The Role of Government

        What is the role of government? That is a question that should be asked and answered for every citizen of the country. Just what do we want and expect our government to do? 
    Do you want government to be essentially your "Daddy" and you an everlasting dependent? Do you want "Daddy" to take care of you, tell you what is politically correct, what you should eat, who you should associate with, what you should think, what you should wear.? Don't laugh. In return you will be clothed and fed and given medical attention and try to keep you from being exposed to ideas that they consider harmful. We have many people in this country that have that basic belief, even though most don't recognize it. A quick look at the events occurring on our college campuses, especially the big Ivy League and California Universities should give you a clue.The most socialist of all the schools seems to be the Berkeley campus of the University of California where political dissent from socialist orthodoxy is put down, usually violently.
      Before you answer that just consider a few things. The more you ask of your government, the more control that government will have over your lives and the greater the tax burden will be to pay for the things you want. There really is not such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays. In spite of the ignorance of  so many liberals that the money they want the government to spend on their free stuff is not money that just appears out of nowhere.  It is taken, for force of law, from somebody who is working and producing something. Today the top 5% of the wage earners pay some 70% of the total tax burden. Some would increase the taxes on the rich so that the top 1% pay 90% of the nations income.
     Do you want security? How much? Then, depending how much security you want, you must give up some, or a lot, of your freedom to achieve it.  Police forces will have to be increased and given more power. Security check points will have to be expanded. Cameras positioned to monitor more areas will have to be installed. That's not the end. Laws will need to be passed giving more power to the government.  The desire for absolute security will result in a police state.
    Do you want the government to provide health care to the ones that can't, or don't want to, pay for private insurance? That issue is front and center today in the Congress as the debate over the repeal and replace of Obama Care is fought. Or should the government institute a one payer system where everybody is provided medical care at the taxpayers expense?  There is certainly a push on, led by Bernie Sanders, to do that very thing. The cost is unknown and hasn't been evaluated by the GBO as far as I know. But, it will be expensive. I honestly believe that we are going to end up with that kind of program. Maybe not this go around, but not too far in the future. It will increase the proportion of the federal budget for entitlements to far greater percentage than it is now. You say Europe already has that kind of program, but they don't have the huge defense expenditures the United States has to act as an umbrella over the western world. And,  if you don't think that is necessary, you haven't been paying attention to history lately. 
      Do you want to spend vast sums of the taxpayers money to "help" the poor as defined by some yardstick? What happens to "help" when it turns into entitlements that far to many people become dependent upon. Ignoring for the moment the effect on the nation as a whole, but on the individuals that are living on the dole. It has proved to be an anchor that keeps one generation after another chained to the welfare dole handed out by government bureaucrats. The government has literally created a permanent underclass with only a few able to break the chains of welfare and rise up in society. It's just too easy to take the "free" money that Uncle is handing out.  As an example, single women are actually rewarded by having children by increasing the amount of their allotment for each child. That increases the number of young fatherless kids that are growing up and, far to often, getting into trouble.
     A good yardstick to gauge how you feel is the catastrophe in south Texas and now Florida. The taxpayers are supplying a great deal of help in the immediate problems of rescuing people, trying to control the water levels and providing temporary relief to the victims in terms of shelter, food and other necessities. But, at what level should the taxpayers stop aid? Should they be responsible to rebuild the homes for the people that lost them in the hurricane and flood and not had the foresight to buy insurance to cover this eventuality, even though they clearly live in in a hurricane zone? Should the taxpayers poor huge sums of  money into rebuilding the infra-structure of south Texas and Florida, including that infra-structure that is owned by private utility companies? What responsibility do the taxpayers of the nation assume for the individual states? 
    How about the environment? The government has stepped in big time to regulate businesses with the goal of keeping the environment clean. But, these regulations have been increasingly strict and have impacted the of creation of jobs. We have created an insatiable bureaucracy that sucks up huge sums of money while they search for the next regulation. To put the frosting on the cake they do not have to consider the fall out of their demands. There is no cost-benefit study done before new regulations are handed down. How big a role should the government have in setting environmental standards? Should they mandate the fuel consumption of cars and trucks? Why? Should the price you pay for natural gas and electricity be heavily influenced by the desire for you to lower your consumption of these items by adjusting rates so that larger users pay more per unit? Why? After all there is no economic reason to raise rates as the consumer uses more electricity or natural gas. Just the opposite. As more electricity or natural gas is produced, the lower the cost per unit. Large users should actually get lower rates as they increase their usage. Electricity is not a resource that is limited in quantity and is not threatened in the long term and there is so much natural gas that we are exporting it in vast quantities.
    How about endangered species? Should the government prevent the expansion of homes and businesses because a rat is threatened, raising the cost of housing by limiting supply and jobs that would be created? Another bureau the the government has created that will never stop finding species to protect with no mandate to consider the costs of their regulation. 
    So what is the role of government? 
    It is clear that the founding fathers were very wary of  large government. In fact they firmly believed that large government was the greatest  threat to the freedom of the individual. Any reading of the Constitution would clearly show that. The Constitution and it's amendments clearly define the role of the federal government and the protections that every citizen has from intrusion by that government. The tenth amendment clearly restricts the federal government from any activity  not specifically granted by the constitution. Stating clearly that all other things are reserved to the States and to the people. 
     The founding fathers clearly thought that the role of government was to provide for national defense, regulate interstate commerce, provide a postal service, and to assure the individual rights and liberties of all it's citizens. The government was empowered to make treaties and regulate foreign trade. Not much else. Certainly there is nothing in the Constitution that allows the federal government to take money from one person and give it to somebody else. Taxes are authorized by the Constitution to pay for such things as national defense, interstate commerce and Postal service (roads and infrastructure) and operation of the government itself. And, remember, the power to tax is the power to control.
     We have two opposing views of what is allowed by the Constitution. The more conservative side believes that unless the Constitution allows it, the federal government shouldn't do it. On the other side you have the liberals who believe that unless the Constitution specifically forbids it, they should do it if they feel like it. Even if the Constitution specifically gives the power for some action to the people by the constitution, the liberals still feel that they know better and move to impose their will. Gun laws are a good example. The Constitution specifically states that the right of the citizen to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.And yet there is a ongoing battle to infringe on the right of the people to bare arms. If the people as a whole would like to restrict the sale and possession of firearms they should modify the constitution.
    As the government moves into the lives of more and more citizens we become closer and closer to becoming a socialist state. And, one should remember that there has never been a socialist country that has not degenerated into a authoritarian state. 
    So think carefully about what powers you wish to cede to the government about your lives, your freedom to say what you want, to go where you please, to open a business if you desire, to retain a significant percentage of the money you earn, assemble in peaceful protests against government policies, to work where you wish and other personal liberties that we enjoy-----but for how long?  
    It has been said that in any form of government is the seeds of it's own destruction. The chink in the armor of a democratic government is when the people realize they can vote themselves the treasure of the empire.  We have already reached the first stage of the condition. Where do we go from here?
   
      
     

Are we alone?

     Are we alone in this Galaxy, or even the universe? A question that has no answer right now or in the foreseeable future. 
    When you take several factors into account it is hard to imagine that we are alone. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies in the universe and in our Milky Way Galaxy alone there are hundreds of billion of stars. Orbiting around those stars are millions of rocky planets in the Goldilocks zone. 
    Water, the most essential element of life as we know it, is abundant. It seems to exist everywhere. Just recently the scientists believe they have found the presence of amino acids on Mars that are the building blocks of life.  
    But, we have never found life itself outside of earth. And, scientists have never been able to produce life from the same compounds that are known to be essential. 
    However, the amount of sky we can explore is limited, so the jury is still out.
    Consider this.  We, that is humans, are an accident. A freakishly unlikely accident. A series of events, that would be highly unlikely to be reproduced on another world, resulted in us, by us I mean a sentient being able to produce high technology. 
    First of all, we find ourselves in the Goldilocks band in our orbit around the Sun.  Just the right distance for liquid water. Not that unusual.
     Another fortunate characteristic is, we have a molten core which produces a magnetic field that protects us from the deadly cosmic radiation.  That is common to all rocky planets, but we are just the right age to have a molten core with a solid crust. I.e not too old and not too young.  Radiation exists everywhere in the galaxy. Without that magnetic field, life on the surface of the earth would be impossible. Life on Mars is impossible now because the molten core that it once had has cooled and solidified. The magnetic field has long since collapsed and cosmic rays bombard the surface.
     Our Solar System is located at the edge of the galaxy at the outer edge of one of the spiral arms. Deeper into the galaxy, it is likely that cosmic radiation would be too intense for a higher form of life to flourish.
     Back when the earth was young, it seems that a collision by another large object was so violent that a huge chunk of the earth was ripped away and became, after a few million years, our large moon.  It is a large moon. It's relatively the largest in the solar system. Without that moon we wouldn't be here. It stabilized the earth's rotation around a stable axis. The earth once rotated at a rate of 4 hours per cycle. It's the reason we have had a constant near 24 hour rotation period for millions of years allowing the growth of higher level organisms. Of the millions of rocky planets in the Milky Way, how many of them are fortunate enough to have a large stabilizing moon? Unknown. 
     We live in one of the older and largest galaxies in the universe. As far as we can see we are not producing stars any more. But our time is only a split second in the total time line of the universe. Other planets in this galaxy and others may have already come and gone. After all, when our core cools off we are doomed.
    The earth has undergone multiple mass extensions during it's life. Mass extensions always eliminate the current dominate species allowing a new form of life to emerge. The second to last mass extinction resulted in the rise of the dinosaurs who ruled the earth for over a hundred million years. The last mass extinction was likely caused by a huge comet or asteroid impacting the earth near what is now the Yucatan peninsula. This doomed the dinosaur to history. Without that event the mammal would never have been allowed to grow from a small little rodent like creature. The big guys would have just ate him.And, there is no way I can see the dinosaur evolving into a sentient creature. No need too.
    We, that is Homo Sapiens, almost didn't make it according to people who study such things. We were close to extinction ourselves at one time in our birthplace, Africa. 
     When the first creature climbed out of the oceans onto land they had 4 appendages.  Somehow 4 appendages turned out to be the optimal number, at least in our environment, so every air breathing creature except the insects and spiders who subsequently evolved from those primordial days have exactly that number. The 4 appendages  turned out to be just the right amount for the development of upright posture that let our hands free for other things except moving and climbing trees. What if the first creature had 6 appendages, or only 2? Would that creature have evolved to an upright walking, big brained being that is us? Certainly not like us. The world would have been completely different. 
     The most fortunate evolution that produced Homo Sapiens is the development of the opposable thumb. Something that no other species on earth has.  Without that feature, we would be forever at the level of an ape. Pretty smart, but not able to produce any kind of complex tool. Another freakish accident?
    Of course the question arises; what made the first  creatures leave the seas and come onto land?  It was probably self preservation. The oceans were teeming with other creatures that love to eat. So, perhaps the first creatures to leave the oceans did so to escape the carnivores. But, what if in another world there were no such carnivorous creatures? Then there would be no reason for our distant ancestors to leave the comfort of the oceans.
   It is likely that life actually developed on other planets in our galaxy and in the universe. The numbers say that it did happen. Not necessarily at the same time as we developed. After all, we are only 4 billion years old. However, I think that any such life would look nothing like us, even though we would likely have much of the same characteristics. They would likely be O2 breathers, although maybe not with lungs as we know them. Oxygen is essential for the burning of carbon based fuel, and it is likely that any life in this universe would be carbon based. 
     My conclusion. The universe and this galaxy is probably teaming with life, but I think that a level of sentience able to produce higher technology is exceedingly, and I mean exceedingly, rare. We may very well be unique in this galaxy and even, perhaps, the whole universe. Wouldn't that be something? We will likely never know. 
     There are few ways we might find out. Perhaps we will get some kind of signal from outer space indicating that a high level of intelligence exists. Certainly we're constantly looking for such an indication.The only other way is--- to do to the impossible. Find a way to travel great distances much faster than light and go exploring. The UFO hunters will say it is possible because some other intelligent species has already done it and have visited earth many times in the past. If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you. However, I've been wrong before, so we'll see. 
    
     
    

Human Life; is it valuable?

         Is Human life intrinsically valuable?  I mean valuable in a sacred sense? The idea that taking of a human life is never justified. Such a position is held by some religious groups that would say that taking of life, on the battle field, in an execution for crimes, in an abortion procedure, or any other way, even in self defense, is wrong and immoral. However most people and religions don't share such a strict adherence to those kind of principles in  practice. They allow the taking of life in some circumstances.
     It is generally accepted that the value society places on human life is selective. Different societies,including religions, place value on some forms of human life and not on others. Different societies have different codes that decide the value of human life to them.  Those codes don't necessarily translate across the boundaries into other societies. In fact seldom do. We don't say it that way, but that's what it reduces to.
     What is gets down to, is the value of human life is essentially what society, as reflected by it's elected officials, by the vote or by a ruling dictator, decides it is. 
      If some society decides that's Okay to leave the elder to die when they no longer can contribute to the tribe, then that is what will be done. A common practice among some of the primitive peoples and practiced to some extent today in our modern society. It was justified as necessary for the survival of the tribe. And, some cases and primitive societies it probably was.
     If society decides that some injuries sustained are too bad to fix, or some disability too severe to admit to the tribe because they can not contribute, it's Okay to just get rid of them. Nazi Germany took that stand. So did the ancient Spartans among others.
     If they are are members of what is  perceived to be an inferior race, then it's Okay to enslave them and kill them because their life has little intrinsic value. They may have value as property, but they have little intrinsic value as human beings. A civil war was fought over that issue. 
    The enemy on the battle field has little or no value, compared to mine, so it's Okay to kill them. More civilized societies have a code that says that once the enemy surrenders, then their value increases and it's no longer right or proper to kill. Although if was clear in WWII that the Japanese never shared that conviction. In fact, in their culture, surrendering just proves that the enemy was inferior and therefore deserves no compassion.
     The value of the individual soldier in the military has value, basically, according to their rank. A good example is what went on in the Great War (WWI).  Higher ranking officers, almost all from the British, French or German aristocracy sent thousands of men across no mans land in the face of withering machine gun and cannon fire, knowing that there was little chance of success. The common soldiers died by the thousands. But, they did it anyway time and time again.  The common soldier had little human value to the officers ordering the attack, while sitting in their comfortable villas far from the action. 
     If a person doesn't believe in the same religion as my society or religion, their life has little or no value so we can kill them. We now have a large segment of Islam that fervently believes in the idea that the followers of their religion are the only one who have the right to live. Everyone else have no value as human beings.
      The Man/Woman who commits murder or other heinous crimes have lost their value to society and that it's alright to execute them. Granted that some states have banned executions, but it wasn't because of the belief in the value of human life. 
     The fetus of unborn child has little value if it inconveniences the potential mother, and the mothers life is of greater value, so it's alright to terminate that fetus. We just recently witnessed an open election in Ireland, a very Catholic country, where a majority of the voters decided that the unborn child doesn't have an intrinsic value and can be terminated on request by the mother. The Irish came from all over the world in order to vote in that election. There was a huge support effort by the abortion forces in the United States to push for approval of this law. Although I'm not sure exactly what the abortion advocates of the United States have to do with the women of Ireland. The paradox is that most of these voters declare themselves as Christian.  I guess that doesn't mean what it used to.    
     Of course the abortion advocates shroud their movement in nice sounding names, the most used is "woman's right to choose".  That means the woman has the right to decide between the value of the fetus they are carrying and their own inconvenience. Sometimes it's "women's health", but the result is the same. In any event, it means that the unborn child, even up to moment of birth, has far less value than the potential mother.
     Society has produced some strange paradoxes in our definition of the value of human life. It seems that most people who don't value the human fetus as having significant value, place great value on a criminal's life and are against executions. Some people won't eat meat because of ethical principles because they value the animals life highly, but will condone abortions because they value the life of the human fetus less.
     The value of human life varies from society to society and over time. What is valued at one time is not in another, and vice versa. It is certain that this trend will continue. Something that is not acceptable today, might be okay tomorrow and our concept of the value of human life changes. Who knows, murder may become acceptable. Maybe it already has.
    
    
      

Assault Rifles-What are they?

    If you tune into your TV and watch the news of late you are sure to see marches, with signs prominently displayed, demanding that gun control laws be enacted to ban assault rifles. But, when asked what is the characteristics of the an assault rifle, they really have no idea what an assault rifle is. 
    It would help if the demonstrators had some idea of the guns they want to ban.
       From Wikipedia:and the  US Army:
     An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.  Assault rifles were first used during World War II. Though Western nations were slow to accept the assault rifle concept, by the end of the 20th century they had become the standard weapon in most of the world's armies, replacing full-powered rifles and sub-machine guns in most roles. Examples include the StG 44, AK-47 and the M16 rifle.


               
              The most famous assault rifle--the AK-47

The term assault rifle is generally attributed to Adolf Hitler, who for propaganda purposes used the German word "Sturmgewehr" (which translates to "storm rifle" or "assault rifle"), as the new name for the MP43, subsequently known as the Sturmgewehr 44 or StG 44. However, other sources dispute that Hitler had much to do with coining the new name besides signing the production order.  The StG 44 is generally considered the first selective fire military rifle to popularize the assault rifle concept.  

                ^{The granddaddy of assault rifles: the Sturmgewehr 44}
  

       Today, the term assault rifle is used to define a class of firearms. The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges. In a strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

• It must be capable of selective fire. Including automatic fire.
• It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
• Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine. (It is common, but apparently not required,  that all modern assault rifles have box magazines carrying 30 or so rounds of ammunition). 
• It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards). 

                      
 Service rifle cartridge cases: (Left to right) Full power cartridges 7.62×54mmR 7.62×51mm NATO Intermediate cartridges: 7.62×39mm 5.56×45mm NATO 5.45×39mm.

For Americans, not familiar with the metric system, 5.56 mm is about the same as a 22 caliber bullet. 7.62 mm is about the same as a 30 caliber round. 
     The much maligned M-16 was the US version of the assault rifle and was the standard issue rifle for the Army and Marines until it was replaced by the M4 Carbine.

                      

                        M-16 Assault Rifle


                                      
                               M4 Carbine

     Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such.

For example: 

• Select-fire M2 Carbines are not assault rifles; their effective range is only 200 yards.

                   
                                 M2 Carbine
  Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered  rifle cartridges. 
 
 
                             FN FAL Battle rifle

• Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capabilities. By the way the AR in the name doesn't stand for Assault Rifle. It stands for Armalite Rifle. Note the AR-15 only fires semi-automatic. It can not be switched to automatic fire. CNN's demonstration of the AR-15 as an assault rifle was laughable to say the least. And, the demonstrator pronounced that it was a "fully semi-automatic" rifle. What ever that means. 

              

                   
                                                      The AR-15
                     The AR-15 looks like an Assault Rifle, but it is just a common semi-automatic rifle.  But, it does shoot the smaller intermediate round as opposed to the M1 Garand. 
  
       Semi-automatic-only rifles with fixed magazines like the SKS,  and the WWII M1 Garand, are not assault rifles; they do not have detachable box magazines and are not capable of automatic fire.

                   The WWII standard semi-automatic rifle

 Sometimes the M-14 is called an assault rifle, but it shoots a full-powered rifle shell, which makes it almost impossible to hold on target if being fired in the automatic mode.  It is technically a Battle Rifle.     

 
                              M14 Battle Rifle

      In 1986, Congress passed the Firearm Owners Protection Act. It was supported by the National Rifle Association and individual gun rights advocates because it reversed many of the provisions of the GCA and protected gun owners' rights. It also banned ownership of unregistered fully automatic rifles and civilian purchase or sale of any such firearm made from that date forward.
    Later, congress in it's infinite wisdom, redefined what an assault rifle is. 
   A Stockton, California, schoolyard shooting in 1989 led to passage of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 (AWB or AWB 1994), which defined and banned the manufacture and transfer of "semiautomatic assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition feeding devices."
     Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the definition of "semiautomatic assault weapon" included specific semi-automatic firearm models by name; the AR-15 was named specifically, and other semi-automatic firearms that possessed two or more from a set certain features: 

 Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

•     Folding or telescoping stock
•     Pistol grip
•     Bayonet mount
•     Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
•    Grenade launcher

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:

• Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
• Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
• Barrel shroud safety feature that prevents burns to the operator
• Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
• A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:

• Folding or telescoping stock
• Pistol grip
• Detachable magazine. 

     ^{So the question is, what are the marches actually protesting? The manufacturing and sell of anything that looks like an assault rifle is banned. And, even the possession of actual assault rifles is outlawed.     I guess marching in the streets, cutting classes with teachers permission, and making protest signs, even if they don't know what they're protesting, is fun and a chance to get some fresh air.} 
     

The Myth of the Popular Vote

        The Dems like to trot out the official figures for the 2016 elections for President and note the Hillary actually beat Donald in the popular vote even though she was soundly defeated in the Electoral College. Does this mean that more Americans preferred Clinton over Trump? The answer is --ABSOLUTELY NOT. 
     Why is that? Let us examine how Presidential elections are handled. All candidates for the Presidency know that it is the Electoral College that needs to be won in order to win the office. So what do they do? They concentrate all their resources and time toward that end. They all employ huge staffs working toward that end and hire high priced consultants to map the road to victory headed by a Campaign Manager. They spend untold hours developing strategies based on expensive polls that they commission, in addition to the national polls that are a daily item in the media. So the entire strategy is aimed toward winning the Electoral College.
     Using that strategy they concentrate their resources on so called purple states. That is, states that the campaign strategists consider up for grabs. The only reason they visit states they know they can't win or they consider in their pocket is for fund raising. 
    For instance, and the perfect example, Clinton nor Trump bothered to actually campaign in California, a state that is so Democratic in bleeds blue. The only reason Hillary showed up at all is to wring money from the rich folks in the bay area, Silicon Valley and the entertainment industry, all strong liberal centers and big supporters of the Dems. 
    California may be unique in that the people running for all state and federal offices, except President, are the two top vote getters from the primary election. I didn't look it up, so I don't know if other states hold their election the same way or not. I wouldn't be surprised if California stood alone in this type of ballot stuffing, but California isn't known as the land of fruits and nuts for no reason.
   So, the ballot for the general election had a lot of offices except the President up for election with nothing but Democrats listed. As a side note, almost all state offices in California, such as Secretary of State, Attorney General, are elected. That was almost universal for those big population centers along the coast, stretching from the bay area south to the border.  Republicans, in large numbers see no reason to go to the polls. It was a forgone conclusion that Clinton was going to win the Presidential vote in the state and the candidates for the Senate, House, state and local offices along the coasts were all Dems. Only when you get away from the big coastal centers into the interior of the state do you find a Republican presence. But, inland California does not have the population numbers as does the coastal cities.
    So the largest state in the union with over 30 million people has pretty much made the Republicans outsiders to the political process for the moment.  So in a system where the Electoral College elects the President, their vote has no weight at all. So they don't bother to vote. Most of them live in districts that are heavily Democratic so the their vote don't mean much for the state offices as well as federal. 
     That type of scenario is played out in other states, probably to lesser extent because they don't have Californians rigged system, where one party of the other has a commanding majority. The candidates spend no time in those states and the minority party is actually discouraged from even showing up at the polls because their vote is meaningless. 
      So the conclusion one has to reach is that the popular vote means virtually nothing and is not indicative of what most of people think or how they would have voted if they had a reason to vote. So even counting the popular vote on a nation wide basis has no meaning at all. 
      But what would happen if the Constitution where amended to change the Presidential election to the popular vote? The entire strategy for conducting a campaign would change. In the last election Trump would have campaigned in California and Clinton would have campaigned in Texas. But, they would not have spent any resources at all, of very little, in the smaller states. The partition of the states into red, blue and purple would have no meaning. The candidates would have to campaign where the votes are, i. e. the big population centers.  And, the popular vote would have been quite a bit different for the 2016 election. This is not even a possibility now or in the foreseeable future. The small states wouldn't put up with it.
     Under those rules the Republicans in California and New York would have a reason to vote. The Democrats in the so called Red states would have a reason to go to the polls. 
     Whether that's a good thing or not, the founding fathers considered that the election of the President by state rather than by popular vote to be the best choice. After all we are a nation of united states. It is intended that the states would retain all the power except that detailed in the Constitution. They were very much afraid, and rightly so, that if left to the popular vote, the large states would dominate the political process and sweep the small states aside. In the present environment the nation would be ruled by the coastal states with the great heartland of American largely ignored. That was what they wrote into the constitution and that is what the candidates have to live with. 
     The message is clear. The popular vote is not a meaningful measure of the population as a whole toward the election of the President. 
QED

North Korea and Kim Jong-un

     There seems to be a consensus among the talking heads at the Fox News Network and CNN that North Korea, in the person of Kim Jung-un is crazy, or at least unstable. I think the characterization of the little guy with the funny haircut is far from true. If Kim is crazy he's crazy like a fox.
     What he and his father Kim Jong-il and his grandfather Kim Il-Sung have done is played the western world, and the United States in particular, like a well tuned harp. 
    Perhaps a little review of the history will help. After WWII Korea, after being liberated from Japan, was occupied by two powers. By agreement the United States would occupy territory south of the 38th parallel and the Soviet Union would occupy north of that line. There was some talk about a general election to solidify the country which had the same outcome as the same promises by the Soviets concerning eastern Europe. The Soviets then established a puppet state in the north and named Kim il-Sung as the head. They thought they had a puppet they could control. Later, when they tried to replace him, they found that they had lost control of their puppet.  
     However, with the Soviets help the North was supported and armed with Soviet military equipment and advisors. The Chinese, glad to have a buffer between a western power and themselves were very supportive of North Korea. 
     That became really evident when the United Nations forces reached the Yalu River during the Korean War and the Chinese reacted with a huge force. They did not want a western leaning country bordering China. During the Korean War the Chinese warned the Americans not to cross the 38th parallel and move to the borders of China, but MacArthur chose to ignore the warnings. When you look at the present situation, it is evident that feeling is still the overriding consideration of the Chinese today. It drives their foreign policy concerning Korea and the United States/ They will not continence  a western power at their borders. It overrides every other consideration. When we think that economics or sanctions will deter the Chinese from that stance, then we're just blowing smoke. 
      Early on the Kims, articulated by Kim Jong-il, developed the policy of Songun (military first). That policy has been picked up and carried forward by his son Kim Jong-un. As a result the North Koreans have the 4th largest military force in the world. Some 1,106,000 on active duty with 8,389,000 in reserve. They also have huge tank, artillery and mechanized forces.  As we all know they now have developed nuclear weapons and the missile force to deliver them. 
     Why do they spend so much of their countries resources on the military and the hugely expensive program to develop nuclear weapons and ICBMs? The answer is simple. They want to insure that they will not be another Iraq. They watched what happened there and Kim doesn't want to be another Saddam. His position is quite clear. If Iraq had a nuclear arsenal, the Americans would have never have invaded the country. So he sees a nuclear capability and a means to deliver a bomb on the United States itself is the greatest deterrent for aggressive action against his country.
    Kim Jong-il managed an agreement with Bill Clinton in 1994 to curtail his nuclear bomb program for aid. It isn't clear he ever did really comply as there was no means to monitor the program. But, when his father died, the push to develop an atomic bomb was accelerated under Kim Jong-un. The United States and most of the western world was decrying their pursuit of atomic weapons, threatening them with sanctions. But, all the wringing of hands by the western powers hasn't made a dent in their efforts. The pundits think that China should step in and put a stop to the effort, but China has it's own agenda. And. China isn't likely to stand by and allow western powers to move against North Korea militarily.
     Now they have the bomb, even a thermonuclear version, and a long way toward perfecting the missiles to deliver that bomb directly to the American mainland. They have demonstrated that they can reach Japan already.
    So the little guy with the funny haircut is sitting in pretty good position at the moment. He got there because of a lot of missteps by the United States since the end of WWII. I'm afraid we're in a pickle now. Damned if we do and Damned if we don't do something about North Korea. I don't think Kim is suicidal, so I don't think he would unilaterally launch an attack against the United States. But, the North Koreans could sell their technology to rogue nations that have a different view of the world. 
      
    
      
     

Religion among the Sons of Abraham. .

          Three great religions today, Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have their roots in a common source. They all trace back to  Biblical Abraham. But, they have diverted significantly over the years to become distinct in their own ways due to various factors.  But, they all have a couple of things in common. They all believe in one God and not a multiplicity of Gods as practiced by other religions. They all depend on a book to tell them what to do. In every case this book is deemed to be holy, the word of God. Why? Because somebody, or group of somebodies, said so. They also have another common thread, throughout their history these three religions have been highly patriarchal, although in more modern times a lot of restrictions have been lifted in certain religions. Men were the bosses and women were bound to obey them. Women were inferior and segregated in social standing in every way one can think of. In a real sense women were the property of men, to be bought and sold by their fathers and their main function seemed to be that of a maid and brood mare. The thing is that the "holy" books support this condition. The Muslims, to a some extent, depending on which country you pick, haven't eased very much on those conditions even in modern times. But, then they are really a young religion, some 600 hundred years younger than the Christians. Think back 600 years and the Christians had many of the same beliefs.   
    Let us start out by announcing that I am not a biblical scholar, or even close to one, nor have any desire to go that route. What I am is a person curious about history and why things are as they are, although I don't pretend to be a scholar in that area either.  The contents of this little treatise may offend some people, maybe a lot of people, who read it. But, I find it interesting. 
      I don't want to talk about God, or a divine being by any name. I don't know, if fact nobody knows, whether there is a God or not. On  the other hand it is impossible to show that God doesn't exist.
      Certainly many, maybe most, people fervently believe that there is some divine being that created and controls our world. That this divine being is a personal God that looks after us and can answer our prayers, heal the sick and do other wonderful things for us. 
     Belief in their God buoys people at a time when they could have collapsed from sorrow or fear. People send their loved ones off this mortal life in the promise of a life after death with the sure knowledge, or at least the hope, that they  will be reunited again. That belief sustains them and lets them go on with our lives. It has been said that there are no atheists on the battlefield. And, there are lot of conversions to religion from people facing death from serious illnesses or danger.
     Stephen Hawkins said that God wasn't necessary for the creation of the universe. That's true, but when you look at the size and scope of the universe, in which we are such a tiny and insignificant part, it is hard to believe that there wasn't some great plan to this whole thing. 
     If there was a planner for this vast universe, with all it's natural and physical forces at play, then, I believe, that the planner is so superior and different from us, in every way, that we have absolutely no hope of understanding the planners nature or motivation in creating such a enormous and mysterious world or what we're doing in it. We would have about as much chance knowing the motives and desires of that entity as an gnat would know about us. I have heard the argument that we were created in God's image to worship Him. Now isn't that a whizzer. God needs somebody to worship Him?  A being so powerful that he created this vast universe?
     It has been said that if God didn't exist, we would create him. We needed God(s) because they explained the unexplainable.  Zuess, Thor, Odin, Apollo, Venus, Neptune and a whole host of Gods were imagined to be the cause for the sun to traverse the sky every day, lightning to strike, storms that wrecked ships and terrified people, volcanoes that erupted causing great damage, plaques that wiped out huge populations and almost everything, good and bad, for which mankind did not know the reason.
      We had to placate the Gods or they would be mad at us and so we decided that prayers, offerings and sacrifices were necessary to show the Gods that we worshiped them and feared them. That way, we hoped, the Gods would smile down on us and the Sun would rise in the morning, that spring would happen after a cold winter, that the volcano that is near wouldn't erupt, that the battle would be won for our side, the illness afflicting himself or somebody close would be cured and for all kinds of other reasons. That practice of sacrifice reached epoch proportions in some societies with the Aztecs sacrificing thousands of people to their God to curry His favor. 
          The need for God(s) gave rise to religions because mankind must somehow formalize their beliefs. With religion however, came the need to communicate with God(s) and know what was wanted of them. Ergo, the rise of Prophets, Elders and the Priesthood, or something like them, that purports to have direct pipe line to God and knows His will. Alexander never made a move without consulting the Oracle. Caesar made sacrifices to the Gods before every battle. The Pope is said to be infallible in matters of faith. Catholic Priests can forgive sin. Mohammad was visited by Gabriel an Angel direct from Allah. The position of the church leaders in religion gave this group great wealth and powers in the affairs of men. What followed, of course, by the established church powers, was that they would  go to any means to maintain and even increase that power. Rebellion against that idea when it grew to excess is what spawned the Jesus movement among the Jews, after all Jesus was really rebelling against the established church, and the Protestant movement in the Christian church. The Jewish Priests wanted Jesus killed and you've heard of the Inquisition, the church powers struck back with a vengeance at the threat to their position, all in name of God of course. 
      The rise of religions have also resulted in killings on a massive scale and sometimes genocide. The Jews did not just win battles in their conquest of the Holy Land, the killed every man, woman and child in the conquered cities, or so the Bible says. The Crusaders slaughtered the Muslims when they captured cities. The Turks tried their best to eliminate the Armenians. The Germans, with help of the Poles, French and conquered Ukraine did their best to solve the "Jewish" problem with mass executions of Jews. The Czar of Russia drove the Jews from their homes of many years. Muslims have strapped explosives to their bodies or flew planes into tall buildings in order to kill those that don't believe as they do.   The Muslims and the Hindus did their best to kill each other upon the exit of the British from India and the establishment of the independent India and Pakistan. All in Gods name of course, or so they were instructed.          
     Christian slave owners and the whole southern population avowed that it was God's will that Blacks were made inferior and should be kept in slavery, after all they were the children of Ham. Even after emancipation, that line of reasoning was being preached from the pulpit in southern churches for many generations to support the idea that blacks were inferior and should be segregated. 
     The French Catholics tried to slaughter the Protestant Huguenots while the English Protestants were making war on the Catholics.
      At the root of all these events was the teaching of their various religions. 
     So, religion. while on one hand granted great comfort to individuals, it has caused untold misery to millions.
     Have you ever noticed that the God(s) are just like us, filled with easily recognized human emotions. Not surprising because we created them in our image. They get jealous, they get mad, they demand that they be worshiped. The stories of Odin and Thor and the Greek Gods adopted by the Romans, is a story of strife, jealousy, love, wars and all the other conditions that we are familiar with.
      Look at the old testament and the story of Job and Abraham and his son. Both of those stories are about a God that is subject to vanity. The Abraham and Job stories are about God wanting to prove to Lucifer that they would be faithful to him no matter what he inflicted upon them. Strange that an all powerful being would feel the need to do that. Sounds very human doesn't it? If a human King had inflicted those trials on one of their subjects we would call him a monster. 
      The Tower of Babble story is the story of a God who got angry at the people and scattered them to the winds, resulting in the development of all the different languages that we speak. Of course that was really just a story to explain why every one didn't speak the same language.
      In fact, the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament in the Christian Bible is a story of a wrathful God who punished the people when they didn't act according to his wishes. That's the story of Noah, the punishment of Adam and Eve being banished from Eden, of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lots wife and even the story of Moses who was not allowed to enter the promised land. 
     Strangely the God of the New Testament is a kind and merciful God who sent his son among us to atone for our sins. Not sure how being crucified on a cross atones for the sins of persons who rob, kill and generally wrecks havoc on his fellow man. It's almost like the God of the New Testament was a new God.  
       Look at Genesis in the Hebrew and Old Testament of the Christian Bible. That book is full of interesting stories. In the very beginning God created a man, Adam, and then removed a rib from Adam and created Eve. All was peachy keen, living carefree in the Garden of Eden where there was no want, pain or any other bad thing. They had one mandate. Don't eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge. But, Eve tempted Adam to eat the fruit because it was so delicious. You know the story from there. The mystery is: What was so special about the tree of knowledge. It is often considered that what the story was really about was SEX.  Eve tempted Adam into having sex with her. So Eve, and by inference all women, were temptresses who will tempt men into sin and damning their souls. That gave rise to all kinds of restrictions on women in the religions of the sons of Abraham.  
     The other neat story is the Cain and Abel tale. Cain and Abel made a sacrifice to God from the area of their labor. But, God didn't favor Cain because he only sacrificed the produce he grew in the fields, while Abel was favored because he scarified a lamb. That really doesn't make any sense does it? Cain was giving him the product of his hard labor while Abel, with much easier job as a shepherd gave him something that required little effort on his part. But, the idea of blood sacrifice was required by the pagan religions in those days so the ancient peoples understood that story. Cain then slew Abel in a jealous rage and was driven to wander and to take a wife and live in the land of Nod which was east of Eden.  He was given the Mark of Cain to insure the people wouldn't kill him because he was hated. Wait a minute. Adam and Eve, according the Hebrew and Christian Bible, were supposed to be the first people on earth with only their children alive. Where did the woman that became Cain's wife come from? Did he marry his sister? And where did the land of Nod come from?  Who were the people who were a threat to Cain? Apparently there was a whole civilization to the east of Eden that gets only honorable mention. Interesting. Some early writings had an answer for that, but the those stories were not included in the current Bible. They required that Eve actually be the second wife to Adam. But, that's another story. 
       And then, there is the creation story, which is not plausible to say the least. At least if taken literally. Bible purest have dated the age of the universe to be something like six thousand years. If one took the Bible literally that might hold up. But, there is so much scientific evidence that puts that premise to be false. In fact, only a few of the stories in the old testament are supported by archeological findings, mostly the newer events. 
    Take the story of Moses. A fun story. But, there is no archeological evidence that there was significant presence of Jews in Egypt at the time that is attributed to Moses (The New Kingdom). Remember the number of Jews that left Egypt was supposed to be in the order Six Hundred Thousand men (Exodus 12:37-38). That meant the number of Jews in the exodus would number something in the order of one and half to two million people when you include the women, children and non Israelite's exiting from Egypt and roaming the Sinai for 40 years. No archeological evidence exists to support the presence of Jews traveling in the Sinai, and with that many people traveling through out a locale for so long, it is certain they would have left evidence of their presence behind. But, at the same time there is significant evidence of Jews in Canon and in Sumeria . In addition, imagine the significant impact on the economy of any nation if that large a labor force left at one time. After all the population of Egypt at the time was somewhere around 3 to 4 million Egyptians.  

And, there is no record of any economic impact on Egypt in the time frame. Most historians believe that the Moses story is largely fiction, but there likely is a grain of truth in the story somewhere. 
      Then there is Noah. Another fun story to entertain kids in Sunday School. It doesn't take much of a search into the history of the earth to know that there was no flood that covered the earth at any time that humanoids walked here.  The story probably grew out of stories of big floods, which at times did happen, and the discovery of fossils of sea creatures high on mountains. Having no knowledge of plate tectonics, the only conclusion they reached was that, sometime in the past, great oceans covered the earth for a time. At least that's one theory as to how the Noah story evolved. 
     Even these stories don't compare to the Jonah and the Whale story. The idea that some body could be swallowed by a whale and survive in it's belly really stretches the imagination.  
    Of the three religions with common roots, only two have a mandate to go out and convert everybody they come in contact with, by force or any other way. Islam and Christianity was spread at the point of a sword. The Jews, however, are a clannish bunch and closely guard the walls of their religion.  After all, they are the Chosen People, although, based on their history I'm not sure what they were chosen for.  Perhaps they were chosen to be persecuted, slaughtered and driven from one land to another after the Christians became dominate in western and eastern Europe. And, today they have whole nations of Muslims on their backs calling for their annihilation. It must be nice to be chosen.
     Of the three, the Jews are the oldest of the religions. Their holy book is a collection of stories handed down for generations by word of mouth, and finally, some, no way of knowing how many, where collected into a single scroll or book, the Tanakh. I couldn't figure out when that happened, perhaps as early as the 5th century BCE. A Bible scholar may know the answer to that but, I don't think it's all that important.   
     There were certainly stories that were not included in that book, but were left out because they didn't support the ideas that the people who started bringing the stories together liked. There is no way to ever know, but knowing just a little bit about human nature argues that many tales that were part of the oral tradition would be left out of the "Official" book.  Multiple stories about the creation are common everywhere. All the religions of the world, including those in the New World,  have different creation stories.We need them to explain the how and why we are here.  
     The tales that made into the Hebrew Bible are in many ways just tales to teach that it is good to be faithful to God. But, the main thrust of the book is to relate the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with their God, even though many of the tales are suspect, to say the least. Note, I said Their God. The First Commandment delivered by Moses for the Jewish people was that He was their Lord and that they should have no other Gods before Him. It is interesting that the Commandment doesn't say that He was the only God, only that He was their God. Not surprising when you consider at the time of creation of the Commandments, many God's proliferated the known world. 
     The Jews have evolved a long string of traditions through the years. I think that many of the those traditions transcend the several Jewish sects that have developed, but on the other hand different sects within Judaism have diverged. When you consider that history of the Hebrew Bible and it's evolution through the centuries, it is easy to see where stories told and handed down would get embellished and changed to fit whatever message the tale teller wished to convey as the traditions of their faith became solidified and traditions grew. Even after the stories were written down, to copy them would require a scribe to do so by hand, so they would be very rare. It would be typical that people who could read the written account would then retell the story to others. And, among the listeners would be be someone who would put the tale to papyrus, or whatever the medium that was used at time. Another chance for someone to put a spin on the story. 
      However, somewhere along the line they began to view the written versions as sacred and became very careful to accurately copy the text. That is known because the comparison of the newer versions to the oldest known texts are very faithful, it's just the oldest known texts are relatively new considering the time span of the Jewish religion.  
        The story of how the current Christian Bible evolved and finally set in stone is an interesting one.  Anybody who thinks there was agreement among the various Christian branches in the early church hasn't read history. In fact Christians were killing each other over their differences. There was real disagreement on the nature of Jesus, Mary, the trinity, women's role in the church and many other issues.  As everybody is aware now, there were many gospels, most of them having one of the Disciples names attached, that were floating around in the first 3 centuries of the Christian churches. None of them actually written by the Disciples, in fact no one knows who actually wrote the Gospels, but they were apparently created some 30 to 150 years after the death of Jesus. We know about a few of them because of the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries in the last century or so. There is no way of knowing how many others were destroyed as being heretical. After the Church took power, all Gospels not included in the approved canon were ordered destroyed and to possess them was a death sentence, let alone to read them in church. 
     The Emperor Constantine, a recent convert (probably, maybe) to Christianity, noted that there was no consistent  and uniform consensus concerning many of the fundamental issues in the Christian church among it's many different followers. He wanted to use the growing Christian religion as a unifying force for his empire.  So he called a council of leading church figures (the Bishops of the major church centers) to define what should be taught as official Christian theology.
    The first attempt to officially define the nature of Jesus, the Trinity and Mary was tackled at the Council Nicea (c.325 CE) chaired by the Emperor Constantine. Up to then there was no recorded effort or serious attempt to reign in the various beliefs prevalent among the Christians. Either some of the major branches of Christianity were not invited or chose not to attend, as there is no record of the Gnostic's or any other branch attending. Only those branches that had embraced a Priesthood with a defined hierarchy got their say in the council. After all, Constantine wanted a church that he could control and without a strict hierarchy that would have been hard to do. Constantine set himself up as the head of the church.
     Various synods were convened after that and after about a one hundred year evolution from the time of Constantine, as to which books would be included in the bible and considered holy, was most likely finalized under the the direction of Augustine of Hippo at the synods of Hippo (c.383) and two synods of Carthage (c 397 and 419). Of course, this was an all Catholic, all male get together, so it isn't surprising that the Gospel according to Mary Magdalene was excluded. It presented a position that could not be tolerated, by giving women a prominent place in the Christian Church. The Gospel according to Thomas was also left out because it may have cast doubt on some of the other stories that were in the final Bible. The Gospel according to Peter presented a resurrection story that the bishops didn't care for. The Gospel of Judas didn't make it because it told a different story of the events leading up to the crucifixion. Several others didn't make the cut, including the Gospel according to James.
    They liked the story in Revelations, even though they really had no idea who wrote it, and we still don't. Somebody named John?  It scared the population and gave power to the church. It should be noted that the concepts of Hell and a great battle was not a new one. It was an old tradition among many religions. In fact a lot of the story in Revelations could have been borrowed from Pagan tales that told a story along the same lines. By the way, Armageddon is a place not an event.   
     One can not talk about Christianity without talking about Paul, or Saul if you wish. He was the most influential writer and Apostle of Jesus in the early church. He was the one who brought the gentiles into the church where before him, it was common that only Jews were welcomed. 
     Almost half the books in the New Testament are attributed to Paul. In his writings he drew heavily on Stoic writings to express his view of the message of Jesus. Most people know that Paul never met Jesus, except the resurrected Jesus, according to him, that moved him to convert, so everything he knew was second hand. 
There is no way of knowing how much of his theology was actually taken from any contact he had with 12 Disciples or was his own ideas about what the Christian Church should be, heavily influenced by Stoic writings. 
     Paul traveled widely over the middle east and into Spain to preach his message as well as writing the letters that appear in the New Testament. He, more than any of the 12 original Apostles, was responsible for the spread of Christianity over the Roman world. 
    However, women can thank Paul, or someone writing in his name, for many of the restrictions placed on them in the developing Christian Church.
From Wikipedia:

"The second chapter of the first letter to Timothy—one of the six disputed letters—is used by many churches to deny women a vote in church affairs, reject women from serving as teachers of adult Bible classes, prevent them from serving as missionaries, and generally disenfranchise women from the duties and privileges of church leadership.

9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame facedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

    It seems that Paul was a product of his day. 
    The Catholics, both the Roman and Eastern versions blamed the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. Luke said so.  But, historically that can not be accurate. The story of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, doesn't hold water.  Pilate in washing his hands of the matter, would have made the crucifixion impossible.  Only a Roman magistrate could convict a person to be crucified, and then only for violating Roman Law.  And they were good at it. The Jew's Priests did not have that authority. In fact Pilate declared that Jesus was not guilty of violating Roman Law. Let's get real, why would Pilate, the Roman Governor be called on to judge such a minor case anyway. After all, he was the Governor of the province, only one step from the Emperor.  It is thought by many modern bible scholars that the person, or persons who wrote the Gospel according to Luke did not dare blame the Romans. After all the Romans ruled Israel with an iron fist at the time. Jesus was likely to have been actually found guilty of sedition under Roman Law by some Roman magistrate, which would have merited the crucifixion. But, adding Pilate to the story added spice, and gave the story greater importance. It should be noted that crucifixions were very common under the Romans so the crucifixion of Jesus would not have been special to the population at large. And, of course, the Christian used this story to persecute the Jews through most of the last two thousand years.  

     When one looks at the way the Christian Bible was put together, one wonders just how much God had to do with the final version and how much was the direct influence of men with their own agenda. Probably with good intentions, but swayed by their own biases and prejudices.  
     Central the the Christian creed are a couple of things related to Jesus. First of all, did a man, we now call Jesus, actually exist? Some scholars believe that Jesus is really just a merger of the teachings of several Rabbis or philosophers that were brought together and attributed to a fictional person. That one is hard to swallow. Just too many people wrote about what he said and did in a relatively short time after his death. The Gospels were written in a period of 30 to maybe 150 years after the crucifixion. Also, Paul's letters probably started a bit earlier. There was time to spin and embellish the message the Rabbi was teaching, but not enough to invent him out of whole cloth. 
    One of the sticking points, if one tries to correlate the Bibles version of the birth of Jesus with known history, is that the story doesn't actually hold water. To start with, Mary and Joseph was said to have come to Bethlehem because the Romans demanded that everybody return to the place of their birth for a census. The problem is that there is no record of the Romans asking for a census at that time and, to add confusion to the story, that is not the way the Romans conducted their censuses. Remember, the Romans were very good at keeping records and census was always conducted in place. So, if they came to Bethlehem, they came for a far different reason than given in the Bible. 
    And why Bethlehem? It was necessary for the story that the Messiah to be born in the City of David. That was the prophecy. So whether Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem or not, the story required that he was when it was decided that he was the Messiah. Many scholars don't believe he ever saw Bethlehem as a young child, that the story was just an artifact to enhance the Messiah image. 
    It is probable that Mathew was the first Gospel actually written (although some scholars believe it was Mark) and whoever wrote the other Gospels merely copied it- sort of. What's interesting is that the two accounts of Jesus's birth in Mathew and Luke (the only two Gospels that address the subject) don't match. One has the shepherds visited by the Angels scene and the other has the Wise Men (Magi) scene. 
   We love our nativity plays which have the Wise Men, sometimes depicted as Kings, being drawn by a bright star to the baby Jesus as he lay in his manger.  The problem is the Bible doesn't support that scenario. According to the Bible Jesus was about 2 years old when the Wise Men, actually Astrologers, visited Herod and asked about the new King of the Jews. Herod then supposedly had all the male children under 2 years old in the city of Bethlehem slain. From all historical records Herod was certainly capable of that atrocity. The fact that there is no record of it, if it happened, isn't too surprising. After all Bethlehem was just a small village which probably had no more than 10 or so boys that fit that category. 
    Mary and Joseph fled Bethlehem to escape Herod and went to Egypt. They returned to Israel after the death of Herod about two years later. We heard little of Jesus until He had an epiphany at around the age of 30 years. Considering the average age of mankind at the time, that would make Him very mature. He then started moving though Israel/Judea to preach his message. 
     His main points were probably best expressed in the passage set as the Sermon on the Mount. It is likely that never really happened, but was a artifact used by the writer of Mathew to bring together the things that Jesus said over a period of time to his Disciples in a concise manner. It doesn't lessen the message, just how it was delivered. 
     From about the fourth century, for a long while, there was only one Christian Church of any consequence, the Catholics. But, there was disagreement between the western church centered in Rome and the Eastern Catholics, sometimes called the Eastern Orthodox, centered in Constantinople. This disagreement resulted in the east-west schism in 1054 CE which officially separated the eastern from the western church. Then Martin Luther wrote the "ninety-five theses",  got excommunicated from the church as a result and the Protestants were born.They in turn have splintered into a number of different denominations, all with a little different idea of what the Scriptures actually say and mean.
     While there is clearly no idea who actually wrote the books of the Hebrew Bible or the Gospels of the Christian New Testament, there is no doubt who wrote the Quran.
     Mohammad born in 560 CE often went a cave to pray and meditate. At about age 40 he had his first revelation from the Angel Gabriel informing him of God's laws and how the faithful should live.  He proclaimed himself the last Prophet of God following in the tradition going back to Adam. He gathered a small army about him, overrun the city of his birth, Mecca, in 622 CE and from there spread the faith of Islam over the middle east. It's really in interesting story. It's too bad the Muslims are so hung up about the use of Mohammad's image in almost any form, that the story is not well known. A movie was made about his life, but due to threats it was never released.
     As usual with visitations of Saints, Angels or God himself to some individual, there is no witnesses to the act. They are usually in a remote place to a single individual, sometimes a cave or grotto. Or on top of a mountain or in the desert. It's up to the individual to decide whether those events actually happened, were they the imagination of some person, a hallucination or even a fraud. 
   
      
         
         
    
 

The Looming Catastrophe

   I see a real problem facing mankind, especially those of us who live in the more advanced civilizations. In short it's the growth of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Robotics. And, it isn't the reason that science fiction writers love, where advanced machines try to take over the world. It's societies ever increasing use of advanced robotics to perform tasks that was once done by people.
    Think about it. Do you really need a waitress at a restaurant? Not if AI  advances much more than it is right now. You can certainly place your order using some kind of interface, such as a touch screen display. Your order could be prepared by an AI controlled robot and delivered to you table by an AI controlled cart. Even the clean up will be controlled by machines.
    Self driving cars are already in the pipeline and will become common pretty soon. What will follow is self driving trucks and buses. How about self piloting planes? That certainly is a technical possibility.
    Warehouses, already heavy in automation will become more so with the advance of AI and robotics. Pretty soon there will be no need for humans in that profession at all.
    How about medicine?  It is in the foreseeable future that machines controlled by advanced AI can do diagnostics and treatment better than any human doctor because of the ability to draw on vast medical data bases, and the ability to correlate all the information it can gather about your health.  Machines will perform complex operations that no human can manage because of the precision of the AI controlled movement. In the not too distant future you may never actually need to see a live doctor at all to get the best medical care. Misdiagnosis will be a thing of the past. Something that happens all to often now. I know personally about that problem. You can get all your checkups and other examinations at home, along with necessary prescriptions filled and delivered to your door within one hour by machine. If you need more extensive examinations or procedures you visit a local clinic where you check in and then let a AI controlled robot perform those tasks. No waiting.
     Dental care will be performed completely by AI controlled machines. Examinations  and necessary corrective procedures can and will be performed without the interaction with a dentist or dental technician.
    The number of humans necessary to build a car or truck, or for that matter any product that we use, has already been reduced by the reliance on automation. With advanced AI the need for people to build anything in a factory may nearly disappear all together. 
    To make matters worse, with advanced AI the machines will become self repairing. So the need for humans to maintain the machines will be significantly reduced. 
   Farming, already highly mechanized will move further into that direction so the need for humans to grow, tend to and harvest our food will be significantly reduced. 
   And, the list goes on. 
   AI controlled automation will make all the things we use cheaper, far better made with higher reliability and more available. That's the good side. 
    The problem is--where are all the people, put out of work by the prolific use of automation that is sure to come, go? How do they live?  It seems like the trend that is beginning to become evident even today will accelerate. There will be the highly educated, highly trained people who are very well paid and live a very good life. Then there will be all the large number others who's jobs disappear due to automation. 
     We have faced this type of problem many times in our history and each time the system has adjusted over a fairly short time and things have improved for everybody. Maybe that will happen in the future. That is because, in the past,  the new products that displaced the old and obsoleted the old skills, demanded more people to produce the increased demand for the new product. But, in the past the new product, such as the automobile replacing the horse and buggy, was still fairly labor intensive. That will not be so in the future. New products will be produced by automation and will require little usage of manual labor.
     Not every thing that could automated will be. Some tasks will be more cost effective to perform manually because of the cost of a robot to perform them. 
     The dilemma is, that with the increased production capability to turn out products at a prodigious rate, we need consumers. But, if automation replaces workers on a large scale, then where are the consumers?  That's a good question. Frankly I have no answer. Just wondering. 
    
  
     
    

English, a little fun

     Look Dear, I said, "Is that a deer I see down by the sea? I wonder if it would wait while I guess it's weight. I know that here is no way I could weigh it. It looks like it is tough standing on that tuff with the ruff on it's neck, though it may be because it is looking through some bushes where there is a bee".  
 I threw a small stone through the air, but I missed. It brought up a tear as I watched it tear across the mountain tier after tier. Although, of course, it might be a hare with coarse red hair that I have read about and intend to read more. They're certain of the their footing over there. If a knight, who usually comes out a night, would show up it would help. Look at the man running bare chased by a bear that seems to bear down on him. I think he's the wright from the village on the right side of the river who was right when he did write about the bear market. I wonder if he can kick that can that is in his path. I think I knew him when he was new.  I know that he should have said no before coming out.  I think that I had seen him at another scene.