Attractive women especially learn very early the importance of eye contact with men, and they learn not to make such eye contact with men in whom they have no interest and wish to avoid. They know the truth of Anthony Hopkins telling Jodi Foster in “The Silence of the Lambs” just as her eyes are drawn to and move over the things she covets in like manner she feels the eyes of men moving over her own body, knowing these men want her. But an attractive woman knows how to let a man know simply by her eyes how to tell him she is interested in him.

While expressions such as “If looks could kill” are well known, there is no denying looks do lead to killing in some instances. There is a very dangerous element involved with eye contact in some circumstances, and one would be far more guarded about such a thing while walking in a dangerous area of the inner cities of America rather than some civilized cocktail party or art gallery, and there is “The Look of Love” which is more than the title of a song.

These “wells and windows of the soul” are the stuff of the supernatural defying all scientific efforts to explain. Someone may say, “Hey, I know that look;” and while they may find the words to describe such a look they cannot explain the look. We may see marked intelligence in the eyes of some while seeing the lack of intelligence in some others. We can distinguish between eyes warm with a kindly disposition and eyes that seem cold, flat and dead, or filled with anger and hatred, and most of us are aware of the meaning “Poker face.” Our eyes often betray our very thoughts, known and read by others; but the “how” of this remains a deep mystery.

Those of us willing to credit the supernatural particularly enjoy the scene in “Phenomenon” where John Travolta makes that pen move across the desk. And we understand Robert Duval asking John, “Hey, would you do that again.” While stories of telekinesis are popular SciFi fare and though most of us are skeptical of such claims, we still enjoy the titillation of imagining such a thing being possible. And while our sensibilities are jaded in this “modern age,” many of us still enjoy the feats of legerdemain performed on stage. However, the most successful of “magicians” have capitalized on being able to deceive the eyes of those watching; of knowing how to manipulate the way what we see is communicated to our brains, taking advantage of “smoke and mirrors.”

As a pilot I understand how dangerous it is to trust our eyes rather than our instruments while flying, especially in marginal or bad weather. But what of the accident not long ago where a very experienced pilot died because the controls of his plane had been incorrectly rigged in reverse to what they should have been? While doing his run-up prior to taking off I don’t doubt he looked at his control surfaces to see if they were performing properly, but after doing so a thousand times without a problem, a thousand times seeing what he expected to see his eyes did not communicate the difference in this instance to his brain. In other words, he “saw” what he expected to see, not what was actually happening.

The stories are legion of witnesses to various events describing them in different ways, sometimes even contradictory. And we are all familiar with the expression “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” a maxim recognized from the very earliest of human history; what has always been beyond our science to explain is understanding why this is so. And despite the many advances in understanding the structure of our eyes and brain function, the deeper mysteries of what we see and how our eyes communicate to ourselves and others remain.

“Look at me straight in the eye and tell me that” has long been a means of attempting to discern the truthfulness of what someone has said, especially parents of their children. But how some become accomplished liars, controlling what their eyes convey is a mystery.

While the “peeping Tom” is a person despised, we are all familiar with that “All Seeing Eye” on our currency, but just what exactly is it? Theories including those of the occult abound, but the actual beginning and meaning have been long lost and no amount of scholarship has been able to trace these despite the many books and learned treatises on the subject.

But one of the more intriguing questions concerning the power of our eyes to change things has been broached in a new theory of the universe:

Mankind ‘shortening the universe’s life,’ by Roger Highfield, Science Editor UK Telegraph. November 21, 2007. Forget about the threat that mankind poses to the Earth: our activities may be shortening the life of the universe too. The startling claim is made by a pair of American cosmologists investigating the consequences for the cosmos of quantum theory, the most successful theory we have. Over the past few years, cosmologists have taken this powerful theory of what happens at the level of subatomic particles and tried to extend it to understand the universe, since it began in the subatomic realm during the Big Bang. But there is an odd feature of the theory that philosophers and scientists still argue about. In a nutshell, the theory suggests that we change things simply by looking at them and theorists have puzzled over the implications for years. They often illustrate their concerns about what the theory means with mind-boggling experiments, notably Schrodinger’s cat in which, thanks to a fancy experimental set up, the moggy is both alive and dead until someone decides to look, when it either carries on living, or dies. That is, by one interpretation (by another, the universe splits into two, one with a live cat and one with a dead one.) New Scientist reports a worrying new variant as the cosmologists claim that astronomers may have accidentally nudged the universe closer to its death by observing dark energy, a mysterious anti gravity force which is thought to be speeding up the expansion of the cosmos. The damaging allegations are made by Profs Lawrence Krauss of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and James Dent of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, who suggest that by making this observation in 1998 we may have caused the cosmos to revert to an earlier state when it was more likely to end. “Incredible as it seems, our detection of the dark energy may have reduced the life-expectancy of the universe,” Prof Krauss tells New Scientist. The team came to this depressing conclusion by calculating how the energy state of our universe - a kind of summation of all its particles and all their energies - has evolved since the big bang of creation 13.7 billion years ago. Some mathematical theories suggest that, in the very beginning, there was a void that possessed energy but was devoid of substance. Then the void changed, converting energy into the hot matter of the big bang. But the team suggests that the void did not convert as much energy to matter as it could, retaining some, in the form of what we now call dark energy, which now accelerates the expansion of the cosmos…

One should read the entire article to appreciate its full significance, but the gist of it is that scientists continue to make discoveries that contradict long held beliefs about our universe. And much like religion, there is no one size fits all when it comes to interpreting the data.

Trying to make my way through so much of facts and mythologies I concluded a few years ago that any theory of “everything” would have to include life itself. To date we have no way of defining life, no knowledge of its origin or its impact on the several theories including the one just mentioned.

While scientists are as a group committed to facts, they remain human beings plagued by the very same questions as most religious people, but not as inclined to make their questions public. But the universe remains not only a place of mystery, but also a place of great and unimaginable terror for the most part, a place very inimical to life and most especially human life. Our planet evolved through tremendously horrifying and brutal processes that led me to believe it is indeed a “demon-haunted world” given its birth and history; a history conducive to the many grotesque and demonic portrayals in stone and writings along with the many reports of various ghosts and spirits by the various human cultures.

The very unimaginable, cruel brutality through which our own species has come to reach our present state of civilization is a testimony to our brutal beginnings. And as Emerson pointed out it took savagery and brutality on the part of some to found the great families eventually dedicated to the arts and sciences. But who doubts that should world conditions become so terrible our species would once again revert to the state of savagery and brutality that was once the norm for survival? But a demon haunted universe; ah, that is a subject for even greater speculation.

As to changing things by peering closely into them, perhaps those like Newton did so. We know what a look can do, but some seem to have a peculiar gift of looking more closely into things and people than others. And while charlatans abound in making extravagant claims, nevertheless it is my belief many of those who are actually “seers” are extraordinarily careful about revealing what they see ever as much as a beautiful woman knows the inherent dangers of making eye contact with men.

Jack Nicholson was correct admiring women in “The Witches of Eastwick.” As scientists are now pointing out males are simpler than females; but then we all knew this didn’t we. Perhaps L. H. Summers was incapable of appreciating the distinction when he implied women didn’t have the brains to become scientists and physicists. While Sam Clemens was direct about the distinction between men and women, declaring them to be “natural born enemies,” it hardly serves any purpose in exaggerating what too often seems to be the truth of this. But then Sam was equally direct in declaring politics too dirty a business for women to soil themselves engaging in this male bailiwick.

Alas, ignoring both Jack and Sam, a few women have chosen the political arena and may be paying a price for this. As scientists are affirming, males are predictably basic and their wiring and plumbing relatively uncomplicated. Females, on the other hand, are far more complicated and unpredictable. As Walt Kelly had it, women are “easy riled,” and men are often left wondering what set some woman off; much like Rick in The Mummy asking “What did I say?” as Evie stomps off in high dudgeon, a classic of men=basic and predictable, women=complicated and unpredictable. As the father of both sons and daughters, the boys were easy to deal with. My girls, they remained little extraterrestrials for surely they came from another planet.

Of course, it is only to be expected such an opinion will generate some heated discussion, much as if I were saying as a mere man “We should never have given them the vote.” But face it ladies, have you really bettered your condition at the ballot box? Well, of course you have, but what if Ms. Clinton appears to the world as the best you can do for representation? There is no escaping the perception when one woman appears on stage with several men in a debate for the presidential nomination; and that one woman presumes to speak for all women. “Not so!” some women will exclaim, but the perception remains. Talk about sticking out like the proverbial sore thumb! And not a few women cringe at the sight of such a thing. And will Oprah campaigning for Obama really change that perception? I don’t think so.

Life is unfair, and women bear the brunt of this unfairness. Certainly we look at the stage upon which politicians are performing, and have every reason to look at the men and ask ourselves why we Americans can’t do better than what is being offered as “choices.” But women have every right to ask the same question concerning Ms. Clinton.

The Washington Squirrel Cage is humming right along, the “squirrels” continuing to perform their antics on stage for audiences; would that politicians were equally entertaining as the real thing. Henry Thoreau had a fondness for squirrels that I share, and as he said they always perform like a dancing girl presuming an audience in attendance.

Perhaps rather than defame squirrels politicians should be likened to creatures like that giant scorpion discovered and is making headlines. “Men in Black” was certainly prescient in making giant creepy-crawlies the bad guys in the film; an eight-foot scorpion would not be a bug to trifle with, and led one researcher to point out “The discovery in 390-million-year-old rocks suggests that spiders, insects, crabs and similar creatures were far larger in the past than previously thought, said Simon Braddy, a University of Bristol paleontologist…”

Science continues to be stymied concerning the origin of life and what, exactly, life is, and discoveries like this giant scorpion declare how ignorant we really are about past life forms in many instances. Like past civilizations and questions surrounding Atlantis, UFOs, the ancient artifacts like the Sphinx and the pyramids in too many cases the best we have are educated, and some not so educated, guesses.

Things like this giant scorpion and the dinosaurs, of Nature red in tooth and claw support my own hypothesis much of Creation was of Satanic, diabolical origin. But perhaps Satan really was a lawyer and politician? Consider the results of this “species” and its impact on America? Lawyers and politicians being of diabolical origin at least might explain the “choices” We the People are being offered in the political arena. But if not, we are hard pressed to come up with a better explanation. And no matter how you slice it, these leave a trail of slime akin to some giant snail marking its progress and consuming everything in its path. As with that giant scorpion, I don’t doubt an equally giant snail is out there somewhere. Some of us would say they already inhabit the White House and Congress but wish they were at the very least as entertaining as squirrels.

The extremes to which schools are going in attempts to prevent violence are truly beyond comprehension. But given the extremes of political correctness emasculating teachers, police and others you no longer dare touch a child or even speak to them in any manner that might be fodder for what most agree are the lowest of bottom feeders in America, the lawyers that pounce on anyone for anything. However, the degree of violence which children are exposed to on TV, in films and “games,” it is little wonder adults are genuinely concerned when “hit lists” are found in a school and drawings depicting violence against other children are taken seriously.

For those old enough to remember it most of us kids, the boys as least, while in elementary school during WWII were fond of drawing pictures of American planes, ships, and tanks destroying Japanese and German planes, ships, and tanks. What I do not recall is drawing pictures of people attacking and killing other people. It’s as though we were far more interested in drawing pictures of planes, ships, and tanks. And the better artists among us would use a ruler to draw lines of withering fire converging on enemy planes for example and having them explode. But we were involved in a world war and even our teachers encouraged such drawings.

The toy stores of the time had many “weapons of violence.” You could buy a toy ship that when hit just right by the fire of another would “explode” by a spring mechanism. Then you put it together again for another shot; real fun. You could buy spring-operated small toy machine guns that fired wood bullets or those where you wound up a spring to fire sparks by an abrasive wheel when you pulled the trigger. Those were fun. And, of course, there were the ubiquitous slingshots and other items of mayhem to keep children amused. Many of us found using a rubber band around our fingers could fire paperclips or bobby pins with precision. It wasn’t just the BB guns obviously intended to put out the eyes of children with which parents had to be concerned.

But to my knowledge, I am the only boy who ever fired a razor blade out of a slingshot. I will never know what demon planted the idea in my mind, but once there it compelled me to try this dangerous experiment in potentially bloodletting mayhem.

I was a grandmaster of the art at making slingshots, and the one I was to use was one of the best I had ever made; the beautifully carved handle and utilizing rubber from an innertube and a very fine leather pouch was ideal to my macabre purpose. I had used it with telling effect with a variety of projectiles on a number of targets and had great confidence in it and my ability to use it. But when it came to shooting a razor blade from it, this was completely uncharted territory.

Why I chose a double-edged razor blade I will never know. Why not a single-edged blade; a question as inexplicable as why I was going to do such an obviously insane thing to begin with? Going into the backyard I inserted the blade in the pouch of the slingshot, and taking aim at the back fence pulled back and prepared to let fly not knowing if the razor blade would slice my hand, fly back in my face or what? Taking a breath and ignoring the unsettling questions I let go. Zing! Thunk! The blade buried itself in the fence. It was only then with utterly dumbfounded amazement I realized what I had actually done! Here was a weapon of incredible potential for doing great harm to someone!

Folks, parents have every right to live in fear for their children. You just never know what may happen to them in today’s violent environment, and there are the monsters out there in human guise preying on children. That would seem to be enough for parents to worry about; however, as though the gods intended to punish people for having children you never know what is going on in their minds; you may be “blessed” with a child that is driven by the kind of inventive curiosity they might try firing a razor blade out of a slingshot.

But here is the “then and now” part of the story. Realizing the great potential of such a weapon for doing great bodily harm to someone, quite naturally I did not disclose my discovery to any of the adult guidance units surrounding me, but neither did I ever mention doing this to any of the other children I knew. What happened to the usually appropriate “bragging rights” most children enjoy among their peers? For some curious reason I have never been able to determine, my lips regarding this event remained sealed. Had the blade sliced my hand or boomeranged into my face and put out an eye that would have been difficult to hide. Then it would have been a simple matter of “What possessed you boy to do such a stupid thing!”

Ah, but the experiment had been an astounding success. In pondering the question over the years past I concluded the reason for my not mentioning this to other children was my fear one of them might actually use this weapon against another child. It wasn’t difficult for me to imagine the kind of guilt I would carry over such a thing. To my credit, I did have that kind of sensitive conscience. But I believe this was the result of the kind of people and society that encouraged such a conscience in me. Children no longer have that advantage.

It isn’t that I am unique among people with a sensitive conscience, but the experiment with my slingshot stayed with me; I didn’t share it. The more “successful” of lethal weapons like machine guns, assorted bombs including nuclear, well, they were not prevented by inventors with that kind of sensitive conscience. Once these ideas began to insinuate themselves into the minds of inventors and scientists and made “successful,” in no time at all everyone had to have them.

Unfortunately for our species and our planet, once inventors and scientists have opened the box there is no going back from what has been unleashed in the way of destruction, especially on a massive scale. Certainly nuclear energy held great promise for peaceful use, but it didn’t turn out that way. And children today are making hit lists and drawing pictures of killing other children; and the adults are wringing their hands exclaiming “What is to be done!”

The problem is historical, and nations invariably pay the price for not having leaders more concerned for children, the future of all nations, than they are with power and wealth. Such corrupt leaders always lead nations in the path of “What is to be done!” And there is little point in multiplying laws concerning parents and teachers about school violence for example when America lacks leaders genuinely concerned for the future of our children. But it won’t do for America to try to shoulder the problem in isolation from other nations that are cursed with the very kind of leadership that prevents cooperation in solving problems of truly global implications, nations that are cursed with the kind of leaders more concerned for wealth and power than their own children.

There are many who would agree with the sentiment “I don’t believe in ghosts, but I’m afraid of them.” While charlatans have always abounded in the “spiritual realm,” the whole idea of ghosts continues to capture the imagination. For my part, I believe I live with ghosts, living with the dead if you will, but there is no fear in this for me though I do not know if one of my departed loves ones should suddenly appear whether I would have a heart attack or not. If my departed loved ones and friends remain with me as though they had simply put off their mortal bodies well and good. I take what comfort I can from believing this. People are “spiritual” beings no matter how many attempts are made to describe us otherwise.

One of the questions that seem to demand an answer of me is whether ghosts are the natural state of humans after death, whether Adam and Eve were a part of the spiritual realm in their creation and through The Fall became “unnatural” as physical beings subject to disease, death, and decay, but after death we return to the natural, spiritual state from which we came.

But being spiritual at our very core, our very life essence, humans cannot be faulted for looking for answers that defy any scientific attempts to find answers to spiritual questions. However, among the “natural laws” is one that impels people to call out, especially in distress, to a higher power. “God help me!” is probably among the most common of utterances among human beings; it is the thing that gives credence to the dictum “there are no atheists in foxholes.” But because it cannot be put under a microscope or shaken in a test tube, this natural law is denied by those that believe they are “too scientific” to subscribe to this law; that is until they find themselves in extremis.

This natural law of crying out to God has nothing to do with various religious rites and liturgies. Much like Tevye in “Fiddler on the Roof” I talk to God, but I do not believe in prayer; that is I do not believe in asking some higher power to act on my behalf. My position is one that if God hears the screams of suffering children being tortured and murdered by monsters in human guise and does nothing to intervene on the behalf of these children, I can hardly expect him to hear and respond to my requests. While logic demands a reason for humans responding to the natural law of calling out to a higher power, even the common belief in an afterlife, logic also rejects this higher power responding to what amounts to religious nonsense. What I do believe is humans are the result of an act of Creation, and it is what came to be called the “divine spark of life within us” that responds to this natural law just as children call out to their parents.

While it would seem to be the Devil’s agenda to “educate God out of people,” especially in our schools and universities, such efforts are doomed to fail since in order to do so human nature itself including the natural law mentioned would have to be changed. And not all the laws by all the atheists in the world will ever succeed in doing this. Soon enough I’ll know the facts of the case, if they are to be known at all. What I have is hope of a hereafter, and one in which as the Bible has it “all tears will be wiped away.” But this is my hope; not a certainty; though in some inexplicable way I believe “in my bones” that my hope will be fulfilled no matter the lack of proving it to myself or any other.

In the meantime, the reality of Good vs. Evil has been the struggle of humankind from the very beginning. And it is in attempting to make sense of this human condition in which evil seems always to have the upper hand that I’m compelled to try to make sense of this. And while much has come down to us from antiquity concerning this struggle, the Bible remains the best source of collected writings on the subject.

But as with other Scriptures from various sources, the Bible bears the imprint of many imperfections and contradictions. Still, as a matter of scholarship it stands far above any other writings having to do with the origin of our universe and life, of the relationship between humankind and Creation. However, there is a thread running through all such writings and mythologies having to do with sin, something that accounts for alienation between a Creator, or Creators and humankind, something that makes our history as a species one of Good vs. Evil throughout. The doctrine of “Original Sin” is an attempt to make sense of this alienation; keeping in mind the myths of antiquity often have their origins in facts of some kind. The task of scholars is to discover these facts.

In the beginning it reads in Genesis that God made creatures male and female, and there is no evidence for how they “evolved” into male and female. Men and women have left no evolutionary trail to how they became male and female. And no matter what amounts to smoke and mirrors on the part of devout evolutionists they can obfuscate but they cannot explain this failure in their theories. While few would dispute change takes place over time, that many life forms change and adapt or die, the honest person must allow there are gaps in evolutionary theories that cannot be closed by an entirely mechanistic theory of the universe and life. And while I decry those whose “faith” demands an entirely mechanistic view of the universe and life, neither do I subscribe to religion as an attempt to avoid the hard facts of science and rational thought processes.

Knowing the millions of years hominids (a term somewhat indistinct) have been around without giving rise to civilization led me to hypothesize something happened in a comparative instant of time to change this culminating in Modern Man a mere 11,500 years ago. The consensus seems to be climate change at that time made it possible for humans to engage in agriculture rather than being hunter-gatherers, and the agrarian society providing an assured food source became organized on a level not possible in time past. But this alone does not entirely satisfy the question of how such a thing became possible to the very creatures that had been around for many thousands of years previous to this sudden historical event, one that would shape cultures resulting in the artists, inventors, and scientists that produced the kind of world we live in today.

We do know that writing was a key element in the rise of civilized societies, a means of communicating the knowledge of one generation to those following not possible by oral and pictorial communication alone. It would be the refining of writing together with a numbering system that meant so much to the most successful of early cultures. But throughout those earliest cultures from the most primitive to the most advanced there was the continuing struggle to make sense of the questions of life and death. In the more advanced cultures the earliest mythologies became organized around philosophical speculation giving rise to flourishing arts and sciences, while those remaining primitive continued in the comparative ignorant darkness of superstitions.

But even the most advanced civilizations continued to rely on the mythologies of the past in attempts to answer questions of our origin, of life and death not possible to scientific inquiry and discovery. And even today we have no scientific understanding of life and death, and only theories concerning life and its origin.

The opening chapters of Genesis have long held a particular fascination for me, largely because I believe they present the story of Creation from actual events; but for the most part the story is a riddle at best defying attempts to get at whatever the facts of the events were. At the worst, the story is mishmash and contradictory, making little sense in places. For example, from the use of the plural “gods” in making the decision to make the Adam in their image, I conclude there was a council of the gods involved with this decision. The book of Job, thought to be the oldest of the books of the Bible, seems to infer there is such a group of gods. And there is the matter of the story in Genesis involving the sons of God and the daughters of men inferring groups belonging to both though we do not know the facts leading to the story or what actually distinguished between the two groups beyond what is written. Chapter eleven of Genesis is the last place an apparent council of the gods is mentioned in the decision to disperse humankind by the “confusion of tongues.” From there on throughout the rest of the Bible male dominance of the singular Deity is used.

Of the several assumptions one might make about the story of the creation of Adam and Eve, as well as much of the Bible, is a clear prejudice on the part of the writer against women. And if so, it was a prejudice that has been in evidence since the earliest of recorded history; but if not such prejudice on the part of the writer then what? Why should Eve be made to appear more susceptible to being beguiled by the Serpent than Adam? Of course, Adam appears a weakling when he blames both God and Eve for his own failure. But God’s curse against Adam is predicated on his listening to his wife! It’s as though God was condemning Adam for listening to a woman and thereby being less than what God expected of a real man! But why didn’t God take vehement exception to Adam’s including the Deity in his excuse “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me…”?

There is some obfuscation in the story. Adam and Eve were created by the gods, but the Lord from whom Adam and Eve tried to conceal themselves is given as a lone entity. Yet when discovered to have eaten of the forbidden fruit, the narrative reverts back to the plural in “the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” This returns to the singular Lord God in driving the man, singular, out of the Garden, though the inference is clear that both Adam and Eve were expelled.

Another curiosity presents itself in that it would seem Adam and Eve did not have sex until they were driven out of the Garden. This at least implies that sex as we know it did not occur while Adam and Eve lived in the Garden; that whatever happened through their innocence lost by their disobedience to God made them aware of their nakedness, an implied change in their physical condition and they tried to cover themselves. What they were before this change we do not know, but the change wrought in them by God’s judgment upon them resulted in the physical bodies we are born into subject to disease, death, and decay. The Bible has it that sin entered the world by Adam’s transgression, and the penalty of sin is death; but what of Eve?

I Timothy 2:11-15: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

The Apostle Paul often seems to characterize women as subordinate to men, and this is in keeping with Jewish theology. But his word to Timothy concerning the salvation of women emphasizes that particular part of the curse in the Garden falling peculiarly upon Eve quite distinct from Adam; that women were to suffer in a way quite distinct from men. And from this the concept of Original Sin being the act of sex with women considered “unclean” and continuing to tempt men has been a part of religious doctrine in many instances.

In Genesis, Eve is presented as more susceptible than Adam to being gulled by the Serpent. Is the written account due to a prejudice against women on the part of the writer? Or was there a distinction in the creation of Eve that made her rather than Adam the target of the Serpent, and in her failure to obey God was made to suffer disproportionately from Adam? Many attempts have been made in both philosophy and theology to discover why women have a role so very distinct from men, and why they continue to suffer from male domination and being thought of less value than men.

I have always been willing to accept that “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” but what exactly that glory consists of, well, apart from us mere mortals trying to follow the Golden Rule I’m not at all sure.

For whatever reason, primarily climatic changes, life on our planet has gone through many cycles over millions of years. Then suddenly in a mere moment of time some 11,500 years ago Modern Man with civilization burst upon the scene. Many credit a change in climate conducive to agriculture for this sudden emergence, but believers may be excused for taking the Genesis account seriously in this respect. For my part, I do credit the Genesis story while at the same time knowing it is a mishmash and contradictory in places.

For example, if God made them male and female from the beginning, what went wrong that made sex a curse equated with original sin and why did the curse fall primarily on Eve? Taking the story of Creation in Genesis literally as written it is as I said a mishmash and contradictory, making no sense in several ways. Since the story was recounted through generations before it found its way into the account we have in the Bible it remains only conjecture and speculation. My own is based on years of theological studies and reading tomes of Biblical criticism by the finest minds in the discipline; and after so many years of such studies not finding any satisfactory answers to the particular questions concerning the events of the Garden and The Fall.

But the obvious emphasis of the story of The Fall is on innocence lost, since the Serpent did tell a partial truth in that once eaten the forbidden fruit opened the eyes of Adam and Eve and they became as gods knowing both good and evil, a point emphasized in Greek mythology which may have made its contribution to the account in Genesis.

Well, I don’t have any answers to my questions concerning ghosts, and I don’t have any answers concerning The Fall and Original Sin. But being a spiritual being, I’m compelled to continue speculating and turning the questions over and over in my mind, taking what comfort I can in knowing many others struggle with the very same questions.

Instead of an election, let’s have an auction. The winning candidate will be the one commanding the highest price: “Sold to the highest bidder!” Those with a penchant for favoring reality knowing politicians are bought and paid for and elections are at best a sham will say an auction is what politics consists of anyway. But in the case of the present crop running for President there is a mitigating factor to consider: It is the “Elizabeth Factor.”

In “Paint Your Wagon” Elizabeth consents to be auctioned off, and her Mormon husband cautions her, “But Elizabeth, you don’t know what you’ll be getting.” To which she replies, “No, but I know what I’ve had.” And there it is; the Elizabeth Factor: No more Bush’s or Clinton’s. When people enter the polls to vote, many of them are going to vote the Elizabeth Factor. Enough to make a difference; sorry, my crystal ball remains cloudy on that.

I’m given to my grandad’s method of voting: “If they’re in, get ‘em out.” Granted I throw away my vote more often than not on that basis, and I realize “none of the above” being my preference does not win elections. But I take what solace I can find in at least being able to say I did not vote for either the greater or lesser of evils. So why vote? Because so many good people literally gave their lives in order for me to exercise this precious right, this duty and obligation as an American.

However, it wouldn’t do to ignore the fact there are those that vote the “Entitlement Factor,” those that have been promised their “forty acres and a mule” and not only do not plan on earning their keep, but will vote themselves unearned bread at every opportunity. And what with a government intent on auctioning off America to the highest bidder and making slaves of all Americans it seems to matter little who wins elections, they are all on the Devil’s payroll.

It is easier for me to imagine Bill Clinton sitting on the veranda of his plantation mansion puffing a cigar and sipping a mint julep, in the business of “whoppin’ slaves and sellin’ cotton” than George Bush. But Bush fits the image of dealing the same way with his Mexican slaves. And Ms. Clinton in a suit with her smirk, sneer, cackle, and shrill voice attempting to be “man enough” gives anyone hives. It is not difficult to imagine her on the plantation in leathers snapping a whip.

As the candidates promise, posture, and pose for the cameras, all exude the intense desire to be our new White House “Massa.” I was very disappointed by James Mason taking that role in “Mandingo,” but it did make me suspect what his real character has been all along. We hear about various people being a “closet” this or that, but was Mason really a closet “Massa?” Well, if Henry Fonda could play the role of such a murderous villain in “Once Upon A Time In The West” this only proves some actors want to give vent to subterranean thoughts contrary to social conventions; and sometimes they want to prove they can stretch their artistic reach but there are times when this can come back to bite them. And there are certain proprieties to be observed if one is to be taken seriously in their avowed roles, and nowhere is this as important as it is in politics where perception is everything. Whether Hollywood or politics, the demand for being believable in the role is of paramount importance.

So, as we ponder the track record of the present crop of contenders for President, as we watch and listen to them say nothing of substance knowing politicians lie to get elected and continue lying to stay elected, which of them is convincing in the role they are playing on stage? It’s as though We the People know we are only watching actors on a stage, but we want someone who is at least convincing in the role. In some way, this is much like the betrayed husband or wife that wants their lover and companion back exclaiming, “Please lie to me; I’ll believe you! I don’t want to hear the truth I only want you back!” Have we come to such a disastrous position in our history that proves Jack Nicholson’s “You can’t handle the truth!” Folks, if it has really come to this America is worse off than anyone imagines.

Some of us are wondering if Al Gore may be drafted by his party, not only because of the mounting concerns over electability surrounding Ms. Clinton, but because of his bringing such impressive credentials, deserved or not, to the table. Most certainly the whole global warming scenario is getting a lot of play, and Gore is right there as the foremost person making the case that “something must be done.” What this something is without the cooperation of nations like China remains at the least uncertain. But Al is the one many look to as the most promising to carry the freight. In some ways, it comes down to which kook among kooks is most to be trusted to cleave to their kookiness.

Not that the warnings over global warming is the sole purview of kooks; there is far too much evidence to the contrary. While “the greatest scam in history” as per John Coleman is hyperbolic, it is a matter of debate by experts whether global warming is the cause of humankind, natural forces, or some combination of the two. Consensus on this is difficult to come by, but having become the poster boy for environmentalism Al carries a lot of weight both nationally and internationally. And keeping in mind the dictum that when it comes to politics perception is everything, the people with the money choosing their politicians to represent them this dictum is at the forefront. The people with the real wealth controlling politics and world events while evil personified did not acquire such power and wealth by being stupid.

Personally, I still believe as I wrote at the time Al Gore never stopped running for President. But my crystal ball is as cloudy on the issue as anyone else’s. I choose to remain in the more comfortable world of thoughts and speculations as being more fun and far less open to ridicule than predictions gone sour. And I’m no different than anyone else when it comes to not liking an “I told you so;” if those kinds of people were so smart they’d be playing the ponies for a living.

There are many things that can change the whole scenario on the political scene, such as the events presently unfolding in Pakistan. And what if there is a terrorist nuclear attack on America, or suicide bombers targeting the malls of America? People vote differently in the face of circumstances, and these can quite literally turn on a dime at any given moment.

Of this I am fairly certain; the majority of Americans do not want anything further to do with Bush’s wars, and the perception of his serving the interests of global corporations rather than America tars anyone closely associated with Bush. The election may come down to anybody but someone allied to Bush; but the conundrum for Democrats is as I expressed, choosing a Democrat that is electable; and Ms. Clinton is not, nor in my opinion are any of the other Democrats running at present. And so, improbable and fanciful as it seems like the Witch of Endor I call up the specter of Al Gore. Like speculation about events following should Ms. Clinton be assassinated, given the present circumstances and dangers facing America many possible scenarios present themselves for consideration. Unfortunately, few of them are very pleasant.

But for me, the moment of departure from George Bush came with his refusal to respond immediately the very evening of 9/11 with cruise missiles on Kabul and Baghdad; had that been done I don’t believe there would be any present concerns about Iran or any other mad mullahs. It was then I concluded another game was afoot than that of the interests of America. Adding considerable impetus to my departure from Bush was his treasonous refusal to secure our borders for the sake of slave labor benefiting his corporate bosses. Cementing this conclusion was learning Caesar Bush did not need advisors because in his own words he had God advising him. And with that in mind it is easy to understand why Caesar did not need any Plan B for waging war in the Middle East. God would make good on Plan A. So, why worry about nonessential things like an exit strategy when clearly none would be needed? God would advise Caesar each step of the way.

From childhood it seems I was born to be a skeptic about many things, not the least of which was my doubt about anyone claiming to have received privileged communication from the Deity telling them anything. And while I was raised by Bible believing Christians none of them claimed any divine revelations from God. As a preacher, grandad would have been quick to denounce anyone making such a claim and I followed in grandad’s footsteps, willing to accept God may have spoken to the prophets in time past but unwilling to believe in any “latter day prophets.” As to the glossolalia I always supposed if one were to speak an angelic language it would be comprehensible at the very least, not gibberish. For example in “Blazing Saddles” the old fellow’s frontier gibberish was somewhat incomprehensible and he had an interpreter to untangle it, not some shill pretending to interpret it.

What we are getting from politicians is gibberish without the pretext of being an angelic language; they are speaking in tongues, but there are none to interpret; apart from this one fact we can take to the bank: Politicians lie to get elected, and continue lying to stay elected. Ben Affleck in “Pearl” is being dressed down by Alec Baldwin. After Affleck offers his explanation Baldwin replies “That’s bull---t, but it’s very good bull---t.” Folks; what we are getting from politicians isn’t even good bull---t, let alone very good bull---t.

Each Thanksgiving I’m reminded of the fun the holiday used to be in school when we children would hear and read the stories about the Pilgrims and that first historic celebration, our making Pilgrim hats and collars, Indian headdresses and turkeys of construction paper and putting on skits. I was once favored to play the part of Squanto; but the closest I ever came to the reality of that first Thanksgiving occurred when I was a young boy and my maternal grandparents and I had moved to the mining claim in Boulder Gulch here in the Kern River Valley.

Thanksgiving morning I got up early and went quail hunting. In short order I had eight of the birds, returned to the cabin, skinned and cleaned them. My grandmother made dressing in a large cast iron pot; then carefully arranging the small birds all around on top of the dressing, she put the pot in the oven of our woodstove to bake. The result was a real Thanksgiving feast, each golden-browned quail a miniature turkey making for elegant haute cuisine.

Grandad pronounced it one of the best Thanksgiving dinners he could recall, and I was rightly proud of having provided the main course, some part of my Choctaw Cherokee heritage undoubtedly responding to having provided “meat for our lodge,” and being for Thanksgiving dinner made it all the more memorable and important to me. In true boyhood fashion, the thought of playing the role of Squanto in reality came readily to mind.

Very few of even my advanced years ever experienced such a memorable thing in their lives; and in my opinion are the poorer for the lack. Not that I am ungrateful for the cornucopia of plenty to be found in supermarkets, the ease and convenience of such a thing in our daily life. But such ease and convenience, such plenty does tend to make us unmindful of how so many throughout the world suffer real want and hunger.

True enough, you have to “walk in another’s moccasins” to appreciate their case; but I wouldn’t trade for America, a land of plenty. Still, I have the uneasy feeling that We The People, for the better part having never known real hunger and privation, have this tendency to take our “cornucopia” for granted; and there is something tending to selfishness, even inherently dangerous doing so.

Had Ben Franklin been able to look into the future of politics far enough I doubt he would have suggested the turkey be our national bird given the connotation that eventually evolved. But Ben being of a very practical mind was certainly correct in his evaluation about the worthiness of the turkey being considered since it had a very utilitarian function as a food item. However, despite Teddy Roosevelt’s astute reservations concerning the bald eagle no one has been anxious to append the name turkey to ball clubs or military groups. “The Screaming Turkeys” just doesn’t come off like “The Screaming Eagles,” nor would anyone want a turkey shoulder patch or badge. The bald eagle may not be so noble a bird as the turkey in the food chain, but because of the importance of symbols the bald eagle wins out since it makes a better symbolic picture, and as with so many things like politics for example the facts give place to perception being the key element.

Ok, you had to know there was going to be a zinger in this, and here it is:  Can Ms. Clinton overcome the perception of her looking like a turkey rather than an eagle? She has a definite image problem when it comes to electability. While the polls may favor her, when it comes time to vote people will want an eagle representing America, not a turkey.

Despicable as the Hollywood politics trumpeting the ACLU portrayed in the film “The American President” it remains one of my favorite films because of the warm love story and some really good lines. When Sydney is confronted with the potential fallout of her relationship with the President and needing only an egg timer to calculate the difference from being a pit bull to becoming a bimbo this would not have been true for a man in such a position. Unfair? Most definitely. But the world does not operate on the basis of fairness.

Eagles prey on turkeys; it’s all part of the food chain where the stronger prey on the weaker. Nature red in tooth and claw plays itself out among people and nations as well. We live in a very dangerous world, one in which the strong prey on the weak and America is coming perilously close to being perceived as a wounded animal inviting predators and scavengers to close in. The danger is real enough for someone like Pat Robertson to forsake “Christian principles” in order to choose an eagle rather than a turkey, and though the choice is obviously the lesser of evils, the lesser remains evil.

But such is the government of America that our choices for leadership have long been only choices between the lesser of evils. And as the dangers of evil increase throughout the world, our own perilously dangerous position in the world dictates the choice of an eagle, not a turkey.

The eagle may not be so noble a bird, but it is on the right end of the food chain in a world where the strong continue to prey on the weak. And nothing can circumvent the “natural order of things” in an evil world where men are the predators and women their prey; an historic world view and fact that in my opinion precludes a woman becoming President of America, especially given the dangers America now faces.

It’s “old news” by now, but I’ve been taking some time mulling this over; for some reason when I read this the first man that came to my mind was Bill Clinton: FOXNEWS: Saudi Marriage ‘Expert’ Advises Men in ‘Right Way’ to Beat Their Wives: Friday, November 02, 2007. Move over, Dr. Phil, there’s a new relationship expert in town. He’s Saudi author and cleric, “Dr.” Muhammad Al-‘Arifi, who in a remarkable segment broadcast on Saudi and Kuwaiti television in September, counseled young Muslim men on how to treat their wives. “Admonish them – once, twice, three times, four times, ten times,” he advised. “If this doesn’t help, refuse to share their beds.” And if that doesn’t work? “Beat them,” one of his three young advisees responded. “That’s right,” Al-‘Arifi said…

Since many of you have already read the article or seen segments of it on TV you know Al-‘Arifi went on at some length to explain how he interpreted men beating their wives in a “humane” manner, for example not damaging the face of a woman, and a husband “should not beat her like he would beat an animal or a child—slapping them right and left.” The sigh of relief on the part of many millions of women upon hearing that caveat to wife-beating can well be imagined; but children and animals would probably be somewhat offended if they understood their “proper place” in this exposition of Muslim theology.

Bar talk (not to be confused with the Hungarian composer) often takes the course of men\women are no damned good. One man I overheard waxing lyrical on this theme about women, especially concerning sex, exclaimed “If it weren’t for that there’d be a bounty on ‘em!” In the case of Ms. Clinton it is difficult to imagine getting past the sneer, smirk, and cackle, but then Bill is well known for exercising other “options” in lieu of beating his wife, perhaps because she is reputed to have a pretty good arm and aim with ashtrays.

But there is nothing funny about men beating women no matter what religious or other spin is attempted to make it acceptable in any culture. And when it comes to children despite Muslim theology or any other excuses hitting people is wrong, and children are people too! And those who care about animals aren’t going to accept these should be slapped around either.

The theology for male dominance that too often degenerates into men beating women goes back to the story of The Fall in Genesis. Whatever occasioned Eve being more susceptible than Adam to the cunning of the Serpent in the Garden, the curse of the gods came down primarily on her because of this perceived weakness in Eve; as the New Testament has it she was deceived but Adam was not. His fault according to the Bible was in listening to his wife. Ah, hah! And my oh my; how often that has been the lame excuse given by men throughout history, just as Adam “took it like a man” and blamed both God and Eve for his own failure.

Granted I take a theological view of our world and the universe because I think this offers the most satisfactory explanation for many things otherwise inexplicable. And while often giving myself over to philosophical speculation, this generally leads into theology. It is difficult at times to tell where the two disciplines overlap and intertwine since both are so closely related, and both assume there are powers beyond human understanding. While teaching psychology in college I would tell students that philosophy asks the questions psychology attempts to answer; but psychology cannot penetrate the veil theology enters, even given much of theology favors male dominance. But then the King of Disciplines, Philosophy, ever as much as Theology, remains primarily a “men’s club.”

Whatever anyone’s beliefs, there is no denying the world scene is not very reassuring, and it is understandable some of us view world conditions in a Biblically apocalyptic way. For my part, there has always been an eerie comparison with Babylon of Revelation to America; and I have written in the past America reminds me further of a house of cards ready to collapse because of our leaders selling out and betraying our nation to such a vast extent I can’t imagine anyone setting things right.

It is within this context of such thoroughgoing greed and corruption on the part of America’s leadership many of us understand the dangers threatening our nation. Given the gravity of so many crises threatening, I find it doubtful a woman can be elected president despite the wishful “familiarity syndrome” and wishing for the “good old days” favoring the Clintons.

As unfair as it is to women, when dangers of the magnitude America is now facing threaten to overwhelm I believe it will be a man of perceived strength, even ruthlessness Americans will end up voting for. And, of course, should any nuclear event occur in the meantime, all the odds go to such a “strong man.” And be he of God or Satan, the only thing Americans will care about is having a man in the White House they believe will do what it takes to save America. One thing is certain; no Muslim nation will take a woman president seriously, but rather will consider her an insult that should submit to men and be “properly beaten.”

There is no way I am going to criticize Dennis Kucinich for his admission of having seen a UFO. On the contrary, for any politician to do so lends him more credibility than the claims made by politicians they are “serving America.” I do criticize Kucinich for his loony political positions and hope his connection with that craft “and heard directions in his mind” wasn’t directing him to become even loonier. And I don’t discount his claim about the UFO may have been an appeal to fellow lunatics, though I consider Shirley MacLaine one of the more lovable. I will always like Shirley; she is one of the more likeable in your face don’t care what you say or think about me people in showbiz. But that may be because I have a fondness for my fellow kooks who in their kookiness do no harm, but rather appeal to imagination.

For example Delbert in Arachnophobia: “A web would indicate arachnid presence.” Nothing can come out of nothing is patently obvious. In respect to the universe and life, this is something that had to come out of something. Those that say there is no God will have to become smart enough to explain with absolute precision what this “something” was, apart from the various theories, before they have any legitimate basis to deny the existence of God. For my part, based on the evidence, it is more reasonable to my mind for me to believe in God than disbelieve. The problem for me and many others who attempt to be honest about our beliefs is that while “A web would indicate arachnid presence” the universe and life are not so accommodating to that kind of precision in interpretation. It is when religious people go off into their various versions of “precision in interpretation” we get the kooks that unlike Shirley too often do harm.

Quite often as a child I would see small funnel-like indents in the earth measuring about an inch in diameter around our place. Using a popsicle stick, a very utilitarian tool for most children, I knew if I gently dug into the bottom of one of these I would find an ant lion, or doodlebug as we children called them. So early is the spirit of scientific inquiry instilled in children. Those little funnels in the earth declared something made them, and I wanted to find the creature that made them. And this very kind of curiosity should be encouraged in children, the kind that leads a child to understand it is a clock but wants to take it apart and see how it works. The more adept child will not only take it apart to see how it functions, but be able to reassemble it. Those adults attacking believers remind me many times of the child that knows it’s a clock and takes it apart to see what makes it work, but do not have the ability to put the clock back together.

There are so very many things beyond our physical senses, unknown and perhaps even unknowable. The universe has a lot of room for both scientific and philosophical speculation. And while there are mysteries galore in the universe there remain many mysteries right here on our own planet. I applaud those who bend their efforts in searching for Atlantis and the meaning of strange markings in stone throughout the world. I want to know about Atlantis, I want to know about the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Stonehenge; I want to know if there really are ghosts or UFOs and extraterrestrials, I want to know where we came from, why we are here, and where we are going. Granted my belief is that we are going somewhere when we die, but what that “somewhere” consists of I have no idea, and heaven and hell are good words to use lacking any specific knowledge of the hereafter.

The thought came to me many years ago that death is easier to face when you have departed loved ones who have already passed before you, have already experienced that ultimate end that comes to all and are there waiting to greet you. This somehow made thoughts of my own death easier to face. But then I began to think about the fact I have been so blessed by loved ones gone on before me, people who made my life precious and meaningful because of their love for me and mine for them, and the further thought came to me not that many have such departed loved ones waiting to greet them on the other side. Stop a moment and consider the question; how many do you have waiting to greet you? Some people like me have quite a number of them, and some people have none or perhaps only one or two at most. I think this has a profound effect on a person’s beliefs and how some people live their lives for good or evil. And it may have a lot to do with America’s failure to cherish the innocence of children.

There is the environment of children to consider that has a profound effect on their beliefs, whether children are raised in nurturing love and parents providing for them or chaos and violence, poverty and ignorance. Dickens warned of children raised in poverty and ignorance, and as an advocate for children did his best to attack this plague in England.

There is, however, no escaping the realities of poverty and ignorance so prevalent here in America, dooming so many children. Those like Ray Bradbury and George Lucas who feared for literacy in America because of TV have been proven correct. TV has been a death knell for literacy in America. The mesmerizing influence of TV has supplanted the reading of books; and this to the detriment of children throughout America.

The genius of Harper Lee was seeing the world about them through the eyes of children in her masterpiece, the novel of the century “To Kill A Mockingbird.” Nick Owchar in the L.A. Times, August 24, 2007: “You’d think, from the hype surrounding it, that reclusive author Harper Lee had given a full-blown speech at the ceremony she attended this week to honor fellow Alabamians. But what she said amounted to very little. As recorded by various news services, she uttered 11 words: ‘Well, it’s better to be silent than to be a fool.’ “

It is obvious to all that J. K. Rowling while so very gifted as a writer was ignorant of Harper Lee’s cautionary statement and played the fool. And because of a very foolish statement favoring homosexuals Rowling gave up forever her credibility as a writer of books for children. The innocence of a child betrayed can never be restored.

In Thomas Mallon’s New Yorker column about TKM he wrote: “Late in 1960, in commenting on the book’s success, Flannery O’Connor declared, ‘It’s interesting that all the folks that are buying it don’t know they’re reading a child’s book.’ “ This observation by Mallon sums up why Harper Lee achieved such a rare pinnacle in literature, one that Rowling can never hope for. The Harry Potter books will never be great books in the literary sense, and now because of the taint of homosexuality will no longer even be considered children’s books.

This condemnation of Rowling has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuals or her thoughts about homosexuality; it has everything to do with what is considered appropriate for children. There is good cause for those of us believing Rowling for whatever reason chose such a self-destructive thing as pronouncing Dumbledore a homosexual succumbing to some inner demon, a moment of temporary insanity if you will.

Some have criticized me for being so favorably inclined toward Harper Lee because of rumors about her personal life and her close association with Truman Capote. But such critics miss the truth of O’Connor’s pointed comment about TKM being a child’s book; and one has to go back and relive their childhood in order to enter into the real story of TKM, a story about and for children seen and understood through the eyes of children; a near impossibility for so many adults that have fallen into the very kind of cynicism addressed by Mr. Raymond in the book, that when children grow up they will no longer weep over injustice.

Harper Lee is neither altruistic nor naïve; she describes in detail the demons children face when it comes to the many perversions and injustices of life. Her rare gift to literature was in her being able to see these things through the eyes of children, and without any apology or compromise her gift to the world remains untarnished in its total honesty to children, and she has never betrayed this trust, choosing rather to be silent than to risk doing so. There was every reason for Harper Lee to retreat back into the world she knew as a child, and recreated in such a masterful way for children. What does Rowling have now?

Most dismiss what they consider fanciful claims like those of Kucinich, and it is easy to dismiss the claims of TV evangelists and others like, but the innocence of a child is not so easily dismissed. The child’s world of fantasy and imagination should be encouraged in purity and simplicity concerning good and evil. It is the responsibility of adults to cherish such innocence. As Harper Lee so well understood, when children grow up they will no longer weep over the injustices she describes in her literary masterpiece. But I fear America has failed to cherish the innocence of children; has in fact betrayed that innocence, and we are paying a heavy price for such betrayal, a price that is fast escalating into calamity for our nation.

It does seem at times I live with ghosts, and frankly I think celebrating a “Day of the Dead” is a great idea. I also enjoy Halloween and watching the old black and white classics like “The Mummy, Dracula,” and others. But once Hollywood started throwing in all the blood and gore in color I said no thanks. Not my thing at all. There is more than enough violence in reality without subjecting myself to such things on screen.

It may be my Indian heritage is the reason “Thunderheart” is a favorite film of mine, but I don’t believe anyone receives a vision by seeking for one. If there are such things, I believe they come unbidden as with the prophets and others in the Bible. Neither do I credit the various methods by which some claim to have access to the supernatural or those gone on before us. But I do credit the “Universal Lyre” of poets; I credit a “Sea of Consciousness” that would account for what seems to be telepathic communication between some individuals. And in this sense, the spirits of our departed loved ones may remain in communication with us. In the words of Jesus “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing.”

Many people believe in ghosts, and since the most ancient of times these have been the stuff of both fancy and literature. Even now there are the various people that make claims for such beings. But I have never seen a ghost, nor am I at all sure I want to see one. I grieve for departed loved ones, but I’m not going to ask that they appear any more than I would ask for a vision. For whatever reason, if there is a hereafter it is designed in such a way that the departed have no physical contact with us. And I must assume if there is a God this is the best way of handling life and death.

I do believe the spirits of my departed loved ones and friends remain with me, and I find comfort in believing this. Though I ache with grief over my daughters Diana and Karen, wishing fervently I could put my arms about them and tell them how much I love them, as with my other loved ones it seems none of them have ever really left me. It is as though apart from not being with me physically they are still here; they haven’t really left me at all. For this reason I talk to them, but I don’t expect any audible reply. It is a confounding thought; what would be my reaction if one of them were to speak to me? I have no idea? But my belief that they remain alive here with me, as though this were a normal part of the hereafter, that they may see and hear me often gives me pause to consider the things I say and do. I would no more want to disappoint or shame them now than when they were here with me in body.

There is something to be said, in my opinion, for the philosophy of not offending the spirits of the departed. And if you believe as I do that when we depart these bodies we will once more be with our loved ones, if you have been blessed as I have with so many loving people now gone on before you, why not live in a manner that does them honor rather than hurtful things that would do them dishonor. Even granting we may still have our disagreements now as then, I needn’t worry about offending or disappointing God or angels so long as I live in a way that will not offend or disappoint these precious loved ones.

It takes someone like me given to whimsy and flights of fancy at times to wonder what would happen if Ms. Clinton died, and of course an assassination would be dramatic. Apart from those few that might personally mourn her passing, the political scene would certainly turn dramatically interesting as Democrats could draft Al Gore, appealing to his sense of patriotism to turn away from saving the world to saving America. And of course, an Oscar and Nobel on his resume would certainly lend stature to the presidency, notwithstanding legitimate criticism still nothing to be sneezed at. Perhaps Al Gore’s ego will get the better of him, as it has with so many others. If he was Roman Catholic he might believe sainthood within his reach, but failing that he may settle for the presidency.

While I might wish Ms. Clinton would just simply disappear, it remains a curiosity to me that Caesar Bush remains alive despite the many millions that hate him worldwide and wish him dead. Such a thing brought to mind my belief that the Devil makes mistakes. From the accounts in the Bible God is reported to have made mistakes, so why not the Devil? For example, after choosing them David and Solomon both disappointed God, so perhaps Hitler disappointed Satan. The Devil may have had more ambitious plans for Hitler, but Hitler succumbing to his own power may have become “unmanageable,” as so often seems the case with those having great power.

My good friend Byron, the Episcopal priest, stopped by yesterday and we were discussing various issues of the day when the conversation turned to some of the stupid things even brilliant people do. He knows my writing; and given to metaphysical speculation as I am, he knows I speculate about the possible errors God made in the Creation, this being characteristic of all those possessed of artistic and scientific creativity. So when I began to speculate Satan had made errors as well, it came as no surprise to him.

The basis of such metaphysical speculation on my part has to do with the assumption that both God and Satan have to work with the material at hand in the case of human beings. While the Bible records instances of the Holy Spirit coming upon individuals, even indwelling some, so the Bible records instances of Satan and demonic spirits entering some. Satan entered Judas, and while he got Judas to betray Jesus, the outcome wasn’t what Satan anticipated according to the Bible. So, it seems Satan erred in his choice of how to get the job done. But if we are to give any credence to the Bible, we must allow both God and Satan are limited by their choices of the human material they have to work with. And as with earthly parents, there are no guarantees concerning their children. Some will be saints, and some will be devils. But we may never know at any given time which we are dealing with, or what will be the outcome.

I speculate no matter how good the person may be, very few can be trusted with power and riches. The old story of power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely remains all too true. Satan may grant power and riches to those that do his bidding, but as with all tyrants he has no one he can trust. Eventually his servants, given enough power, will begin to disappoint the Evil One. As they begin to think more like their master, they begin to assume their own power and authority and use it to their own purposes.

But whether any credit there being a God or Satan or not, here in America we are suffering under a leadership that has proven it feels no obligation to We the People. These leaders have the power and the authority, and it has corrupted them. Because of this if Caesar Bush decides to go out in a blaze of glory by bombing Iran with the probability of truly starting WWIII in nuclear earnest there is virtually no one to stand in his way. Those that might be disposed to oppose him are too corrupt themselves to thwart Caesar’s purpose; and aside from that many good people believe the circumstances already set in motion are leading to no other viable option.

We read and hear Iraqi militants are feeding on corruption; and why not since they have those like Cheney and Halliburton as role models. Cook the books and lose a billion here, a billion there and it makes no difference whether in Iraq or our own Congress. Michael Corleone was correct in calling Kay naive to think the Mafia operated any differently than the government. However, since I am more than a little inclined to believe both God and Satan must rely on human instrumentality, and humans being both fallible and unpredictable in too many cases, it might explain why otherwise very intelligent people do really stupid things.

Much like the sheer stupidity, to be charitable, of Nancy Pelosi and her sponsors regarding the Armenian genocide debacle and the majority in the MSM turning illegal aliens into “immigrants,” J. K. Rowling has forfeited her chance at literary greatness. “Just when you thought it was safe to immerse kids in books about witchcraft, J.K. Rowling has to succumb to political correctness and ‘out’ Hogwarts Headmaster Albus Dumbledore...”

As a literary person and one well qualified academically, a writer and author of books it is my place to judge other writers and authors. While I have commended the genius of Rowling providing children so much to fire their imaginations, I really don’t believe she caved to political correctness. Many talented people, even those of rare genius are capable of doing really stupid things. I believe this is what happened to Rowling; a moment of temporary insanity if you will. Unfortunately, it is not something she can recover from. She has made the declaration and there is no going back from it. Some mistakes remain forever beyond correcting.

The word “perversion” remains in dictionaries, and no amount of fame and fortune will change the dictionary definition of perversion. Rowling has allowed a pervert to subvert her work to her detriment and that of millions of readers; and this at a time when so much media attention is finally being given to the perverts preying on children, the target audience of Ms. Rowling; the children who have made her so successful.

No one doubts Ms. Pelosi is a very intelligent and well educated person, but the sheer stupidity of her espousing a genocide declaration against Turkey when that nation’s cooperation is sorely needed by America defies reason. Such things left those like Emerson, Thoreau, Lincoln and many others wondering whether many seemingly good works were of God or the Devil. And in how many instances has even the best of intentions of some been turned to evil because of unintended consequences; which gives me pause to wonder if either God or Satan fully understands the consequences of their actions and choices. At least the Greeks were willing to accord their gods and goddesses the frailties and uncertainties common to humankind. So yes, as long as I have already been consigned to the outer reaches of perdition beyond redemption by orthodox believers of every kind I admit I can imagine both God and Satan slapping their heads and saying as I have done so many times myself, “How could I have done something that dumb!”

But when it comes to mythology, for me looking back it seems the America I was born into and grew up in was a fairytale, and had I not lived it I understand how it seems a fairytale now to many who never knew such an America, and when my generation is gone it may pass into legend creating its own mythology with the passing of time. But for there to be any future America at all presumes a leadership that will put the interests of our nation before that of its own, a leadership that will cease nationalizing debt while privatizing profits which at present seems only a fairytale wish.

Perhaps there is a philosophy of prayer, though despite the claims of various religions it is far from being a systematic organization of thoughts. Many of us as children were taught the prayer “Now I lay me down to sleep.” A pulpit joke I used to tell was about a little boy’s parents who found the prayer as a beautifully embroidered sampler in a store. Thinking to please him they bought it and hung it above the little boy’s bed. That night as he kneeled to say his prayer he looked up at the sampler on the wall, thought for a moment and said “Never mind Lord, there it is,” and without further ado hopped into bed.

No matter the religion, much of prayer falls into the category of mere form. The liturgies of various religions have evolved over the centuries and it defies either reason or logic why anyone can believe the mere repetition of such religious incantations, counting beads, burning incense or prayer papers, genuflecting and prostrating one’s self can catch the attention of any deity. Well, maybe such things catch the attention of a tyrant like Satan? I take it he likes to be flattered.

An honest Jew like Tevye would admit asking God whether the Almighty couldn’t choose some other people once in a while to represent him. There is no doubt in my mind that if Jews at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem were really honest when asked about it would reply they felt like they were talking to a wall. And, if most Americans were asked the question they would respond the same way concerning trying to get the attention of the White House and Congress.

However, calling out to God, especially in extremis, is for most of us as natural as breathing whether we feel like we are only talking to a wall or not; but for such talking to God being formalized by some ritual incantation really doesn’t impress me, nor do I believe it impresses God. So if you continue as a child saying your prayers at night before you hop into bed I hope it isn’t taking the form of the sampler the little boy found so convenient. If you are going to talk to God, then talk to God. I will continue talking to him along with my departed loved ones and friends and it isn’t anyone’s place to tell you whether you are only talking to a wall or not. But if talking to God takes the form of Caesar Bush or Iran’s mad mullah’s “privileged communication” with the Deity I will take issue with you.

While I do not believe in prayer as most consider it, no longer asking God for anything or to do anything, I find the Bible a fascinating source book concerning the subject. For example, why did Eli the priest think Hannah was drunk because she prayed silently though her lips were moving? No doubt Eli was familiar with drunkenness, including that of his own sons, but why pick on Hannah because her lips moved but no words were heard by the priest? I’ve never seen any drunks praying silently in church while their lips moved emitting no sound, but no doubt such things do happen. Still, it remains a curious story. Even more so when we read Eli was convinced of Hannah’s sincerity, blessed her and her prayer for a son was answered.

The story of Hannah has to do with the concept of Original Sin, in which women were cursed with childbearing and being dominated by men. To have a barren womb was a shame to women like Hannah; they were believed throughout their society to be found in disfavor with God. But to her husband’s credit he did not hold this against Hannah; in fact the story reads he loved her very much. As I continue to work on my book “Hey God! What went wrong and when are you going to fix it?” I never think of the subject of prayer that I do not think of Hannah; and I do not think of Hannah but I also think of the ignoble position of women in so many cases throughout human history. For example, Harvard’s president at the time didn’t think women have the brains for math and science. Suppose L. H. Summers had said women did not possess the higher faculties of mental processes required to be included in the King of Disciplines: Philosophy. Suppose he had said, “Women do not possess the mental requirements to be included in The Great Conversation!”

Why didn’t Harvard’s president call attention to the fact that women have failed to make their way into the most exclusive “Men’s Club” of all, the King of Disciplines: Philosophy? Since this omission of women from the King of Disciplines is the thorniest of all issues among all nations, it is not one that anyone of prominence wants to address. Even so, over the years I have come to realize that even among those of great prominence in the universities some have failed to note this Missing Half of Philosophy: Women!

Had Summers even been aware of this, it is not something to which he would have wanted to call attention. In my own experience of addressing this issue, invariably women have acted as though I were insulting them by calling this exclusion of women from the King of Disciplines to their attention. This despite the fact that it accounts for the failure of women to achieve the status of equal value to men resulting in their subjugation to men in the religion of Islam and others and their exclusion from leadership roles, an exclusion so sorely reflected in the United Nations.

But consider this: If Summers were aware of this omission of women from the King of Disciplines, and yet felt he could safely broach his opinion of the omission of women from the fields of math and science while ignoring the larger omission of their exclusion from Philosophy, it would speak volumes of his actual opinion concerning the higher mental processes accorded men as opposed to women.

A few, short years ago when I began to publicize the fact that women had confused “equal rights” for “equal value” and could not hope to be accepted on the basis of equal value to men until they had earned their place in the King of Disciplines, Philosophy, this generated heated responses from some prominent women. But there were others who understood and agreed, some even acknowledging the incongruity of women in the universities teaching courses in Philosophy seeming oblivious of the paucity of their own sex in this discipline. They were, in short, teaching the philosophies of men largely to the exclusion of women.

Whatever, it would have been well for Summers to frame his remarks concerning his opinion of why so few women achieve prominence in math and science within the larger context of their omission from the King of Disciplines. But men are notorious for their failure to address this issue. Why? I long ago came to the conclusion that even should men be aware of this, men in general do not want to invite women into this most exclusive of all male domains, the one discipline that more than any other emphasizes male dominance throughout the world and directs the course of history and nations, and as a result Philosophy remains far and away the most exclusive “Men’s Club” of all; and one against which women cannot bring suit claiming “discrimination.”

But when the first edition of The Great Books of The Western World came out over fifty years ago, I noted not one woman was included in the 54 volumes! It was then I realized something of great significance was at the basis of this glaring, and what had to be purposeful exclusion of women from philosophy.

On April 21, 2002 I wrote about the recent find in England of a 370-year-old book entitled “Woman’s Worth” proclaiming women to “excel men in virtues and rare endowments of the minde, and I think we shall finde that herein also women doe farre outstrip men.” I added this remark: “I can only hope Mortimer Adler will read this book before any new edition of the Great Books of the Western World is offered.”

Well, bowing to enormous pressure Austen, Cather, Elliot, and Woolf were added to the second edition of The Great Books. But if you read the history of this enormous undertaking of producing this set of books, if you read Mortimer Adler’s opinions of what constitutes the values he and the committee felt justified the inclusion of the various writers represented in this monumental literary achievement, you quickly realize the opinion of the men involved had not changed from the publication of the first edition to that of the second.

However, until women are included in The Great Conversation based on equal value to men, so long will Wisdom fail to be a part of any kind of attempts at peace in the world. The fact is that the barbarism of men makes wars, and the civilizing influence of women makes homes.

Somehow, the sop to women on the part of the committee and Adler adding Austen, Cather, Elliot, and Woolf to the second edition of the Great Books does not go nearly far enough. Honoring the “compatibility of differences” is not seen at the U. N., nor is it seen in America as the kind of relationship that honors and dignifies the compatibility of differences.

While Emerson faulted Thoreau for his lack of committing to a higher calling than gathering huckleberries, the great intellectual giant did commend Henry for his mastery of practical skills, something Emerson genuinely admired about Thoreau. People with real intellect and education rather than those for which such things are only a hollow affectation are quick to credit those that can do things, the practical things that keep a society functioning and growing. After all, the world is a very practical place that has only so much room for dreamers and artists. And even these require food and shelter.

During WWII there were a great number of activities for those of us on the Home Front, by which contributions were made to the war effort giving us the sense of participation, of doing things useful in fighting the war. Some of these activities enabled even children to make their contributions, things like peeling foil from gum and cigarette pack wrappers, rolling it in a ball and turning it in to a scrap metal collection center. I would help grandad flatten tin cans with hammer and anvil for the same purpose. Many children were also turning in metal toys for the war effort, most of which would command a very high price today as “collectibles.”

Few people today would think about wire clothes hangers being hard to come by, but even such a mundane though utilitarian item was scarce at the time, so, grandad made them. Grandad being a jack of all trades, building our house, the church and grocery store in Little Oklahoma (Southeast Bakersfield) there were construction materials around the place before the war, and having a roll of wire on hand he fashioned a jig of a board and nails, then cutting the wire to the proper length he would twist it around the jig and voila; a wire clothes hanger. Grandad was always doing things like this that made him my idol; grandad could do things, really fascinating and useful things, and he took the time to teach me to do things as well.

In so very many ways those of us living the events of WWII were made to feel useful in the war effort; we were making a contribution to defeat the Axis powers. Rationing was hard on many, but more were making jokes about it than complaining. After all, our boys overseas were fighting and dying; what were the hardships on the home front compared to that, especially when those small flags with gold stars in the windows of homes in the neighborhood reflected the reality of the ultimate price being paid by so many?

You could depend on the funny papers, The Saturday Evening Post and Collier’s Magazine having cartoons about rationing; but very little of poking fun in such a way was of “gallows humor.” Most certainly there was no humor to be found in those fighting and dying overseas. Any such attempt at humor would have been met with an army of home front folk bearing tar and feathers.

Bill Mauldin was sensitive enough to know better than make light of the actual grim realities of what was happening on the front lines, though we all blessed him for the humor he was able to convey through “Willie and Joe” in the face of such grim realities. Which makes it all the more to be wondered why anyone would attempt “humor” in any fashion concerning 9/11, as some have done?

Much in the way of the preamble to Gone With The Wind, the way of life in the America of my generation of WWII is quickly passing away, likely never to be seen again, a time when people believed in virtue, believed crime did not pay, that honesty was the best policy. These values were taught in the homes and schools throughout that America. We trusted our leaders to have the best interests of America in view at all times in making decisions, passing legislation and making policies; it was a time when the courts had more concern for victims than for criminals.

Notwithstanding the legitimate faults and weaknesses that are to be found, my generation was a time reflecting the values of our Founding Fathers, whom we still held in the highest esteem, still reflecting the best of Western Civilization in our schools and society. Little did We The People realize that even at the time the America we loved and believed in, sacrificed so much for was already being sold out and betrayed by the universities and their product politicians so given over to greed and corruption, reflecting the amorality of the universities.

But “root hog or die” remains true, even as the Bible has it “if any not work, neither should he eat.” However, America is suffering from the lack of both people with practical skills and opportunities to apply those skills. At that, the slave labor provided by illegal aliens and welfare checks prevent many young people doing the kind of honest work with their hands that would give them a sense of self-worth rather than turning to crime and gangs.

Since the years when I was a vocational skills instructor, the shops in most high schools have been abandoned. And it is utter self-serving nonsense for politicians to mouth platitudes about “training” for industries that have been shipped out of America for the sake of profits. During the years I was teaching young people to work with both hands and minds, to run lathes and mills, do foundry and sheet metal work, auto repair and construction work, all the while learning to take pride in themselves through a sense of accomplishment I did so in the hope these young people would find a demand for such skills when they graduated. This is no longer the case.

So very much of the American character founded in being able to apply the practical skills to everyday living and earning a paycheck has been sacrificed for a Big Brother government as a way of life. It seems incredible that in just my own lifetime I have been witness to an era in which one paycheck was sufficient to take care of a family to this one in which even two paychecks are insufficient.

It took a lot of slave labor to keep Rome humming along. But as was the case in Rome the problem in America is one that reminds me of the frog in water being slowly heated not realizing it is reaching a killing temperature. It has taken a few decades for America to reach this same situation, an America being turned into a nation of slaves lacking the practical skills to do things for themselves, and a leadership that has sold out and betrayed our nation to the point where the opportunity to apply the practical skills for a paycheck, and one that will provide for a family is fast disappearing.

Working in the fields was not beneath the dignity of many Americans when I was a child. I was born on a cotton farm and raised among such people, the kind of people immortalized by Steinbeck and some others who realized the value of human dignity in working and earning a living with one’s own hands. But even then, the idea the laborer is worthy of his hire was abandoned to the greed and corruption of landowners and their toady politicians and now I have to wonder; where are the jobs to be found for the empty promises of politicians concerning job training?

While I thoroughly enjoy going through my book of Norman Rockwell pictures, it is an enjoyment heavily tinged with the nostalgia of melancholy regret for the America I once knew and is now gone. I’ve lived in some of the harshest conditions without any of the amenities we have come to take for granted and have no illusions about the “good ol’ days.” Still, the American character was rooted in the opportunity to apply the practical skills with hope of providing for a family, of offering hope to a future generation. We are now faced with the grim reality that such hope is fast fading for this generation of young people, and as I consider the vacuum of leadership in America and those running for office I have cause to wonder with genuine concern what is to become of such a generation?

While I remain skeptical over the tears of Ellen DeGeneres because of using her position in the media to take Marina Batkis to task, suspecting there may be more going on between the two women than a simple failure to adhere to a contract, it should not be forgotten there is a victim here, a poor little doggy that cannot speak for itself. This is where the attention should be focused as all animal lovers agree. These poor creatures have no other voice to speak on their behalf but that which human beings give them.

Whether or not there is more going on between Ellen and Marina than we are being told, whether the publicity is the end game or not, the really important issue of pet ownership and responsibility reminds me how careful anyone should be when it comes to the care of pets. Take the case of Mr. Cavendish and his beloved beagle Merl for example that appeared in The Weedpatch Gazette some time ago. After reading this heart moving tale I’m sure you will agree the media, and in this case especially Ms. DeGeneres, should display a more responsible grasp of the priorities:

Death of a Beagle

Mr. Cavendish was very anxious to pick up his pet beagle, Merl, from obedience school. It wasn’t that Merl was really disobedient, but he had acquired a few bad habits and Mr. Cavendish, being such a gentle person, just couldn’t bring himself to properly discipline his little friend. So, enrolling him in obedience school seemed the best solution.

Entering the school’s office he was greeted by the headmaster, Doctor Diabole.

With a warm handshake, the good Doctor bid Mr. Cavendish welcome and invited him to take a seat.

“Well, now, Mr. Cavendish, how very kind of you to drop in. I assume you’re here to inquire about Merl?”

“Why yes, of course, Doctor Diabole. I know I should have called before coming by, but I have been very anxious to see Merl and I had hoped he would be ready by now for me to take home. It has been very lonely for me without him and I’m certain he misses me as well.”

With a polite soft and delicate cough Doctor Diabole cleared his throat, and averting his eyes from Mr. Cavendish slowly folded his hands on his desk, and with bowed head as though reluctant to speak replied, “Ah, my dear Mr. Cavendish I’m afraid I have some unfortunate news.”

“What is it Doctor, Merl isn’t sick is he?”

“No, no, nothing of the sort. As a matter of fact Merl is dead.”

Mr. Cavendish was stunned! What? Merl dead? How did it happen? He couldn’t believe what he was hearing. Merl dead?

Attempting to comprehend the magnitude what he had just heard, tears suddenly filled his eyes and Mr. Cavendish struggled to control himself… his Merl, dead? It simply could not be true! He could not be hearing Doctor Diabole correctly! There must be some terrible mistake!

Doctor Diabole arose, and stepping out from behind his desk went over and put a comforting arm around the shoulders of the sobbing Mr. Cavendish.

“My dear sir, I’m sorry to have to tell you this but Merl proved incorrigible. In fact, he consistently failed an essential course on properly piddling. You know, of course, how a rolled up newspaper is used to gently correct a dog?”

“Yes, I know,” Mr. Cavendish replied with an effort past the lump in his throat all the while wiping his eyes with his handkerchief.

“Well,” Doctor Diabole continued, “Merl just didn’t respond well to such a training technique utilizing a newspaper. So I was forced to apply sterner measures with a whip. But even this proved insufficient and finally left me no choice but to beat him with a baseball bat.”

“WHAT!” Mr. Cavendish roared, jerking up from his chair.

“Now, now, Mr. Cavendish, I understand your concern, I truly do, but really, we simply cannot have dogs piddling just anywhere, now can we?”

“But, but, beating Merl to death with a baseball bat! You can’t possibly be serious! This is some kind of sick joke, right?”

“Not at all, sir. But you do have the option of having Merl stuffed and mounted quite attractively in a pose of your choosing, or we can simply give you his pelt.”

“Stuff Merl! Give me his pelt! Are you insane!?”

“Please calm yourself Mr. Cavendish. We here at the Kind and Gentle School of Obedience are not savages; we are not insensitive to owners such as you. But surely you must realize that the school’s reputation is at stake. We simply cannot be viewed as not taking our responsibility seriously. Nor, may I be so candid as to suggest that you, as Merl’s owner, would surely not wish it to be known you owned a dog that was so cloddish he couldn’t learn to piddle properly, now would you?

“You! You! ...!”

“Please now Mr. Cavendish, I do urge you again to calm yourself and try to put yourself in my position. Now beating Merl to death has to be put in its proper perspective. I’m sure you will, upon calm reflection, come to see the wisdom of my action. Your agitation is understandable, but do be civilized my dear man. After all, didn’t your parents beat you when they were lovingly trying to teach you to piddle properly?”

“No! They most certainly did not!” Mr. Cavendish shouted.

“Come, come now, my dear Mr. Cavendish it’s perfectly permissible and quite understandable to indulge in some fantasy, but for the sake of sound mental health it does no good to continue in denial and pretend such a thing didn’t happen. After all, I came to see the beatings my parents gave me were out of their purest love for me. Denial is very harmful, damage to the psyche and all that, you know. It would be far better to simply admit the truth of the matter rather than continue in such denial. Most harmful, you know, to a well-adjusted and healthy mind toward such things.”

“You sadistic fiend! My parents never beat me to get me to piddle properly and how dare you even suggest such a thing!”

“Oh, dear, I simply cannot deal with you about this issue if you continue in this hysterical vein, Mr. Cavendish. Perhaps it would be better if you simply left Merl’s final disposition to me. The choice of the pelt in your case, I would imagine. Yes, that would be best, I’m quite certain. I assure you that once you have Merl’s pelt in your hands you’ll feel much, much better and be able to put all this in its proper perspective. In time you’ll come to appreciate the wisdom of my action and the fortuitousness of no longer having to bear the disgrace of being the owner of such a shameless and incorrigible animal. Now my professional recommendation is a nice hot tub, a cup of tea and a good book. You’ll feel much, much better, I can assure you.”

Now being struck dumb and utterly incapacitated by his profound grief, without another word Mr. Cavendish allowed Doctor Diabole to quietly and gently usher him out the door.

Postscript: Oakland, California: A man, Damon Valrey, 25, was charged with murder for beating a toddler, Dante Jones, 2, to death because the boy was having problems with potty training. The little boy’s body showed signs of previous abuse including burns from scalding water.

While I believe the rural churches of America represent the very best of the true character and virtue of our nation, my experience in the bars has been one of finding a kind of honesty found nowhere else. Looking at the present crop of contenders for the Presidency confirms my long held opinion politicians and preachers need to spend time in the bars. And I don’t mean the upscale clubs as in “Cocktails for Two,” but the ones frequented by the Great Unwashed where three-piece suits and evening gowns are not proper attire.

As Sam Clemens mentioned of the upper classes’ deplorable lack of knowledge of poker making him “ashamed of his species,” so it is with the deplorable lack of knowledge on the part of politicians and preachers about the bars frequented by the common folks. Say what anyone will, I have found the folks in bars to be among the most honest of people, oftentimes more so than those I have known in the churches. Unfortunately, hypocrisy is more often associated with the churches than with the bars. For example, when it comes to men chasing women and vice versa the timeline changes dramatically. In the society of the churches it may take months before the first date. In the bars you quickly cut to the chase much like the scene in “Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.”

Life here in the Kern River Valley is not always serene. There was a shooting at Slugger’s Saloon a few nights ago, but the shooter’s target though hit in the chest was still alive last I heard, and a few of the other patrons held the malefactor for the police. Even without knowing the details of what was involved, anyone with my experience in various cuttin’ ‘n’ shootin’ joints surmises such disagreements generally come about because of disputes over a woman. From my own experience I have found women to be the one thing above others that men will fight over. Forget the wise counsel to avoid the subjects of politics, religion, or the Civil War in the bars; it is the fair sex that most often draws men into confrontation.

Now I have known Slugger for many years, I recall when she first opened her place and we became very good friends. And like most of the pubs here in the valley, she tried to run a nice place where people could socialize without fear of getting cut or shot. But there is just something about the ambience of booze and men chasing women that sometimes disrupts otherwise civilized behavior; though as a musician and singer in time past I have experienced the best of what some bars have to offer in the way of entertainment, I have met some of the very best of people including other musicians in the various bars I have frequented.

However, there are incidents like the time I crossed a motorcycle gang not knowing the young woman I expressed an interest in “belonged” to that group. She was interested in me as well, but when we stepped outside there was that gang behaving in a most threatening manner. It was quite a moment as she was torn between me and her gang. But it turned out there was a matter of dealing drugs involved, and it was this that determined her choice to leave with the gang. They in fact really “owned” her ever as much as any slave master.

Life in the bars, the curse of beauty some women suffer, the tragedies of alcoholism and drugs, the loneliness that drives some people to do things they would never consider doing otherwise, these are some of the things that caused me to write a book on the subject. Here is an excerpt from one chapter:

It isn’t, of course, all romanticism in the bars. A very beautiful woman I know well is getting quite drunk. She started early, and by the time the band began playing that evening she was well intoxicated. As I held her close to me while we danced, I told her once more how beautiful she was. She laid her head on my shoulder and replied, “But I’m drunk, Sam.”

I replied, “Drunk or sober, you’re still beautiful.”

And she is. But she doesn’t realize, herself, how very beautiful she is. Why? Her life has been, like so many other beautiful women I know, a history of men who have used and abused her. The curse of beauty in our society, having to cope with life decisions at too early an age, the complete victim of a culture that places a premium on youth and beauty that values women and girls in a totally sexual way, this beautiful woman pays the price of all of this degradation of morality and chastity. Her life, therefore, is a contradiction of her real beauty, and she honestly doesn’t see herself as truly beautiful.

It’s another time and another place. Since I have never been to this lounge in Oildale before, friends are making me acquainted with some of the patrons. One, a very strikingly beautiful woman wants to dance. It is obvious, however, that she is quite drunk. We make it through one dance and I rejoin my friends. When the band starts the next number, a real degenerate has moved on her and they both, drunkenly, try to dance. It becomes too much for me to watch anymore and I take my leave, making the appropriate farewells to my friends.

This particular woman, I have learned, has three children. She will get home somehow and her children will, as so many others I know in similar circumstances where drugs and alcohol play a tragic role, worry about mommy and the men that filter in and out of their lives; some of these children pay a very tragic price for mommy’s having “fun.”

I don’t believe it can be legitimately denied women need, desperately, to be the softness and gentleness, the virtuousness men need to inspire romance. But we live in a violent world and society that is the antithesis of such things, and women are made to be hard and tough in areas where women were never intended to be so.

While it isn’t very romantic, there is another common part of the problem of which the following story is all too typical as well. I was sitting in the living room of a beautiful young woman. She has two, small children and no husband. The ubiquitous tube as baby sitter was not working properly; a real cause of concern when you are trapped in a low-rent apartment complex.

A vicious chain of circumstances has robbed her of transportation; a common problem with the poor. When California passed the law requiring insurance for motorists she had been cited for not having such. Nor, like most people in her circumstances, could she afford it.

Her failure to provide proof of insurance resulted in the suspension of her license. She later got pulled over and the outstanding citation resulted in her car being impounded. It would cost her over $800 to get it back, an impossible sum of money. And the old junker isn’t worth it. As a result, like so many others she loses her car and cannot get her license renewed. With the care of the children, she has to prevail on others to go anywhere like shopping at the grocery store. This makes her especially vulnerable to predatory men who will take advantage of women and their welfare checks.

This lovely girl has only one outlet for entertainment, for some escape from the hopelessness of her situation; the local bar across the street. Here she knows and meets others in similar circumstances. If she can get a neighbor friend to watch her children for a while, she can play pool and visit. For a quarter, she can attempt to get a stuffed toy from the toy machine. And she has become adept at doing so. This enables her to give the children something when she returns. While very attractive there is no vanity in her, and she freely admits she engages in prostitution to make ends meet. Intelligent, she is woefully undereducated and sees no hope of a future for her and her children.

The leadership of our nation, the leaders in churches should spend some time in the bars frequented by people like this young woman. Until they have observed and talked to such people, until they have listened to the music and danced in such places, until they have heard the tragic stories first hand, they will never understand the real needs of the people they are elected and sworn to serve.