Flaming Fundamentalists For Peace

Tis The Midterm Of Two Changes

2026-10-30T00:01:00.000-04:00

America has been undergoing a king-of-the-hill battle between two changes. And it is neither the best of times nor the worst of times for either change: Change-1 and Change-2. However, under CEO Trump, Change-1 is on the road to the best of times while Change-2 is swiftly diving toward the worst of times.

Before describing Change-1 and Change-2, we need to discuss the above label for Trump. While the nation has experienced the 'No-Kings' protests, it seems that, overall, Trump is acting more like a CEO than a wannabe King. He sees our nation as a business that seeks to maximize its profits and assets. And therefore most, if not all, of his policies, both foreign and domestic, are transactional for either the nation or himself. That makes him a value-less leader--which is something that my fellow believers in Christ should take note of. And so his attempts to silence wokeism, CRT, the Left, and so forth are done purely out of profit seeking motive. He knows that silencing the beliefs opposed by a religiously conservative Christian dominated, social conservative sector secures a strong political base for maintaining political power.

Now for Change-1. Change-1 is a reactionary response to Change-2 which partially includes and then goes beyond a return to any past time in America's history. Certainly Change-1 wants to combine a return to the glory days of the 1950s and before with, what Marx would call, a 'bourgeoisie dictatorship. That could be an oligarchy in today's terms. And when it comes to choosing between that dictatorship and Change-2, most of my fellow religiously conservative Christians support the former rather than the latter because we religiously conservative Christians have a strong penchant for authoritarianism.

On a societal level, Change-1 wants a social hierarchy that privileges religiously conservative Christianity above all other religions and ethnic groups. The goal of Change-1 is to base many, if not all, of our laws on Christian beliefs. Of course, that is the polite way to describe it. In reality, Change-1 wants religiously conservative Christianity to be able to impose many of its personal moral values on the general public through legislation. That is the goal of Christian Hubris. It does so because many who support Change-1 believe that a non-Christian society poses a moral threat to the Church and especially to the chidren of "good" Christians. BTW, I use the term Christian Hubris as a label for both Christian Nationalists and those religiously conservative Christians who, in principle, oppose the idea of Christian Nationalism while seeking to accomplish the same task of imposing their religious values on society.

We should note that Christian Hubris is not monolithic. It includes those who want theonomy, those who advocate an updated version of Christendom, and those who simply want a Christian paternalism. The difference between those groups lies in the degree of control that Christianity would exercise over society with those who support theonomy as wanting the greatest control and those who vie for Christian Paternalism as wanting the least control.

Though such Christians would like to think that they are in the driver's seat in advancing Change-1, they are mistaken. The current, and shadow, driver for Change-1 is a corrupt oligarchy. We should note that a corrupt oligarchy is the logical consequence of Neoliberal Capitalism. And Neoliberal Capitalism is not the form of Capitalism that my fellow baby-boomers and I, and at least some aging Gen-Xers, grew up under. Neoliberal Capitalism, as pointed out by a past article (click here for the article), is epitomized in the Genesis story of Cain who after killing his brother Abel, tried to rhetorically ask God if he was his brother's keeper. Neoliberal Capitalism promotes Social Darwinism. And that means that everyone is solely responsible for their own perdicament regardless of their starting point. And so Neoliberal Capitalism promotes the idea that none of us, especially wealthy elites, are our brother's keeper. Being our brother's keeper would only infringe on the profits that businesses could make. It is as Marx described the Capitalism of his day when he said the following (click here for the reference):

'The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his “natural superiors”, and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked selfinterest, than callous “cash payment”. It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.'

One doesn't have to agree with Marx's analysis of the capitalism of his day or his proposed solutions to the oppression of the bourgeoisie to see how the above quote applies to our current form of capitalism under Trump. From the beginning of his current term, any policy or law that offered help to the vulnerable which did not result in a net profit for the government was targeted for either immediate or future cuts and/or eventual elimination. His tariff policies sought to put our trade relationships with every nation, but Russia, on a profit making venture. His government has been pursuing policies that increased the profits of business elites, such as big oil, regardless of the costs forced on consumers. And because of what Trump wants to spend on the military, the government, under his control, has been slashing federal funding of social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and food assistance programs. Cuts in regulations and taxes also favored wealthy elites who were also beneficiaries of his last rounds of cuts and taxes.

And perhaps we should look at the mindset that Neoliberal Capitalism promotes when examining why members of Congress pass laws that allow them to particularly benefit from their day jobs.

We could also consider that inflation under Trump might have been caused on purpose in order to dissuade lawmakers from increasing taxes that would fund the reversing of his attacks on institutions. We should note that inflation under Biden was not caused by Biden's policies and by the end of his Presidential term was made comparable to infaltion under Trump during his first term in his second presidency. It is funny how commercials for Republican candidates only focus on Biden's first two years while talking about inflation and ignore inflation under Biden's third and fourth years of his presidency. Unlike the inflation under Biden, the inflation under Trump is due solely to his policies.

But what does our nation's economic direction have to do with the battle between Change-1 and Change-2? It is simple. While the former Change, under the Republican Party, is a co-enabler with Neoliberal Capitalism, the other, under the Democratic Party, simply coexists with it.

And so while Change-1 seeks to create a hierarchical society with religiously conservative Christian having the highest position, Neoliberal Capitalism seeks to establish a wealthy elite hierarchy who alone will determine the economic policies of our nation. And so the tie between them is that both favor hierarchy in their respective spheres. Hierarchy is more appealing than equality to those religiously conservative Christians because of their penchant for authoritarianism.

Change-2 seeks to promote equality by bringing more groups out of the margins of society. This bringing groups out of the woodwork really started in the 1950s with the Civil Rights Movement. And though there were movements before Change-2, such as the Suffragettes, it is Change-2 that has the goal of obtaining equality for marginalized citizens. And since Change-2 favors equality, it seems that it can only coexist with Neoliberal Capitalism. However, it seems that the Democratic Party leadership use Change-2 to camouflage their preference for Neoliberal Capitalism.

What most energized Change-1 was the Obergefell decision. That is because with that decision, and help from DEI programs, the LGBT community came, what politically conservaative Christians saw as being, too dangerously close to full equality for that community in society. And for too many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, allowing those from the LGBT community to move into a neighborhood where equality reigns, especially in terms of marriage, was seen as bringing down the value of that neighborhood's properties--properties such as marriage. For too many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians, they were longing for the good old days when. because of the past marginalization of the LGBT community, they could make invisible those in the LGBT community and thus pretend that the LGBT community did not exist.

And so Change-2 represents the full inclusion of all racial and religious groups, women, the LGBT community and many immigrants into society as equals.

We should note that neither Change-1 nor Change-2 have been pure and innocent in terms of how they wanted people to be treated nor were neither group without valid concern

The benefit that the above partnership of Change-1 and Neoliberal Capitalism is that it gives its ideology a solid political base of support by garnering political support from a good percentage of votes from religiously conservative Christians. Religiously conservative Christians benefit from a smaller government favored by Neoliberal Capitalism. That smaller government both weakens the part of government that infringe. on the goals of those Christians while strengthening the intrusiveness of the Executive branch of government in ways that futher the goals of those Christians. Of course that partnership cannot last. For at some time the personal moral failures of wealthy elites will become visible to those promoting Change-1 favored values. But that won't occur until our democracy is long gone.

And so where does that leave us. As a religiously cnservative Christian, I strongly favor the kind of society that Change-2 promotes. Therefore, despite my pro-life beliefs, I have supported Change-2 with my votes for Democratic Party Candidates. However Neoliberalism leaves us with a mixed marriage of a more less egalitarian society in cultural terms with an economy based on hierarchy. The trouble with that is that it allows Neoliberal Capitalism to foster economic injustices on the nation as wealth becomes more and more paired with political power.

And so must vote for candidates that favor Change-2, which means that we must vote for Democratic Party candidates. And while we fervently strive to gain a current political victory for Change-2, we must realize that our work is far from over should we succeed. For once we secure and maintain that first victory, we must work to undo Neoliberal Capitalism whether that involves a return to the Bretton-Woods System or install some kind of hybrid between Socialism and Capitalism. Perhaps the elimination of Neoliheral Capitalism can at least partially quell the previously mentioned king-of-the-hill battle between Change-1 and Change-2.

We need to fight against hierarchy in society and strive for equality in our nation's economy. However, equality in our nation's economy must be carefully defined. It does not mean that everyone is earning the same income. Instead, equality in our nation's economy requires that the concerns of those from each economic class must receve equal attention and concern so that all groups rise or sink together. It means that, regardless of one's economic class, one must work for the well-being of those in other economic classes and not just for their own welfare. For in doing so, we might provide and example for pursuing and maintaining equality in society.

Views From The Outside For October 27, 2026

2026-10-27T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

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

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

I Kind Of Voted Today

2026-10-26T20:50:39.143-04:00

The wife and I went in to vote early. Only because of tremors I have had since the 1980s, I needed the wife to fill out the form and mark the ballot.

Gone are the days when I could afford to vote for 3rd party candidates. Those days are in the past because of the current corruption and insanity of the Republican Party. Conservative parties do not need to be insane like today's Republican Party. But what we see now is the result of authoritarianism infecting the party and revolving around a leader who needs serious help, not power. Trump is, like his hero, Vlad Putin, not facing reality. Only Putin has much more intelligence and a better hold on reality than Trump. But one of the tragedies of our time is found in the fact that as either leader gets more militarily aggressive, the closer mankind comes to experiencing mutually assured destruction as warned against in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto (click here for the source).

Of course the Democratic Party is no prize. Run by a bought out DNC, the Democratic Party is responsible for making Trump and his cohort seem like the only rational choice to many Americans. I have run into some of those American Trump voters and though that group is not a monolith, one characteristic they have in common is ignorance spurred by taking up residence in a small information bubble.

The short of it is that in almost every single federal, state, and local election, a vote for a Republican is a vote that helps enable the Trump's agenda. It is a vote for recreating America in Russia's image. And, finally, it is a vote for Vlad Putin. Neoliberalism has taken over much of the world and its logical consequence are corrupt oligarchies like the one that rules over Russia. And though we should vote for the Dems here, a vote for them is not necessarily a vote against Neoliberalism. In most cases, it is simply a vote that slows down Neoliberalism to a crawl at best. But at least electing Dems will protect the free speech rights of those who oppose Neoliberalism.

We Need To Be Relentless

2026-10-23T00:01:00.000-04:00

Bulgarian Bulge by Don Ellis

The above link is to one of my favorite pieces of music with one of my favorite recorded piano improvisations. For the technically minded, the time signature of this music continually switches between 33/16 and 36/16. It is Bulgarian folk music played by a jazz big band recorded in 1971. I have been enjoying learning how to play a piano version of this music thanks to the graciousness and generosity of Ellis's then pianist, Milcho Leviev, who is originally from Bulgaria and who helped me start to learn how to play it. And though I cannot play the piano version of this piece like he can and how it should be played, I have had, and still have, fun trying to learn how to play it. It is my favorite piece of music to play. I will always be grateful for the kindness that Leviev showed to me.

If you access the link, you might be required to login into a Gmail account--I am not sure if non-gmail accounts are recognized by Youtube--in order to play this particular Youtube page. I am providing this link and pointing to the last part of Leviev's solo because, if my music knowledge is correct, it is based on a part of the 4th movement of Beethoven's 5th Symphony only it is played in 33/16--that is if my music knowledge is correct. Regardless of whether that is correct, the theme played by Leviev repeats around 5 times with variations and to me, this points to the title of this blog article. To me, the last part of his improvisation conjures up the notion of being relentless. And for any of us who oppose Trump's authoritarian direction for our government, we, not just seasoned activists, need to step up and be relentless in our opposition to Trump and where he is leading our nation. Again, we, which involves everyone who opposes the direction in which Trump is leading our nation, need to step up, show up, and peacefully and legally act up.

Where is Trump leading our nation? Even before the 2024 election, either it was stated in this blog or I had said to individuals and in comments on the internet, that if Trump is elected, Russia will be our future. And it isn't just the corruption of his administration, his zeal for more and more power, his suppression of free speech on an institutional level, and his use of religion as a façade for the corrupt oligarchy is for the ever growing authoritarian rabbit hole he, and a gang of seemingly disjoint groups, are taking this nation . But his domestic policies are not the only indicators of his authoritarian direction, consider his foreign policies, especially his actions and words about Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, as well as who he seems to admire the most.

At the beginning, he blamed Zelensky and Ukraine for the war as he was making some false claims about it. He really never condemned the invasion nor did he put pressure on Putin to stop. And now, his support for Putin and Russia has become oververt and exlicit. And in the proposed summit between JinPing, Putin, and Trump, it appears that what a former MI6 chief predicted: a world dominated by three strongman leaders who divy up the nations between themselves (click here for the blog article).

Why Trump wants to lead our nation down that path is not yet clear. Is it because of his admiration for Puting? Or is it because Putin has enough dirt on Trump to make him act like a puppet? Is it a combination of the two? Or are there some other reasons?

We should note that Trump has some notable domestic allies who are supporting/enabling his actions. First, there are many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians who have a penchant for authoritarianism that now includes the intense fear of the LGBT community having escaped its prison of marginalization. According to some of them, a dictator like Putin who oppresses that community in Russia is preferable to a democracy in which they would have to share the nation as equals. That is because to Putin and at least some who follow Trump, Democracy brings decadence. It is as if the SCOTUS Obergefell decision was the last straw in the moral degradation of our nation. Of course the only morals that they are considering are related to sex. For when it comes to the dehumanization and the following expolitation and abuse of groups based on race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and one's biological sex, such are not signs of moral degredation.

Of course there are also the techno-oligarchs and other wealthy elites who are either Trump's enablers or his puppet masters. For the sake of profits, these wealthy elites have morphed into moral chamelions who do whatever they can to appease the current governmental leaders of our nation. Their ability to change their moral colors come from their desire to keep maximizing their corporate profits.

When we see the power that Trump has already garnered, the direction of the future of our nation in which Trump is leading us, and those who have Trump's back, we are in a desparate situation. And so we find that our Obi-Wan Kenobi, our only hope, has a name is spelled 'RELENTLESS.' These midterms might be our last stand for an unforeseen time period. It is like we are in game 7 of the last World Series that will afterwards will not be played for an indeterminant amount of time and so for all players, including all pitchers regardless of their series workload, we must have an 'all hands on deck' attitude. All of us, not just us seasoned activists, must be relentless in peacefully and legally resisting Trump's Presidency.

And part of that resistance involves voting against almost every Republican candidate. Because, for almost every Republican candidate, a vote for a Republican is a vote that further enables the Revolution that the Trump-led Republican party is pursuing. We should expect that Trump's authoritarianism will, IMO, increase significantly if Trump's party holds majorities in Congress.

One more thing must be said. What is now needed the most by this country is for more Americans to become less consumer oriented and more activist active. That does not mean that we make a complete break from being happy consumers--that is if we can afford to be that way. It does mean that, at this point in time, we become more activist and less consumerist in how we live our lives. This is how we must be if we are to save our Democracy from the logical concequence of our current form of Capitalism: a corrupt oligarachy. The midterms just might be our last chance to stop Trump's express train motoring toward a Russian style government.

Views From The Outside For October 20, 2026

2026-10-20T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Should A Blue Wave Succeed, We Still Have Much Of The Same War To Fight

2026-10-16T00:01:00.000-04:00

Many of my fellow protesters are very much hoping for, if not expecting, a Blue Wave to sweep over the midterm elections and install a relevant Congress. Of course, should the elections be fair enough to produce such a result, we need to remember January 6, 2021 to expect how Trump might respond to challenging elections. What would he do either to try to rig the elections or block the installation of newly elected Dems is anyone's guess.

But, as we might do in logic, suppose that there is a big Bkue Wave, and the Dems make Congress relevant again, what can we expect? As Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden have shown, we will have more freedom of speech but a kindler and gentler same economic system. And so the basic question is what will life be like after Trump? How different will it be? What can we expect?

In terms of economic systems, we should note that starting with Reagan, our nation transitioned from relying on a Bretton-Woods system for Capitalism, which started after the end of WW II and extended to through the 1970s, to Neoliberalism or a Neliberal form of Capitalism.

What is Neoliberalism? It could best be explained by the Biblical story of Cain and Abel (click here for the pertinent part of this story). In that story, Cain kills his brother Abel out of jealousy. When God asks Cain about the whereabouts of his brother, Cain responds with a rhetorical question: 'Am I my brother's keeper?'

Those who wish to directly benefit from Neoliberal policies, which include a huge reduction in tax rates that would have funded social safety net programs and the cutting of regulations that would have protected the people and the environment, desire to rhetorically ask Cain's question. What is the justification for this cutting of social responsibilities? It is the assertion that everyone is solely responsible for their own plight in life. And so whatever results from the cuts in those safety nets and protective regulations, the end result is that each person is solely responsible for their own standing in life.

What is absent from those who would play the role of Cain in today's world is that they are not solely responsible for their own success. They own their success to the workers who provide the goods and/or services that they have sold. In owing their success to the workers, they should note that the ability of the workers to produce depends on their skills, acquired through education, the health and welfare of those workers which enables them to succeed at their jobs, and the soundness of the communities and society in which they live which contributes to the workers' ability to better focus on performing their jobs well.

Those who would play the role of Cain also own their success to the customers who purchase their goods and/or services. Part of that includes that the ability of the customers to purchase goods and services.

Those who play the role of Cain also own their success to venders who provide the materials used in producing goods and services. They also own their success to the people involved in selling or transporting those materials they use in producing their goods and/or services.

Those who play the role of Cain also own their success to the government that provides legal systems and infrastructures in which their enterprisess can blossom and education for them and their employees.

And those who play the role of Cain also own their success to the environment that affects everything.

In other words, we see others as acting as their brothers' keepers in helping those who directly benefit from Neoliberalism to succeed while visions of ever increasing profits blind them from seeing their responsibilities in acting as their brothers' keepers.

Neoliberalism thrives on consumerism. But when consumerism passes a certain threshold, it can blind us from admitting our responsibilities in being our brothers' keepers.

Neoliberalism in America started with Reagan. Its principles blinded him from seeing the crimes committed by Pinochet in Chile. Its principles blinded him from seeing the sins that the U.S. was committing in both Central America and the Middle East as well as complicity in the future sins of Neoliberalism by establishing a foundation for it here.

And so regardless of any size of a Blue Wave occurring in the Midterms, because both political parties ascribe to Neoliberalism, we will still have an ideological war to wage.

However here, we need to be careful. That is because while Neoliberalism as a whole is destroying our democracy, and even our economy, if we approach its destruction employing all-or-nothing thinking which always causes one to throw the baby out with the bathwater, we will include unnecessarily negative tradeoffs in our war against Neoliberalism.

We need to battle Neoliberalism because of the harm it is doing. The ever increasing wealth dispaity between the classes and races can eventually infringe on economic growth and could lead to political instability. But something else must be added. As Neoliberalism increases in its intensity and consistency, it will eventually shut down our democracy and will lead to a corrupt oligarchy.

Neoliberalism destroys a nation's democracy by continually reducing the social responsibilities that the business and financial communities have toward society. That reduces a democratic government's ability to create and enforce the parameters in which businesses and financial institutes operate. Democratic governments then become impotent in controlling businesses and financial institutions. As democratic governments become more and more impotent, power continues to flow from the people who were democratically elected to represent us to business and financial elites. And so as the people lose power through a weaker and weaker democratic government, democracy becomes the shrinking person who eventual becomes so small that it disappears. And waiting in the wings for this disintergration are authoritarian leaders who are more than eager to grab the reins controlling the nation.

But despite the problems that Neoliberalism causes, we must not imitate the kind of thinking that proponents of Neoliberalism employ. That is that we must not take and all-or-nothing approach to the issues here. For just as Neoliberalism takes an all-or-nothing approach in assigning responsibility for a person's plight solely to the individual, one can overreact and take the opposite all-or-nothing approach by putting the whole blame for one's position in society on society itself. We need to avoid unnecessary all-or-nothing thinking approaches.

Both the individual and society share responsibility for each person's place in life. And the mix of individual and societal responsibility is different for each person seeing that some are more privileged and/or have more abilities and less obstacles than others. And so what we have to accommodate is a race between those who must jump over hurdles racing against those who don't.

Because the responsibility for each person's plight in life is shared by society and the individual, we need to recognize that those who directly benefit or even defend Neoliberalism have real concerns. And if we are going to stop Neoliberalism, we have to show its defenders that we all need a different kind of thinking than the all-or-nothing thinking that they are employing. And we cannot do that if we attribute to society complete responsibility for each person's life and their life choices. Rather than competing, supporters of Neoliberalism must understand that there are parts of life and society where we need to cooperate and collaborate to be responsible members of society.

And so we are all our brothers' keepers. And those who directly benefit from Neoliberalism must add to their belief that individuals are responsible for their own place in society, society, including its economic practices, also shares responsibility for where people end up in life. And thus those who directly benefit from Neoliberalism must embrace, rather than shrink back from their social responsibilities. One way by which they can do that is to not manipulate the government to lower tax rates and reduce necessary regulations.

Views From The Outside For October 13, 2026

2026-10-13T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

A Rosa Luxemburg Approach To Christian Living

2026-10-09T00:01:00.000-04:00

To mention the name of a famous socialist, a contemporary of Vlad Lenin at that, and Christianity in the same sentence would strike many as not just being strange, but being oxymoronic. Then again, that is because we Americans have the tendency to pigeonhole people by pejoratively labeling them and then think of them in all-or-nothing terms.

And so I am writing about how Rosa Luxemburg's approach to socialism could apply to how we approach Christian living. Of course by identifying Luxemburg, I am reminding people of what Marx and Lenin said about religion: That religion is the 'opium of the people.' When Lenin said that, he was complaining about how religion was used to either support the bourgeoisie oppression of the proletariat or encourage people to be passive in the face of that oppression (click here for his writing on this). In contrast, Luxemburg, while acknowledging the same support for that oppression did so in an appeal to Christians to join the Socialist call. And in making such an appeal, she went through Church history to see how the Church had reacted to wealth in the past (click here for her writing on this).

In reviewing the Russian Revolution, Luxemburg showed both sympathy toward and criticisms of Lenin's political approach. Part of that criticism showed a contrast between utopian approaches to socialism and a scientific approach. In utopian approaches, problems already have predetermined solutions that a government only needs to implement enthusiastically. Note the following lengthy quote below (click here for the source):

'The tacit assumption underlying the Lenin-Trotsky theory of dictatorship is this: that the socialist transformation is something for which a ready-made formula lies completed in the pocket of the revolutionary party, which needs only to be carried out energetically in practice. This is, unfortunately – or perhaps fortunately – not the case. Far from being a sum of ready-made prescriptions which have only to be applied, the practical realization of socialism as an economic, social and juridical system is something which lies completely hidden in the mists of the future. What we possess in our program is nothing but a few main signposts which indicate the general direction in which to look for the necessary measures, and the indications are mainly negative in character at that. Thus we know more or less what we must eliminate at the outset in order to free the road for a socialist economy. But when it comes to the nature of the thousand concrete, practical measures, large and small, necessary to introduce socialist principles into economy, law and all social relationships, there is no key in any socialist party program or textbook. That is not a shortcoming but rather the very thing that makes scientific socialism superior to the utopian varieties.'

Note what I underlined above. She stated that the scientific socialism, which one could also be labeled a trial-and-error or experimental approach, has only a few signposts to hold up. She later goes on to say that practicing a scientific socialism consists of learning how to apply those signposts in solving problems for as long as we live.We learn from experience about what works and what doesn't.

Now regardless of whether one wants to learn from Luxemburg or not, the question is whether Christians are in the same boat as those Russians who lived under Lenin's utopian approach to socialism when it comes to living out their Christian lives. That is because us religiously conservative Christians are constantly inundated with all sorts of rules, principles, guidelines, and disciplines that are, in many cases, predesigned to guide every decision we make. And what is lost with all of that guidance are relatively few signposts that should be used when making decisions and interacting with others. In fact, some, if not all, of our signposts can also serve as reasons for doing what we are called to do. We should note that the Christian faith has both predesigned rules to follow in some situations while having more signposts for Christian living that Luxemburg has for socialism. But with all of that, we need to idenify at least some of those signposts so that we don't lose sight of the signposts for the rules.

Regarding how we should treat others, the first signpost we should take note of is that of how we treat others. How we treat others should reflect how God has treated us through Christ. A summary of what Christ has done for us is described in the passage below. Note how Paul describes how God treated us through Christ in Romans 5:6-11 (click here for the source):

'6 For while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will hardly die for a righteous person; though perhaps for the good person someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. 10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. 11 And not only this, but we also celebrate in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation'

Paul describes our standing before God when God sent Christ into the world to save us as 'helpless,' 'sinners,' and 'enemies' of God. And that is true for every one of us Christians before we came to faith. So when we use the above passage as a signpost, how should we treat other people? Doesn't the above signpost imply that we should love and forgive all including our enemies. And if we are to love our enemies, how much more should we care for the marginalized and vulnerable as well as others including neighbors, friends, and family?

Certainly rules can help us flesh out how we express that love. In fact, I Corinthians 13 lists a bunch of rules or principles about love. But rules can also distract us from this signpost--which in this case tells us why we are to love the way that God tells us to love. In fact, how to love others, or how to be guided by the signposts, can be a messy, trial and error venture. It might take a lifetime to learn how to love some problem people in the way that God has loved us. And I personally probably belong to that group of 'some problem people' for certain people just as I have my own group of 'some problem people' for whom it will take me a lifetime to love as God has loved me.

The point is that we can invent all of the rules, disciplines, guidelines, and principles we want to tell us how to treat others and still miss what God is trying to teach us. The basic lessons of what God is trying to teach us is first found in the signposts provided by the Scriptures. Learning those rules etc can make us feel spiritual. Also, as a side note, there is no doubt that along with those rules, disciplines, guidelines and principles, we try to find exceptions so that we can excuse ourselves from following the rules. Or we might discover that how to love some people might not be covered by those rules etc. Still, the signposts remain and they can often better guide us on how to love others than mere rules etc. And so the rules, guidelines, and principles we choose to employ must serve the signposts instead of using the rules etc help us deduce what the signpost should have said.

Yes, there are other Christian signposts to consider. Signposts such as how we should relate to the world, how we should seek holiness, how we should interact with the government in order to honor God's name, and so forth. And we need to search through the Scriptures to discover them. We need to discover them so that when we are inundated with rules, guidelines, disciplines, and principles, we can put those rule etc in their proper context and so not lose sight of the signposts that God has provided for us.

Views From The Outside For October 6, 2026

2026-10-06T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

A Voter's Lament: What Choice Do I Have?

2026-10-02T00:01:00.000-04:00

In my congressional district, we have a choice between candidate 1, who has renigged on paying back a loan and allegedly lied to a court regarding assets, and candidate 2, who has been fully supporting with his votes the most corrupt, inept, destructive Presidential Administration during my lifetime if not America's history. We should note here what Wynton Marsalis said regarding the current level of Presidential corruption. He said that our nation has been building toward this current level of curruption for a long time.

Before Trump's takeover of the Republican Party, I could happily vote my conscience, which means that I could vote for the third party candidate of my choice without much fear. Those days are gone now, and perhaps forever.

The reasons for our limited choices starts with our two-party system. Because of that, the vast majority of voters pull the lever for candidates from either the them or not-them parties. In a two-party system, the only job that a candidate has is to persuade voters that he/she belongs to the other party. And from there we have a race to the bottom. Neither party has to show that they can really solve any problems, they only have to convince people that they will not bring on the disaster that they claim the other party will bring.

What about independent voters? Any independent voter who votes only for candidates from the two major parties shows that they are really a bipolar voter, not an independent one.

What about the voting for third party candidates? Viability has already moved the vast number of voters to remain voting for candidates from one of the 2 parties. The Citizens United may have reinforced that trend as money fuels the repetition of claims that that cause them to be believed regardless of their truth value. Money poured into the making of repetitious claims all but ensures that the names 3rd party candidates will be unrecognizable because of the relatively limited number of commercials that they can buy.

And so what do we have left? If I vote for congressional candidates from Trump's party, I am voting for Trump's flying monkeys because of the loyalty both demanded by Trump and exercised by their votes in Congress. And so a vote for congressional Republicans is a vote for Trump's agenda.

If I vote for candidates from the not-Trump-party, I am voting for those who resemble Munchkins in their opposition to Trump. Some use the an acronym 'TACO' to say that 'Trump Always Chickens Out.' The congressional Dems are not comfortably far enough away from that monicker. That, on sme key votes, enough Democrats have done some chickening out on their own. And so I find myself in a kind of voter's Sophie's choice. And since opposing the current class coup that wants to transform America into a dictatorship, I compelled to vote for the Munchkins. That means that I have not voted for Trump's flying monkeys but I have little hope that the Munchkin candidates will prove themselves to be anything but politically impotent.

There is a slight ray of hope in the Democratic Party. That ray comes from the fact that the Democratic Party is being infiltrated by Democratic Socialists of various types. Though I cannot be sufficiently satisfied with their view of socialism because my leaning toward socialism is tempered by the writings of Martin Luther King Jr., these socialist infiltrators are certainly preferable to the current set of congressional Munchkins.

And so what choice do I have? Before answering that question, we should recognize that there are Republican voters who are asking the same question. They may have come to detest Trump and his flying monkeys, but the non-conservative's positions on immigration, abortion and LGBT rights and equality make voting for the congressional Munchkins untenable.

And, btw, what can said about congressional candidates can also be said about state candidates.

Views From The Outside For September 29, 2026

2026-09-29T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

Two Anniversaries In One Month

2026-09-25T00:01:00.000-04:00

Five and ten year anniversaries are treated as being more special than other anniversaries. And that is what we have this year during the month of September. On September 11th, we had the silver anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. While on September 17th, we had the 15th anniversary of OWS (Occupy Wall Street). What I would like to cover is one of the most important lessons that we can reflect on from each anniversary.

While many of my fellow activists would like to say that the most important lesson we can learn from our 9/11 is what some Palestinians posted. They try to remind us that our 9/11 is their 24/7. And there is a lot of truth in that when we look at what Gaza has become and how Palestinians in the West Bank are constantly attacked. But that isn't the lesson I am thinking of.

Neither is President George W. Bush's take on the 9/11 attacks. His interpretation that the 9/11 attacks were an assault on our freedoms was wrong. His explanation was a self-aggrandizing interpretation as it showed a blindness to how U.S. policies can cause blowback. Bush wanted us to believe that people martyred themselves in the attacks because we can choose between cheering for the Red Sox or the evil empire--that is we were attacked because of our freedoms.

Rather, one of the most important lesson that we could have learned from 9/11 is that our advancing technology can make us as vulerable as it makes us powerful. That our technology can either be turned against us or can be replicated a little later as we embrace a new technology.

And because our technology can make us more vulnerable, there is an understandable reason for increased government surveillance. That such an increase in surveillance though wrong could be understandable since it is there to protect us. But as with technology, the surveillance that can be used to protect us can become a threat if it were to fall into the wrong hands, such as the hands of the current President.

This lesson about technology should make us think long and hard about advancing AI technology. It can be used to both serve us as well as to harm us. And to mitigate the latter, government regulations and self-restraint by the industry is much needed. We should note that self-restraint is not one of the fortes of our current President. And because of that trait, our midterm elections become even more important than usual since our current President sees that lack of self-restraint and raises a seemingly insatiable hunger for power and recognition.

This lesson about technology is a lesson in tradeoffs. That is that with each decision we make, there are both costs and benefits. Those who would deny such a truth are usually salesmen and/or politicians. Those who wish to pursuade us to thoughtlessly embrace AI without regulations are doing so because they have something to gain from us while wanting us to ignore what we have to lose to others.

What can we learn from OWS? Some would say nothing because they believe that OWS's short-term existence proves that it has nothing to teach. Such people forget that the Old Testament prophets often experienced harsh rejection by those in authority and the people. And those prophets were not failures with nothing to teach.

OWS gave us a chance to change course. In particular, the decision making process of OWS provides its greatest lesson to us. That process consisted of decision by consensus where one firm objection could table a proposal. The purpose, or perhaps even the goal, of such a practice was not just to prevent a tyranny of the majority, it was to foster respect for all participants and views.

Certainly the tactic used by OWS to promote such respect is not feasible in a heterogeneous population like that of our nation's. But the goal is a worthwhile one to aim for. And having such a goal would give our nation a better chance at living as the United States.

As it stands now, the polarization in our nation is based on a certain belief by those groups that wish to elevate themselves above others. Those groups market themselves as having everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them--to borrow a MLK phraseology. When any group believes that it has everything to teach others, it naturally feels entitled to sieze power in order to force its control over others. After all, when anyone has everything to teach and nothing to learn from others, whatever is said by others can only corrupt what is taught and practiced by the one who has everything to teach. And for those of us who are Christians, we need to note something else here. That those who believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them are displaying arrogance. And arrogance is never smiled on by God in the Scriptures.

And so our nation (a.k.a., 'we the people') should make it our goal to include multiple perspectives and isms in whatever legislation is proposed, passed, and signed into law. We need to demand that of our politicians. And we should only elect politicians who are willing to listen to and incorporate the ideas of others into their own proposals.

Under the leadership of our current President, our nation is spiraling downwards and not just toward an authoritarian abyss; we are on the verge of experiencing a social and economic collapse. And for as long as we the people practice tribal politics in what we demand from our elected officials, we increase the speed of that trajectory. And so just perhaps the lessons that we can learn from these two anniversaries can help us to stop and change course.

Views From The Outside For September 22, 2026

2026-09-22T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

How 2 Of MLK's Statements Can Solve Most Of Our Problems

2026-09-18T00:01:00.000-04:00

Our demise as people, either on a small or large scale, will be due to our refusal to share power and wealth with each other.

Think about that. Our refusal to share power and weath involves the refusal of viewing others being fully human and thus equal to ourselves. And all of that comes from either a sense of entitlement or naked ambition. While the former assumes that we are superior to others in some way, shape or form, the latter seeks to prove ourselves to be superior. Either way, we are refusing to count others as our equals. And so while the former starts with assumptions about ourselves, the latter sees that sense of entitlement as something to be achieved.

Our refusal to share power and wealth becomes our own demise in a number of ways. The first way that it causes our own destruction is that that search for power and wealth eventually causes us to dehumanize ourselves as reflected in how we inhumanely treat others The second way in which we cause ourselves to fall is seen in destruction we visit on others when competing for power and weath. Certainly war is the largest scale on which that competition occurs. And regarding war, we would be wise to continually point our what the Russell-Einstein Manifesto says; that, because of the present or future avaiability of WMDs, humankind has a choice between survival or war. And so the longer we rely on resolving our differences through war, the more inevitable the use of those WMDs becomes. But even if our competition for being superior to others is on a smaller scale than that, the destruction that such a competition involves reduces the victimizer to being that of a temporary king-of-the-hill and the victim to being counted as untermenschen. Here we should remember that no one is king of the hill forever.

The above state is what all mankind faces today. And the quotes of Martin Luther King Jr. listed below not only strikes at and reveals the heart of those who refuse to share power and wealth, it implies an escape from a doomed future (click here for the source):

Quote #1:

'The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just'

Quote #2:

'I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin...we must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered'

We will look at the first quote, we should consider the ramifications if we were to replace the word 'Western' with a fill-in-the-blank. For when we make that substitution, we find that the scope of the claim increases tremendously so that we can experience how that statement can apply not just to any ism or group, but to individuals, even ourselves, as well.

What that first quote targets is the emotional base for entitlement involving ruling over others: arrogance. Arrogance allows us to look down on others. And in that first quote arrogance promotes the idea that our own ism, group, or self are superior to others. That sense of superiority sees others as having nothing to contribute to ourselves, our groups, and our ideologies. Also, that sense of superiority gives us permission, if not a mandate, to rule over others and/or take their resources at their expense.

The striving of our favorite sports teams promotes the idea that we should strive to be superior to others. Only unlike in sports where superiority only pertains to a game, superiority in life leads us to visit injustices on others as we rule over and/or take what is theirs. Arrogance not only makes us feel significant, it drives us to hurt and exploit others.

What should also be noted in the first quote is the all-or-nothing thinking involved. One side has EVERYTHING to teach while the other side can only learn. This all-or-nothing thinking feeds on one's arrogance that persuades us to feel entitled to do what we want to others. And that kind of thinking serves as the cognitive foundation for authoritarianism.

When King spoke of this feeling and all-or-nothing thinking, he was focusing on his own nation and government. He did so not just because of war in Vietnam, but also because of our past foreign policies that saw the U.S. suppress the aspirations of multitudes of people for either the financial gain of its businesses and corporations, and/or for strategic reasons too. And so the U.S. sometimes used proxy leaders to control how some other nations behaved and where their resources were directed. That was true in Iran (1953) and Guatamala (1954) as well as in Vietnam.

Now whereas the first quote dealt with controlling others, the second quote addresses our priorities as a nation and as individuals. It isn't that gadgets, profit margins, and property rights are not important. It is that people should be considered more important than those three items. The more that gadgets, profit margins, and property rights have precedence over the welfare of people, the more transactional both our nation's policies and our own affairs become. King's complaint about how investors would invest in other nations only to squeeze out all of the profits that they could was evidence of a thing-oriented society. To that, we could add the triplets of racism, materialism (which was replaced by 'economic exploitation' in other messages), and militarism could never be eliminated. And we should note that King saw those 3 traits as being unseparable.

Just think that if we lived in a person-oriented society. the maximization of profits would not be the prevailing code followed by most of our publicly owned businesses and industries. And without that maximization of profits ethic, those in the business and financial communities generally exercise a significant amount of self-restraint resulting in smaller differences in the income and wealth disparities both between the classes and the races. We would also move closer to a more environmentally friendly and sustainable future.

That our society is becoming an even more thing-oriented society than before possibly shows one of the biggest failure of our education system especially in the secondary education and high education systems. There we are often taught how to tweak a thing-oriented financial practice or economic system that encourages us to maximize profits. The maximization of profits is a cannibalizing ethic meaning that in order to pursue the highest profits for oneself, one deliberately ignores all other principles and ethics to operate. In addition, such an ethic reduces those who could initially be counted as stakeholders to shareholders. The maximization of profits ethic tells us to ignore how others fare in the system regardless of their plight. And so we are taught to prioritize what is not human over people. We are taught that the only moral principle we are required to follow is that of serving oneself. If we wish to be kind or compassionate, that is an individual choice that many will applaud as long as they are not compelled to join.

The problem is not that we try to tweak a financial practice or economic system, the problem is that we do not include, in many of our economic institutions, how to objectively look at our economy from outside the system. And thus we uncritically continue with the maxmization of profits without realizing that our focus on such an approach encourages us to be selfish and to pursue extreme individualism in an interdependent economic system and world. As a result, those of us who are at least financially comfortable will often look down on those who are in the lower economic classes with disdain and as obstacles to one's own continual pursuit of their own personal profits. Is it any wonder that we have many elected officials who are so vulnerable to the influence of money? And is it any wonder why we have chosen the wrong people to represent or lead us?

In too many instances, our educational institutions have failed us in providing us, and those who are work in the business world, a full education on our economic system. But it is not just those in the business world who have been educationally shortchanged, it also includes almost all of the rest of us.

Views From The Outside For September 15, 2026

2026-09-15T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

RL: American Voters Are Easy

2026-09-11T00:01:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Views From The Outside For September 8, 2026

2026-09-08T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

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

2026-09-04T00:01:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

Blog Break

2026-08-15T00:01:00.000-04:00

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

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

Other Pages

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

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

2026-08-14T00:01:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Views From The Outside For August 11, 2026

2026-08-11T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

How Shall We Then Live With Unbelievers

2026-08-07T00:01:00.000-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus at night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which has been born of the flesh is flesh, and that which has been born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it is coming from and where it is going; so is everyone who has been born of the Spirit.”'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Views From The Outside For August 4, 2026

2026-08-04T00:01:00.000-04:00

Views From The Outside

So far, news sources include:

International

Médecins Sans Frontieres

UN News

From Canada

Le Devoir

Le Journal de Montréal

Toronto Star

CBC

From England

BBC

Reuters

From France

France24

Les Echos

Le Monde

From Germany

DER SPIEGEL

From Russian Source

Novaya Gazeta Europe

From Spain

El Mundo

El País

From Switzerland

Neue Zürcher Zeitung

From Ukraine

UATV English

<< Previous Views Next Views >>

What's It Like To Live With A Perfect Person

2026-07-31T00:01:00.000-04:00

I am occasionally in the position to give dating advice. I don't know why that is because, at my age, the only dating I do is decrepidating. And I do that quite well. But one piece of advice I always give is that when choosing to date a particular person, if that person does not freely admit to having faults and sins, then don't date them. Why? It is because once you are in a committed relationship, that person's failure to admit to having faults and sins will morph into making you one of their scapegoats. The person who refuses to admit to fauls and sins has proclaimed themselves to be perfect.

I grew up in a home where one of the family members was perfect because that person was too insecure to admit to having faults and sins. And therefore, some of the other members of my family served as scapegoats for that perfect person. Though I was not a recipient of those attacks, those attacks did have a significantly negative effect on myself.

And so perhaps, just perhaps, we should apply that same rule to the people we elect. Why? It is for the same reason. When things go wrong, some of our politicians will always find whipping boys to blame instead of admitting to being wrong. We have to live with scapegoating others, or even perhaps ourselves, for at least their first term. And since most incumbants are continually reelected, we usually have to live with that abuse much longer than a person's single term.

The reluctance of family member to admit faults and sins was only part of what made my home life back then dysfunctional. But we should note, that trait alone can easily make any home dysfunctional. And so now let's return to the criteria we using in voting for candidates.

Currently, we have a President who is too insecure to admit to doing something wrong or even making mistakes. And many of us have moments or situations in which we also feel insecure. So we should empathize with the President regarding that without condoning how he behaves. Because the President is scapegoating particular people and groups and even nations with his criticisms and worse, our nation has either become dysfunctional or is getting more dysfunctional. Here I am not saying that our democracy has become dysfunctional, the whole nation is.

That doesn't mean that the President is always wrong when he criticizes others, but it does mean that he is not always right as well. And getting some of his most ardent followers to admit that he can be wrong is harder than for the Conclave to elect a conservative Protestant to be Pope.

At this point, we can now talk about how the whole nation has become dysfunctional. For the President is now reflecting what has become of America. In a past article, I talked about those who arrogantly believe that they have everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them. What I am talking about now is the flip side of that coin. When we always blame others for the failures that our side has caused, we are proclaiming that our side is never wrong. We are proclaiming that our side is perfect. And we see that kind of approach being taken by some MAGA followers, some progressives, religiously consesrvative Christians with hubris, the oligarchy, to name a few. And so when one's side is wrong, one abuses everyone by either gaslighting or scapegoating others. And just as it is dysfunctional when a family member portrays themselves as perfect, it is even worse when a whole nation is divided by such behavior.

While the President likes to brag about how "hot" our nation has become under his leadership, the world looks at us in the same way that other members of a family look at the member who always blames others for their mistakes. Of course our nation isn't the only nation that practices such scapegoating. But there might be an interesting correlation here. The nations whose leaders scapegoat the most are the nations that are currently practicing the most physical violence against others. And whether one is exhibiting external or internal violence, with the latter being expressed by words, the resulting violence, along with the gaslighting, is abusive to all victims as well as all who have to see or listen.

Certainly perfect people, regardless of the location or context, can be angering. But if we are going to reach them, it is counterproductive to respond to them with anger because that will all too easily trigger their insecurities and make them defensive. We need to find ways to peacefully challenging their denial of faults and sins. I know that some will read those words and claim that I am singing, To Dream The Imp-ossible Dream. And that might be the case. But is it better to only let perfect people own their insecurities and abusive defensiveness, or is it better to act like perfect people ourselves when challenging them? Who wins if we choose the latter?