What is the difference between a little girl, Grace, being beaten to death because she didn’t say “please” and the murder of those that “insult” the perverted Mohammad of Islam? No difference at all, since both are the result of sick and twisted minds. And it is sick, twisted minds that are the basis of all the violence and sexual perversion so graphically portrayed by Hollywood, TV, and found in video “games.” If one were to look for a conspiracy bent on teaching children violence and sexual perversion was “normal” behavior it would have to begin with the kind of sick people providing this material and who encourages and profits from it. The same rule applies to politics and religion.

The present crop of presidential contenders certainly does not inspire confidence they are people of sound mind; but rather people with dreadfully distorted views of what they consider “normal.” Small wonder so many of us are given to the despair the inmates are running “Asylum America” when we are presented with obvious lunatics like Caesar Bush presently running/ruining the country and those now vying to replace Caesar. Even were we to credit each of these with one or two sane solutions to the multitude of problems facing our nation, their positions on the greater number of issues would require they have sane solutions to this greater number not just one or two of them. And at that, getting a straight, honest answer to legitimate questions of these pretenders, provided any empty suits had the courage to ask such questions, is virtually impossible thereby making all so called “debates” an utter farce at best.

It is no less farcical that we have been cursed throughout history not only with politicians, but with so many charlatans in religion. The whole idea of “worship” is repugnant to me. No parent wants worship of their children, what they want is obedience since this is predicated on wanting the best for the child. This is my viewpoint of claims made for humankind being the children of God as in the story found in Genesis. Where this becomes religion and parents demand their children worship a god or gods of religion things degenerate into the systematic organization of hatreds, and no religion so exemplifies such an organization of hatreds as the hateful and perverted religion of Islam.

It is one thing to honor your parents, and despite the commandment presuming they are worthy of honor, it is another thing entirely to demand worship; and it is my belief that God does not require worship but obedience, since that serves our best interests as children of God, and if God loves his children as do earthly parents theirs.

Keeping in mind the Bible is a book written by men (no women allowed) it is not surprising it would be filled with the religious sentiment of worshipping God. But there are many passages of the Bible that put the emphasis on obedience rather than worship; for example, The Fall in Genesis the emphasis is on obedience, and disobedience brought the sentence of death upon all humankind according to the story and affirmed in the New Testament.

Here is another example of the result of disobedience: I Samuel 15: 22-26: “And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king. And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the LORD.  And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee: for thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD hath rejected thee from being king over Israel.”

Crediting Samuel’s statement “to obey is better than sacrifice” Jesus taught it is hypocrisy for anyone to say they love God while they hate their neighbor. The Pharisees sought to justify themselves with the sophistry “Who is our neighbor?” and Jesus repudiated them with the story of the Good Samaritan. The Apostle Paul in that consummate passage on love I Corinthians chapter 13 makes the point that nothing of sacrifice avails without love, that love trumps all. The Apostle John wrote “God is love, and all those who love are of God.”

It is my fervent hope as the Scripture has it “love covers a multitude of sins.” This is my only hope of salvation, that such love will cover my own sins, my hope that loved ones and friends gone on before me will out of love forgive me even as I forgive them, that such love is the reason the Scripture has it “all tears will be wiped away.”

But while we are admonished “How can a man say he loves God and hate his neighbor?” some would foolishly try to make all of humankind “neighbors;” however, the truth refutes this sophistry as did Jesus those Pharisees. Jesus recognized there were children of the Devil as well as children of God, making the accusation against the Pharisees “Ye are of your father the Devil!”

What with women being terrorized and people in general constantly being threatened for “crimes” against Mohammad and his barbaric religion in the barbarian nations of Islam it does make me think the various gods of whatever religion are in sore straits if they have to rely on people to uphold their “honor.” For my part, any god sensitive to insults should be able to handle the situation without human intervention. But then, since I do not have any respect for any organized religion I should be the subject of the wrath of some of their gods, and if their gods can’t handle me why should I listen to the threats of mere humans?

It isn’t a matter of brave talk on my part; it is a matter of accident of birth that I was born in America rather than someplace held in the grip of Islam where they would cheerfully cut off my head for speaking out. So I am free to speak out without fear of the “protectors” of Allah and his perverted “prophet” with his perverted religion. But I can be excused for wondering just how long I will have this freedom here in America to speak so freely concerning the abominations and atrocities of Islam? Our leaders are so in bed with Muslims for the sake of wealth they don’t dare confront the crimes against humanity committed in the name of Allah. Perhaps our leaders will be encouraged to speak up when the IEDs begin going off in the shopping malls of America?

My opinion remains that of Jesus, that there are children of God and children of the Devil; that the works rather than words or any forms of “worship” distinguish between the two; or as Jesus had it “The tree is known of its fruit” and “No fountain brings forth both bitter water and sweet.” But this is known by all of sound mind, and the world including America is cursed by leaders without sound minds, and as a result the world lies in wickedness as the Devil takes care of his own while the innocent suffer as a consequence. Take away all reference to religious interpretation, whether there be a God or Devil or not and the result is the same: “Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne.”

James Russell Lowell was a very intelligent man, enough so that he rightly criticized Henry Thoreau for his baseless ego. And while Henry did in many cases “reap the windfalls from Emerson’s orchard” he was acute enough to follow Lowell’s lead in pointing out the primary fault of government: “Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?”

The problems of government, the problems America and the rest of the world face are neither new nor unique; they are historical and have always made for a demon-haunted world by whatever interpretation. But the nuclear power to destroy the world is a new demon that must be confronted and dealt with. Who doubts Islamic fanatics committed to unspeakable atrocities would not use this power to destroy the “infidels?” But who offers any real hope of confronting and overcoming this evil? It certainly won’t be any of the charlatans running for president that won’t even make a commitment to securing our borders; their commitment like Pharaoh of old is to slave labor thereby telling Muslim terrorists they have a free pass to destroy at will, and I anticipate this demand for slave labor will lead to the same outcome for America as that of ancient Egypt.

It’s a life known to very few even my age, but if parents want to teach their children to be responsible and self-reliant give them a gun and turn them loose in some wilderness environment to make their own way. But then I remind myself we now live in a “civilized” America where the inner cities are given over to gang violence, and the wild animals are of the two-legged variety and civilized people are not able to cope or defend themselves against these while lawmakers and the ACLU seem determined to keep giving the advantage to the wild beasts marauding at will.

Now I don’t know why grandad thought it was a good idea to turn me loose with a gun to make my own way in the Sequoia National Forest near Kernville in the 40s when I was only a very young boy. But looking back, I realized this was the way grandad had been raised and he must have thought it a good way to raise me. He knew the world was a tough place and a man had to be tough and self-reliant to make his way in it, and grandad’s idea of early childhood development meant taking on responsibility at a very young age. I would learn later he had lied about his age to get into the army while only fourteen year’s old. Being quite large and raw-boned he got away with the deception. Much like recruiters for football players the army at the time was primarily interested in big, not being fussy about paperwork.

As a boy I had an old hound, Tippy, a mongrel Collie, that we inherited with the mining claim in Boulder Gulch here in the Kern River Valley. When I would get one of the guns and take off hunting, Tippy would traipse along. Tippy was not a hunting dog, it just seemed he wanted to keep me company at times and I was usually glad to have him come with me.

One morning I had taken the old .410 single-shot hoping for a rabbit, some quail or, if I was really lucky, a nice young tree squirrel. The young ones could be fried like rabbit or chicken, the older ones became squirrel stew with dumplings.

It felt great out there in the forest among the critters; but while making my way up a hill behind the cabin, I noticed Tippy had disappeared. Suddenly, not more than fifteen feet away from me, slowly trotting around a granite boulder up the hill was a mountain lion!

The lion saw me at the same time I saw it, its large, baleful, yellow eyes staring straight at me! Its ears were laid flat back against its huge head and its tail, all fluffed out and looking about four inches in diameter and six feet long, was hung low to the ground.

Now anyone who knows anything about pussycats knows when they are irritated. And this was one very large and very irritated pussycat. And here I was, equipped with a .410 single-shot loaded with number eight birdshot. Talk about being prepared! I knew how David must have felt about that slingshot against Goliath. But at least David had the advantage of knowing God was with him. And, I’m sure; David didn’t have to worry about becoming a Philistine Hors d’oeuvre.

Much to my intense relief and surprise, the lion made an abrupt 90-degree turn to my left and continued trotting on its way. And there came Tippy right behind him! Several thoughts immediately passed through my mind at the time: abject terror, anger at the fact that I didn’t have my .270 instead of the .410, anger with Tippy for chasing up the lion and sending it my way, relief that I had sense enough to know that had I shot the lion with a load of .410 number eight birdshot I would only have succeeded in arousing its interest in me, and so forth. I settled for grabbing Tippy by the scruff of the neck and running pell-mell back to the cabin.

I regaled my grandparents and school chums with the story of my close encounter with the angel of death, and the lion grew with the telling. It was probably only your average, run of the mill mountain lion; but it was an African giant up that close.

But didn’t grandad know there were dangers like that mountain lion or bears in the forest, and didn’t he know a .410 single-shot in the hands of a young boy was not exactly well-matched against such dangers? Well, if he did it was never mentioned, and I continued to go out on my own often carrying only that small-bore shotgun. Oddly enough, my great-grandmother and grandmother did not pay it much attention either. It may have been they all thought me so very capable it didn’t overly concern them; I had proven to be a very capable, self-reliant and responsible boy in many ways and I guess they just decided to let it pass. And maybe this is one reason parents lose touch with their children; expecting more of a child than they should reasonably expect. In the worst cases, the parents simply don’t care.

Children today are facing dangers even greater than those I faced here in the forest as a boy, and in retrospect notwithstanding that lion I was always safer in the forest environment than any child forced to live with the violence of the inner cities of America. In the forest, the wild animals will usually go out of their way to avoid confrontation with humans. In too many cities of America the wild beasts look for such confrontation.

The writers’ strike reminds me that story telling in all its various forms from the most ancient to the present has its attraction in delivering people from the often harsh reality of their lives, and I was blessed by being raised among some wonderfully gifted story tellers like my maternal great-grandmother. However, the electronic age has made “virtual reality” a household phrase, but when reality becomes obscured by fiction it can lead to Pilate’s “What is truth?” Granted scholars disagree whether this was a statement or a question to Jesus, nevertheless one can understand why truth is often at a premium and one can either become increasingly cynical or earnest in the pursuit of it.

Something that helps when it comes to both philosophy and science is putting a human face on these, to discuss and present the issues in ways people can recognize something of themselves. Long ago I began to believe God is more human than religion credits, which made sense to me if we are actually children of God (or gods) made in his image. In some ways, even as adults we remain like children trying to figure out the strange actions of God even as we did of our parents and other adults around us. Eventually we may grow up and begin the attempt to figure out who we are; the self-examined life. But there remain those things that continue to elude us constituting what some call the “mysteries of life.”

For example, in the evolution of nations it is understandable I would equate our present government with the Mafia, our elected leadership together with their functionaries and supernumeraries as being only a more refined savagery under color of laws when it comes to their mode of operations. Not that the distinction between the two is not of great importance, but it is a distinction that favors those in power in government to literally get away with murder and corruption while using the power to tax as the power to destroy those that do not feed at Caesar’s table and thereby become Caesar’s dogs.

Greed and the lust for power are not that difficult to understand, but what about the power that governs the universe? The stars are beautiful, they are jewels in the heaven above sparkling like diamonds; but there is a caution to beauty that one should not examine it too closely. Once you do that, imperfections are bound to appear. A great work of art like that of Rembrandt if examined too closely with a magnifying glass appears as only daubs of paint. Closer yet with a microscope and it becomes meaningless. And the artist has probably never lived that believed they had achieved the best they could do, but are driven to keep trying. Perhaps the same thing is true of the Creator of the universe and life.

It is not plausible to me that the ancients could have discerned what are called “constellations” in the stars with only their unaided eyes. You have more success seeing shapes in cloud formations, but I would defy anyone to peer up at the stars as I have done over so many decades and see any discernable pattern to them. The IAU with its 88 “official” designations of constellations may help navigate the celestial sphere as viewed from earth; but astronomers know these groupings are essentially arbitrary, and viewed in three dimensions the stars would bear no relationship to each other in any configuration animal, vegetable, or mineral. To have described these as animals or mythical creatures by lines connecting stars seems preposterous, and the actual origins of the various “zodiacs” continue in dispute; but there is no disputing the ancients believed in stars mirroring and influencing people and events on earth. And while Astrology is accepted as the forerunner of modern Astronomy, scientists long ago left off the superstitious interpretations of the stars though references remain to various constellations, and most of us accept “the trouble is not in the stars, but in us.”

As archeologists and others attempt to determine how the several calendars and structures dedicated to a study of the stars thousands of years ago came into being one thing should be obvious; the ancients could not have come by such knowledge of the heavens without “help.” But where this help came from remains a mystery giving rise to many theories including that of extraterrestrials being responsible. As it stands, while theories abound there is no scientific, factual basis for how such knowledge of the planets and stars became known those many years ago.

Nor is it possible to understand how some of the writers of the Bible like Peter and John could describe events like the destruction of the heavens and earth in thermonuclear terminology. But much of the Old Testament contains descriptions of things and events one would place in the category of both scientific description and the paranormal, even UFOs and extraterrestrials. And long before there was a Bible as we know it, such things are found in the writings, artifacts and monuments of the most ancient cultures as they struggled to make sense of the world and the stars, of their very lives.

And so it was that various religious systems came into being; these apparently having lost the origins of the kind of scientific knowledge that may once have been available to those in the beginning of what we know as “Modern Man.” In this context, stories of Atlantis come to mind and we can only speculate what was lost of ancient knowledge by the burning of the great library of Alexandria. But there is no hard evidence to support such stories any more than that of extraterrestrial influence. We have tantalizing hints and clues in abundance; what is lacking is proof. It certainly does not help when we know those in positions of power and influence like those in government lie to us as a matter of course. Still, to what extent does this lend credibility to the various supposed conspiracies of silence surrounding things like UFOs? We don’t know.

Yet, because so many mysteries abound religions and their superstitions, the various conspiracy theories about many things continue apace and in science the origin of the “engine” that drives life and what it is remains a mystery. But this heavy burden of life we carry about in these vile mortal bodies subject to disease, death, and decay no matter how we bathe, barber, perfume, clothe and attend them, bodies filled with “worms” even while we are alive as Thoreau noted, in the end what will be the actual purpose in having lived at all? The Preacher in Ecclesiastes has it a living dog is better than a dead lion, but to what extent is this true in fact? We don’t know, and even the Preacher argues with himself over the issue. But this we know; over the thousands of years it is abundantly clear that while life has been a gift to some, for many others it is a curse and in the end all die whether the end be soft or harsh.

Still, the inevitability of death has only driven some to great achievements in efforts to give some meaning to their lives. Some with the gifts and talents for creativity have devoted their lives to the arts and sciences, some make great sacrifices on behalf of others, and many would say that to have known the love of family and friends makes it all worthwhile. But in the end none of us really knows, yet we live in hope that our lives count for something and try to live according to such hope.

A part of my own hope is the fact that there are some like me who dare think our solar system, our earth and life may be unique in the universe. If so, whatever our life consists of, perhaps the spirit of God that may be that great energy field permeating the universe, this gives impetus to the theory of our being able to change things by peering into them. But it may be, as would seem to be the case of Newton and a few others some are equipped to peer more deeply than others. There is more, I believe, to the spiritual realm of things than science can account for, but to which some scientists are drawn, more so than they are willing to admit. For example, the mention of ghosts, of specters is enough to draw derision. But in my opinion such things must have some application to reality based on the commonality of such beliefs and experiences.

A demon-haunted world may translate into a demon-haunted universe. Certainly what we know of the universe is inimical to life and the human form of life especially. Perhaps our solar system and earth are the result of forces described in the beginning chapters of Genesis.

The process of giving birth is a dangerous, painful, violent and gory business. The birth of the universe as theorized by the Big Bang was an explosive, violent process beyond imagination, as was the birth of our own planet. Given such unimaginably violent, terrifying and horrific events it is no wonder our earliest history is filled with stories and stone monuments of demons. While the survival of humankind in the face of so much violence, cruelty and savagery is a source of amazement, no less amazing out of such beginnings eventually came poets, artists, and scientists.

The New Testament declares there will be a new heaven and earth following massive destruction of the ones that now exist. The description of this destruction is like looking backward at their formation through the same process, but with the promise of a better outcome once the former things have passed away. Of course, we can’t be blamed if we believe present world leaders are going to give our planet a nudge in the direction of Armageddon no matter if there be an afterlife or not, whether there be a God, gods, or none.

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 Duvall 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.