Americans not only seem fine with that, but indeed, enthusiastically support Trumpism. Despite his proven untrustworthiness on a personal and professional level, far too many Americans have completely bought into this illusion of success. And we are worse off for it.

But the rest of the world has the valuable outside perspective, and this allows them to see what is happening more fully, and with more objectivity. And they see Trumpism for what it is. Indeed, they are right to reject it, and to dread what is happening here. Understandably, they want to avoid something similar in their own nations.

Can you really blame them?

NFL Caters to Trump & Low Brow Fan Desires & Squelches Free Speech

The NFL made a decision yesterday. A very bad one.

True, many people, especially NFL fans, do not like the players taking a knee during the national anthem. Of course, many of these same people simply do not care about the issues that sparked this protest, and do not take the concerns of Black Lives Matter seriously, and so they do not equate the protest with the inherent unfairness of persistent racial inequalities that not only remain, but seem to be growing, particularly under President Trump.

Of course, by now, we all know President Trump's take on it. Being a lowest common denominator type himself, he uses this as a distraction and a tool of convenience, as he can and does use this as a wedge issue to further divide people. Trump tried to be even more divisive this time around, even suggesting that athletes who kneel during the national anthem "maybe shouldn't be in the country."

Wow. Think about that. The President of the United States is suggesting that those who express their views peacefully, albeit in a manner that many admittedly find disagreeable, basically should not necessarily be allowed in the country anymore. 

That's one of those comments that he says, and gets away with saying, because it is not an actual policy proposal. It is the kind of opinion that will surely fire up the base, yet which cannot seriously be proposed, because...well, it's illegal. Also, he can always say that he was joking, which is his fallback position whenever he says something idiotic and controversial, and which people might take him at his word with. A recent example of that would be his statement that the United States should look into "presidents for life."

Anyway, President Trump has a great big mouth, and he has to let his opinions be known on everything, as we all know. 

But the NFL does not have to give into that kind of pressure.

Yet, they did exactly that, with Commissioner Roger Goodell announcing that all players need to stand during the anthem, or teams will receive fines, with possibly other measures for persistent problems.

Indeed, this reaction is being roundly condemned by many. The glaringly obvious comparisons would be with recent issues that the NFL also mishandled, particularly with some players having beaten women and being demonstrably guilty of domestic violence, as well as the issue with concussions. The NFL seemed to sweep those things under the rug, to the extent possible. Yet, they showed a no tolerance policy on free speech, essentially.

Wow.

Of course, not everyone agrees. Christopher Johnson, the owner of the New York Jets, for one, has already stated that he would be willing to simply pay the fine. 

Here is some of what Johnson had to say on the issue yesterday:

"I do not like imposing any club-specific rules," Johnson says, as reported by Newsday. "If somebody [on the Jets] takes a knee, that fine will be borne by the organization, by me, not the players."  

"I never want to put restrictions on the speech of our players," Johnson continued. "Do I prefer that they stand? Of course. But I understand if they felt the need to protest. There are some big, complicated issues that we're all struggling with, and our players are on the front lines. I don't want to come down on them like a ton of bricks, and I won't. There will be no club fines or suspensions or any sort of repercussions. If the team gets fined, that’s just something I'll have to bear."  

Nor is he the only sports figure critical of this measure. Golden State Warriors coach Steven Kerr spoke out quite eloquently on the issue, suggesting that this is not so much patriotism, but nationalism, and he expressed gratitude with being a part of a league in the NBA that actually does not squelch free speech by the players.

I, for one, was impressed, and so I added a video clip of Kerr's take on this issue below:

Here are the links to the articles that I used in writing this blog entry, as well as using the quotes that can be found in these particular articles:



Trump says NFL players who kneel during national anthem 'maybe shouldn't be in the country' by Adam Edelman / May.24.2018:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-nfl-players-who-kneel-during-national-anthem-maybe-n876996

JETS OWNER SAYS IF ANY PLAYER ‘TAKES A KNEE’ HE’LL PAY NFL FINE By DAVID BADASHMAY 23, 2018:

https://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/2018/05/jets-owner-says-if-any-player-takes-a-knee-hell-pay-nfl-fine/

Anniversary of Kurt Vonnegut's Commencement Address to the 2004 Lehigh University Class

Yes, I remember the day well. May 24, 2004.

It is amazing, even staggering, to think that this was ten whole years ago. Frankly, it feels like it could have been one year ago, tops, if even that. Those times, and those events, feel so very recent. But I look at the calendar, and it does not lie. As old as it makes me feel, it has indeed been a full decade, and I sound like an old man, talking about how quickly the time goes by.

At around that time, Kurt Vonnegut was probably my favorite author of all. I had gotten into him a few years before, not long after September 11th, and around the time when WMD's and the possibility of an invasion of Iraq, as well as the suspension of civil liberties with the so-called PATRIOT Act and the debate over how much we can get away with before it is legally considered torture dominated the news.

And I read Vonnegut's "Slaughterhouse-5", an anti-war novel that spoke about time travel, and touched on some other subjects, too. It spoke to me in a way that few novels have before or since, and I began to follow Vonnegut. Suddenly, I was ordering more of his books, and devouring them (most of his books are quick reads). There were online articles that I pursued and read, and before long, I was beginning to be a collector of all things Vonnegut, completely taken by the world of his writings. In a world that seemed to be losing it's way and making less and less sense, Vonnegut's rather weird and wild world, ironically, served almost as an anchor. There seemed to be just a sense of decency about him, reflected in his writings, that felt right in a world that seemed outwardly polite and healthy, but inside, seemed rude, self-centered, and very, very sick to the core.

It would be fair to say that I was quickly becoming a huge Vonnegut fan, and as an aspiring writer, he was one of the few writers that truly inspired me to begin writing on my own. In fact, I might go as far as saying that while other writers made me feel like I could write (most notably Stephen King), it was actually while I was reading Vonnegut all of the time that I truly did begin to write, and believing versus doing makes a world of difference.

There were other authors, and books, that I really enjoyed at that point, and many more that I have grown more acquainted with and gotten to enjoy since. But the two big ones (for me) were Stephen King and Kurt Vonnegut. Both had some incredible ideas, for which they are deservedly very well known. The actual writing of Stephen King, the way that he describes characters in particular, breathes life into them, and I aspired to be able to do that myself. As for Kurt Vonnegut, I admired his ideas (and enjoyed the weirdness of them, as well), but was most appreciative of the way that he was able to bring ideas of morality, of simple right and wrong in the midst of a complicated world into his books and stories really spoke to me. That through it all, we just need reminders of the simple ideas of decency, that was something that perhaps society, or even the world culture that has come to dominate this world de facto, is something that Vonnegut was always able to convey, no matter what it was that he was writing about.

But there was one thing: I had never seen the man, and he was well over eighty years old. I knew a couple of people who had seen him, and one of them told me I had better hurry up and see him, because he was no spring chicken.

I kept looking and looking, searching online for Vonnegut appearances. But there was rarely anything to be found. More frustratingly, when there was, it had just happened.

There were times that I came close. Particularly, his play "Happy Birthday, Wanda June" began to play in New York City, and I went to go see that. Vonnegut had made an appearance at the show's opening, and answered some questions from the audience. But when I went, some days later, he was nowhere to be seen.

But finally, I found out that he was scheduled to be the commencement speaker for the graduation ceremonies at Lehigh University in 2004. I did some research, and found that this event was scheduled to be held at the outdoor stadium, weather permitting, and that it did not require a ticket. You could just show up.

So, I did.

It was a beautiful day, perhaps the first really warm and sunny day of the year. Before the day was out, I would have gotten a sunburn, and there was a little bit of worrying, admittedly, about what I would say if anyone asked me at work the next day why it was that I had a sunburn the day after calling out sick.

But that is neither here nor there.

I wanted to make sure to arrive there good and early, and so we left quite early (this was with my then wife), and got there early enough. No problems there. We found a halfway decent place to sit at the stadium, fairly close to the field. And I got my video recorder out, because I intended to record all of Vonnegut's speech, if I could.

First, the graduates all lined up, with the special guests, including Kurt Vonnegut, coming just before them.

His speech was not that long, and I was able to get all of it. It was not really the most original speech, amounting to mostly a compilation of some of his written works and words of the past.

Vonnegut started off by claiming that he had uncovered a conspiracy during his brief visit to Lehigh, and claiming that the admissions office allowed only beautiful women to attend. Then, he talked a bit about the previous time that he had spoken at a Lehigh Commencement, back in 1970, when "another unpopular war", started by the martyred President Kennedy, was then being fought in Vietnam, with Nixon as President. He then mentioned the shootings at Kent State University around that time, when four students were killed, and the police not punished, as it was claimed that they had acted in self-defense.

This served as a segue for him to talk about some of the darker chapters of American history, including slavery, inequality of the majority of the population (women), with women only getting the vote a few years before he was born.

Going back to his previous appearance at a Lehigh Commencement, he mentioned that most of the kids graduating had not even been born yet at that time, and how they were about to get "kicked out" of Lehigh, comparing the years of study here for the students as "the Garden of Eden."

He then mentioned that American could and should have been a utopia, instead of a place where it costs an arm and a leg to get a higher education, like the one the young graduates had received at Lehigh. Now, they were leaving "this Garden of Eden", and many of them would be burdened with huge debt, so much, Vonnegut claimed, that he could buy a Hummer with that kind of money and "speed up global warming".

Then, he mentioned that he was sorry that this country did not have a health care system that provided affordable, universal coverage, "like Sweden and Canada", where, he said, "it works much better."

He then applauded institutions of higher learning, and said that these were good to "make war not on terrorism, but on ignorance, sickness, and environmental degradation."

Vonnegut mentioned Alfred Nobel, who invented dynamite, and then, perhaps to assuage his guilt, set up the Nobel Peace Prize, with a prize of one million dollars. That amount, Vonnegut claimed, is "chump change", at least by the standards of the highest paid athletes, CEO's and Wall Street executives. It would make a huge difference in the lives of any graduate  in attendance on that day, but it would not pay the salary of a defenseman on either the Eagles or the Steelers for even one season.

For anyone interested in really irritating their parents, he said, the "least you can do is go into the arts."

"As you leave this Garden of Eden," Vonnegut requested of the audience, "please sing and dance on your way the hell out of here!"

Vonnegut then told the graduates, and those family members attending, that the older you get, the more you begin to ask yourself what this thing life is all about. He mentioned what his son had told him in response, when he had placed this question to him:

"Father, we're here to see each other get through this thing, whatever the hell it is."

So, he advised everyone to write that down, so that they could put it in their computers and then forget it.

He then wondered if he would get away with what he was about to say next, and declared that human beings need extended families as much as they need food and minerals, and talked a bit about how there are no extended families anymore, "with the exception of the Bushes and the Navajo."

That was the root of all arguments, he claimed. When it seemed that a husband and wife were arguing about money or the future for the kids, what they were actually telling each other is: "You are not enough people."

Vonnegut then mentioned his uncle Albert, who once remarked that human beings hardly ever noticed when they were happy. So, he had taken to saying, "If this isn't nice, I don't know what is."

He requested that everyone remember that, and take note when they are having a good time, even repeating these words that his uncle used to say.

And then he made one other request, asking for a show of hands to anyone who had, at some point, had a teacher that had made them feel "happier to be alive, prouder to be alive, then you had previously believed possible?"

He then asked everyone who had such a teacher to turn to the person next to them, and mention the name of that teacher.

Kurt Vonnegut concluded his Lehigh Commencement Keynote Speaker address with these words:

"If this isn't nice, I don't know what is. Thank you for your attention. Take care of yourselves, you hear?"

He received his honorary degree (not his first from Lehigh University) a little later on.

Admittedly, it was a strange way of seeing Vonnegut for the first time, since this was a graduation ceremony for college students, and not really what most people would categorize as a public event. I did not know anybody graduating on that day, although no one seemed to notice.

Still, it was great to finally see him in person!

Afterward, we stopped briefly at Lehigh, driving around the campus, then a bit through the town of Bethelehem. It was perhaps noon time, and after a bit of a visit, we decided to head back, and to Wawayanda State Park in New Jersey, where we could enjoy the beautiful weather. I had taken some Vonnegut books with me to read, obviously, and remember being happy, sitting by the babbling stream, and just relaxing, reading Vonnegut. You can't get a much better late spring day than that!

That day ranked with some of the other memorable days in terms of seeing someone that I had long wanted to see. I would perhaps compare it to the first time that I saw Stephen King, or Jimmy Carter. Or, perhaps, some of my favorite bands, like Pearl Jam, Ringo Starr, or Paul McCartney, or the first concert of my own choosing that I went to, seeing Metallica and Guns N' Roses. It felt great!

Now, I should mention that the opportunity to see Vonnegut again did present itself, and I jumped on it! Again, he was no spring chicken.

This one came as an official event, where Kurt Vonnegut would be one of three noted authors in discussion. The other two were Joyce Carol Oates and Jennifer Weiner. It was called "An Evening With Our Favorite Writers", and was held on Saturday, February 4, 2006, the day before Super Bowl Sunday. I remember that, specifically, because for whatever reason, people kept mentioning the Steelers (it was a pro-Steelers fan base there), and a couple of people on stage (not the authors) were showing their black and gold to support their Steelers! At one point, Vonnegut even asked why people in Hartford, Connecticut, would care about the Steelers so much.

Good question.

In any case, this was more of an event, if you will. In college graduations, speakers like Kurt Vonnegut are special guests, but the stars of the show are the graduates themselves, of course. And deservedly so.

But on that evening, clearly, the speakers were the special guests, and the focal point. And Kurt Vonnegut, arguably, was the biggest draw on stage on that day.

It was perhaps appropriate that this event took place in Hartford, since the comparisons to Vonnegut and Mark Twain, who greatly influenced Vonnegut, can easily be made, including the physical resemblance. Both wrote biting commentary, both used humor richly and had wicked senses of humor, and both contributed greatly to American letters.

When I look back on those times, I find it amazing just how quickly I got into Kurt Vonnegut and his writings, and in such a short period of time! It is almost surprising that I never encountered his writings earlier, like during high school, or at least college! Yet, it happened. But once that discovery was there, I was hooked!

It had taken a while to see Vonnegut for the first time, and less than two years later, the opportunity came to see him a second time, and this time, to hear him in actual conversation, which was particularly special. In between those two, Vonnegut would publish the last book of his that would come out while he was still alive. It was called "A Man Without a Country", and on the cover, it featured his playful autograph. That autograph has his self-portrait in profile, with his signature attached. There are autographs you can get from certain writers (and other people of fame), and then there is something like that, which Vonnegut really "created" for you to enjoy! There are subtleties within it that only a real fan of Vonnegut would be aware of. Or one subtlety in particular - the asterisk, which is Vonnegut's drawing of an asshole. His famous sense of humor bleeds through even in something as simple as an autograph.

A little more than a year after that event, Vonnegut fell at his home, and sustained injuries that would prove to be mortal. He died in April of 2007. It would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on some of the events that have happened since, such as the economic collapse of 2008, and the controversy surrounding the "too big to fail" banking institutions that were given huge sums of money in the bailout, designed by then President George W. Bush, and approved by, among others, future President Barack Obama. It would have been interesting to hear his thoughts on Obama, both during the most promising times, during the election season in 2008, as well as the less glamorous reality when he actually occupied the White House. And what about the official end of the war in Iraq, or the coming end in Afghanistan? What might Vonnegut have said about Russia and the Ukraine? About the war in Syria? The genocide in Darfur? We can only wonder what he might specifically have said, although we can probably get a good idea on what his general stance would likely have been. But when you die, you lose your chance to speak on matters that occur afterward, of course.

Since his death, three more books written by Vonnegut have come out. I am reading the last of those three, and will be writing a review of it, hopefully to be published tomorrow. Vonnegut may be gone, but he is certainly not forgotten, and his wisdom and humor remain in his writings, that allow a part of him to continue to be with us still, even though the man himself is not.

"An Evening With Our Favorite Writers" - February 4, 2006 (some links from the conversation that evening):









The Forum Channel


Here is the profile from the program that was given out to those who attended this event:

https://www.ctforum.org/panelist/kurt-vonnegut

Vonnegut Clips from the Connecticut Writer's Forum in February of 2006:


http://www.theforumchannel.tv/timemachine.aspx


http://www.theforumchannel.tv/search-results.aspx


Forum Clip: "Kurt Says Writing is a Mystery, Joyce Calls His Bluff"  1:15

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Joyce-Carol-Oates-Colin-McEnroe/Kurt-Says-Writing-is-a-Mystery-Joyce-Calls-His-Bluff/1



Forum Clip: "Vonnegut`s Message to Future Generations: The World is Ending!"  2:37

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Colin-McEnroe/Vonneguts-Message-to-Future-Generations-The-World-is-Ending/5



Forum Clip: "Practicing Any Art Makes Your Soul Grow"  1:41

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Jen-Weiner-Colin-McEnroe/Practicing-Any-Art-Makes-Your-Soul-Grow/7


Forum Clip: "What is the Single Most Beautiful Thing You`ve Ever Seen?"  2:33

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Colin-McEnroe/What-is-the-Single-Most-Beautiful-Thing-Youve-Ever-Seen/9


Forum Clip: "Kurt and Joyce Have a Great Exchange about Feminism  and  Sexist Pigs"  1:21

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Joyce-Carol-Oates-Colin-McEnroe/Kurt-and-Joyce-Have-a-Great-Exchange-about-Feminism-and-Sexist-Pigs/10


Forum Clip: "Serious  and  Funny Answers to: What Keeps You Up at Night?"  2:34

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Joyce-Carol-Oates-Colin-McEnroe/Serious-and-Funny-Answers-to-What-Keeps-You-Up-at-Night/11


Forum Clip: "Alter Egos and Pseudonyms in Writing"  2:56

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Joyce-Carol-Oates-Colin-McEnroe/Alter-Egos-and-Pseudonyms-in-Writing/2


Forum Clip: "Kurt Vonnegut: We Are A Disease, Joyce Carol Oates Sees It Differently"  2:12

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Joyce-Carol-Oates/Kurt-Vonnegut-We-Are-A-Disease-Joyce-Carol-Oates-Sees-It-Differently/6


Forum Clip: "Mark Twain`s Best Books and a Clunker."  1:21

http://www.theforumchannel.tv/video-clip/Kurt--Vonnegut-Joyce-Carol-Oates-Colin-McEnroe/Mark-Twains-Best-Books-and-a-Clunker/8



On America' Addiction to Oil:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRlwtgaxO20


On War, History, and Women:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xxd6QuDynXA


Kurt Vonnegut & Joyce Carol Oates on Censorship:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xgfDcLzv7A