How seriously do republican voters care about for who they vote? The truth is its hooligan time. They holler when we use words like racist to describe them, but in Iowa in the heart of America, they have elected well known white supremacist Steve King to Congress again this election. He has served because of not their racist views but their enlightened ones for sixteen years and was just voted for two more years. And don’t you dare call him homophobic even if On April 3, 2009, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a state ban on same-sex marriage violated Iowa's constitution. King soon commented that the justices "should resign from their position" and the state legislature "must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca." NO he is not homophobic.

The Republicans are not racist even though the party ran ads that were considered too race baiting that even their partner media agency Fox would not run them.

Even the California Republicans show a complete disdain for who they will vote in office. Duncan Hunter Indicted Republican Rep. Duncan D. Hunter, R-Calif., on Tuesday won re-election to a sixth term in the 50th Congressional District. It did not matter he has  been indicted in a 47-page indictment outlining how his family spent beyond its means and illegally used campaign funds to support an expensive lifestyle.

Showing no shame, (the no apology Republicans seldom do) claimed the moral high ground by accusing his Palestinian opponent was a security risk because of his Palestinian grandfather's connection to the 1972 Munich massacre. Campa-Najjar was raised by his Mexican-American mother in San Diego and said he had little to do with his Palestinian father. His grandfather was killed by Israeli commandos before he was born. Hunter’s campaign ad claimed his rival, who was given security clearances to work in the Obama administration, is a “security risk.” But he had two things against him: he was part Mexican and Palestinian.

Donald Trump the Grand Master Dragon of the Republicans recently chose the word Nationalist to describe himself. He did this despite the criticism that the word nationalist is used by racists who referred themselves as white nationalists, and neo-Nazis who consider themselves nationalists. The only person who did not criticize him for this choice was David Duke once a Grand Dragon Master of the KKK and probably his boy Stephen King mentioned above.

A white supremacist group is behind a racist and anti-Semitic robocall targeting Florida gubernatorial Democratic candidate who also is black Andrew Gillum. They even extended their robocalls to Oprah and Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. That’s right the Republican party praised by David Duke and a white supremacist group is pushing Republican candidates but do not think for one moment they might be racist.

Hell the Republican voters this election voted A Dead Nevada Brothel owner as their candidate. The candidate was conservative on many issues but was looking at proposing legislature that eased restrictions on brothels. But I am to believe they hold some moral high ground.

And get prepared for the next minority leader of their party: Jim Jordan. Yes, although accused by victims of knowing and not doing anything to stop Ohio State athletes from being sexually abused when he was an assistant coach at Ohio State University is shamelessly running for Minority Leader. And don’t you judge him.

There is more but I do not have the time or pages to identify them for you. The Republicans are now the party with which racists and homophobes feel comfortable. So yes, it is entirely fair to refer to the Republican party as the party of racists and homophobes. If they do not like that label they need to change.
​
​

A week of the far right letting us know how much they love those who are different. They are more than willing to let churches and synagogues hire a security guard to protect themselves. How about this we place a tax on all guns and the taxes be used to train, hire, and arm security guards. This would enable the gun merchants to continue reckless and unaccountable ways of selling guns. At least the gun owners would not be inconvenience until if the body count grew too much. The tax on guns would not be that unusual of a tax. We take tax money from cigarettes and do public education of the dangers of smoking and we also use car tag money to build roads.

To foist the cost of security unto people who are worshipping, a peaceful affair, is unfair. While we are at it we could use the money for public education to teach parents how to keep their guns away from their children. In 2015, 2,824 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 13,723 were injured. Now some gun rights owners may want to protest that they might not be able to buy a gun if we implement a security and education tax. But I do not think it is fair that a church or synagogue may have to close if they have to afford a security guard. Plus some churches may have religious objections to supporting gun rights folks by hiring a security guard to prevent gun violence.

Republicans were all up in arms about the latest pipe bomb attacks. They were so busy trying to create conspiracy theories of how the Democrats were behind the pipe bomb attacks  they forgot to express sincere concern for Democrats. Hey if two ex-presidents were targeted that would be understandable if they were Democrats. Maybe it’s time to put a penalty on promoting false conspiracy theories. This might keep people from using false conspiracy theories to batter the opposition.

Maybe we should let the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)charge fees if your programming is shown to be based on 50% or more on false conspiracy theories. This would not limit free speech it would make it more costly to do bad and wrong speech. False conspiracy theories that enrage the public is akin to yelling ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater. Meanwhile, you are improving the quality of the free speech in America. I think no one would argue that our speech in this country needs improving.

Now Republicans will complain that all you want to do is tax and fine people more. They are exactly right. If you promote a conspiracy that erodes citizens’ confidence in the government and our leaders you must pay to play. If you have a hobby that uses an object that is used to kill our citizens you should pay to clean up your unintended collateral damage.
​
 Hey if we do these taxes we can use the money to pay the tax breaks given to the rich and oh yeah using their latest tax-free money to sponsor North Korea’s nuclear missile program or to bolster Putin’s war in Ukraine. Oh shit I may have to pay a fine for those last two accusations. But maybe not, no one’s proven me wrong yet.
​

So let me get this straight: the far right thinks that the patriots who lead us should be tax cheats who do not pay taxes (Trump) or a non-tax paying patriot (Kushner). One a billionaire and the other a multi-millionaire should show how patriotic they are by not helping pay for the services our government provides. Trump who boasts how much he loves our military does not help to financially support them. He was reneging on a promise to donate money to a veteran’s organization until a reporter followed up the promise to see if he carried through with it. Trump apparently wanted the props for helping veterans without the actual deed of helping veterans. Furthermore, they have both had to pay large fines for illegal rental practices. Trump, for refusing to rent to blacks and Kushner who broke rental protection laws to make even more money.

As the myth of Trump’s projected image of the self-made man crumbles at the feet or the fact he was a millionaire at age eight and his father gave him at least 463 million dollars, we are to appreciate his business acumen. Kushner, whose father actually spent time in jail for avoiding taxes, gave his son his multi-million dollar business. There may actually be a self-made man but we should have been looking at Fred Trump and no further.

But maybe Trump has chosen not to funnel his money through the government and wants the freedom  to use his hard won expertise to give to society through a charity or foundation. But wait that can not be true: his disbanded charity is being sued for using the charitable money for business expenses, donations to politicians (some say bribe), and purchasing pictures of his beautiful mug.

Well maybe these fine men joined the Peace Corps or military to give back to their country. But no point; in fact Trump was deferred from serving in the military three times by bone spurs. So what is it that makes him patriotic? Is it his snuggling up with America’s enemies such as Russia and North Korea? Or is it his campaign slogan that implies America is no longer great? Or is it his inability to appreciate our military heroes such as John McCain?
​
Here is the truth--Trump only has loyalty to one thing: himself. So why does a certain small portion insist he should be our leader? I would like to say it is actually because they are not patriots. So they can not be one to see one. Their loyalty is not to a country which they often threaten to overthrow but to a way of life that gives them advantages over other people in the country. This is it pure and simple. They are patriots in words only and not in deeds.   
 
 
​

​By any means necessary has become the philosophy of Republicans. They no longer care about how they win their policies only that they win. They are rejecting the values of non-violence. In non-violence the means is said to determine the ends. If you use violence, raw power, or deception to achieve your goals you can expect the same in return when you interact with that group. The means will determine how great the resentment the other feels toward you and the process. If you are willing to do anything regardless of the truth or the values of the other you have not made a friend but an opponent if not an enemy. The non-violent stance of the means effect the ends is tossed aside for winning. This leads to not winning hearts but showing that force is the way to achieve your beliefs.    
  
The far right are sacrificing some values for the sake of other values. The thinking is ‘I do not like Trump’s misogyny but I do like his Supreme Court Nominees’. It is always problematic to pick and choose which values are more important. You fall into the trap of thinking your only choice is the lesser of two evils. But how can you grade which is more important: abortion or national security?  

Picking and choosing the values you will promote justifies the claim that you are hypocritical on many issues. You espouse a certain morality but do not promote or guard it so that another value can be achieved. What happens if you do not achieve the goal you have forfeited? You have sacrificed all or most of your values and this would leave you morally bankrupt.

The problem with picking and choosing which values will take precedent is what if you choose a value that is wrong? You have forsaken your other values. This would lead you to a morally unmoored life. And if we are truthful we all have changed our views on issues during our lives. Furthermore, if you pick and choose how can you avoid being swayed by the latest hot issue. So instead of living out your values you have become an ethical faddist.

Another factor to consider is the political field is littered with false prophets. If you align yourself with someone no matter what you are open to their ethical limitations. And we all know the stereotype of the politician who promises the moon to be elected but delivers you a lemon instead. A true prophet once said, “What good does it do you to gain the whole world but lose your soul’ Another writer said, “Winning is such a small thing.” What he meant was if you sacrifice your soul and the relationships of those around you for ‘winning’ you have lost.

We have the potential to have two Supreme Court Justices who have committed or been accused of misogynist acts. They both will vote against Roe vs. Wade if it comes before the court. Is this the Republican idea of winning? This is probably the reason Republicans face losing the majority in Congress and the Presidency. They are not making friends but are creating stalwart enemies among the minority populations who are soon to be in the majority.
​
The right says they are concerned about the religious freedom of conservative evangelicals. To shore their position up they are appointing federal judges and Supreme Court Justice’s seat by any means necessary. But power is switching in our country and one wonders if their by any means necessary in the long run will not jeopardize their cherished religious freedom as they make unnecessary enemies.   

​The mythical Deep State is under attack by our President. If Deep State means people who have expertise and experience in running our government I guess he is correct. They are hopefully running our government. How odd that we are almost criminalizing them. But it is the age of Trump where expertise and experience do not count only his gut matters. He denies climate scientists have it right. He denies the official count of the deaths from the hurricane in Puerto Rico. He denies American intelligence on Russian activities. Experts’ study and knowledge is not comparable to his well established gut.

Take for instance his meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jung Un. He claimed at least to need no preparations to meet with this hard core nuclear threat dictator. Trump felt no need to master the complexities of North Korea’s nuclear and missile program. His negotiation skills and gut were enough. We are still not sure other than lifting Kim up to the world stage as a great leader what was accomplished by this meeting.

Trump claims the Deep State (boogey man) is causing all the confusion in the White House not his unvetted aides or family ineptness. It is not the greedy cabinet members or corrupt advisors he has brought with him. It is not his lack of preparedness.  It is that thing we cannot see the Deep State. The Deep State is a faith thing because no one can really define it. But we know it is bad and exists.

But the truth is he is someone who does not read but listens to only voices that agree with him. He is not a deep thinker with well thought out beliefs. He is an opinionated man. He only respects himself. Everyone else is a tool for his use. His motivators throughout his life have been winning, power, and money. Not truth, justice, or concern for others.

So he attacks the most noble amongst us John McCain, Barack Obama, John Lewis, career intelligence officers, and others. He ascribes to them the motivations he would have if he were in their positions. He cannot believe that anyone would be motivated by patriotism, altruism, and love. He ascribes his evil to them so that he may be exonerated for his own misdeeds.
​
We cannot hold his government responsible because there is a Deep State that is holding him back. There is an ‘other’ that is the enemy. The problem is the Deep State is much like deep thought. It has spent its due diligence thinking and working out the issues over a long time giving them some authority on issues. But Trump is a shallow thinker motivated by less than redeemable thoughts. So Trump must throw his shade at their expertise and facts of others to assert his views. And this is not what the Deep State is used to. Therefore Trump wins because they do not understand him. He is willing to be meaner. He is willing to lie. He is willing to attack anyone. He does not let anything slide. He is willing to not forgive. Others will not or cannot go this far and he knows it. They are moored by principle and humanity. He is not. He depends on their having purer motives and knows this allows him to be the belligerent bully. So the question is will someone fight as hard and dirty as he will to win. Maybe not but maybe people will begin to give credence to patriotism, altruism, and love as motivators again.

​I write the following because we are in a time in our country that has become divisive. My hope is that while we may no longer be able to do consensus as a nation we can practice a spirituality that may one day open the door to building consensus. Consensus is an impossible thing to do with people who do not know the process. There are people who will always have a knee jerk response of no or that cannot be done. They are the nay sayers. In consensus unless you have a strong conviction that something is wrong you are to allow people to move on if everyone else pretty much is for it. But there are those people for whom everything is of utmost importance so they have to disagree and refuse to stand aside. There are also those people who say it is okay and agree to let it go forward but they are working to sabotage the effort all the while it is being implemented. Nothing for them is ever decided because they do not agree but they did not want to be the recalcitrant vote. 

Consensus is a spiritual discipline. Ask a Quaker. Here are just a few of the philosophies you have to develop if you want to do consensus:

*You have to see each person’s opinion as valuable. For many this is difficult. A well-educated person often has trouble listening to someone who is not educated especially on a subject that you may be an expert. But consensus demands everyone who wishes to speak on a subject be heard.

*This leads to another discipline. You have to change your concept of time. Spending time with community is a good use of time. Nothing has to be decided tonight. People, especially people in power, insist that decisions must be made now. In actuality very few decisions of a community have to be made rashly or in a hurry.

This is not to say that consensus has to take hours, days, months to make a decision. In fact if people are abiding by the consensus decisions can be made efficiently. But these are spiritual habits that are hard to nurture.

Take the idea you have to see your own opinion as possibly flawed. This involves a degree of humility most have not developed. We have as far as we can tell studied all the issues and have come to a logical conclusion but even though I have spent a lot of time dealing with this issue I must be open to being wrong. Yet if you do not hold this out as a possibility how can you truly be listening to others?
This flows into another discipline: you have to view things not as an us vs. them situation or zero sum solution but all of you as one group. If you view others as part of your team then you will be willing to listen to them. You want to hear and try to understand things from those in your community with whom you disagree. This not only brings you closer to others it can also have the side effect of making your own arguments better.

In consensus you need to have discernment of what matters to you at your core. Too often our egos make us think everything should be approved by us. Not everything needs to be run by us. And we do not have to have an opinion on everything. We need to leave room for others to disagree and express their own selves.

Consensus is to a large extent about letting go. If it is not a matter of conscience you should be able to let others do what they think is necessary. You have to let go when the choice did not go as you hoped. They call this stepping aside. Churches have split over the color of carpet in the sanctuary or even less important things. This is probably not a matter of conscience but of taste. Sometimes things such as taste must be put aside for the unity of community.

Then finally there is what is called in common nomenclature the gracious loser. This is the person who does not pout when things do not go their way. This is the person who does not attempt to sabotage when things do not go their way. This is the person who says and means I will support you in the ways that I can. This is the person who can let go when necessary.

​You are able to do this because you trust the people with whom you are in community. You do this because you respect the people with whom you are in community. You do this because you see worth in the people with whom you are in community. You do this because you have developed a philosophy of life that is consensual.

​AfroPunk the magazine recently posted an article that said the Chinese government had art thieves that were stealing Chinese items from European museums. I do not know if this is true but it makes perfect sense in the world of justice. There is no way that these countries are going to return any more than token pieces to assuage their guilt.

One wonders how we would feel here in Savannah if the hand carved Stations of the Cross in St. John’s Cathedral were taken and never returned. Years later we would still be angry at the gall of the Chinese for taking these items. Most Chinese museums until recent history only contain the prized treasures of China.

Why do we insist on the ownership of pilfered precious items from other countries? Let me offer you two competing reasons one good and one bad. To own the treasures of another country shows a certain power over the people of that country. It builds your countries prestige at the expense of the exploited countries. National museums are both to inform but also there is a certain bragging rights to the accumulation of wealth you have gathered from around the world.

What I want to ask does your city or country not have enough treasures to show the world without exploiting other places’ treasures? The Met and others are hopelessly addicted to others’ treasures.   
We Americans and Europeans have ancient envy of older countries. Our things are not as old as most of the rest of the world. We want to have a piece of that ancient history. Although we have some ancient cultures of our own as a society we are not on good talking terms with them (here think Gullah, Native Americans, Hispanic). In fact when given a choice we destroyed our ancient cultures for the great cause of capitalism and land grabbing.

  The Telfair Museums here in Savannah is a smaller art museum. The Telfair Academy is the oldest art museum in the South. They have several collections in their museum that have come to them through who: the citizens of the city. Mary Haskell Minis, a Savannahian, was the patron and lover of Kahlil Gibran so we have a large collection of his art. Kirk Varnedoe, a Savannahian, was the curator of the MOMA so we have a collection from some of our greatest contemporary artists in his memory. We have a strong collection of the great photographer Helen Levitt because her sister-in-law is a Savannahian.  Gari Melchers, an American Impressionist, was married to a Savannah woman so he was given the chore to buy paintings from friends and acquaintances and thus we have a noted American Impressionist and Ash Can School collections. We also have several of his paintings. Then there are the local artist of Jack Leigh photographer of Bird Girl fame, Ulysses Davis noted folk artist, and a culture of female artists of note (Augusta Oeschlig, Emma Cheves Wilkins, and Hattie Saussy), who add to the collection. Another art museum in town the SCAD Museum of Art has a significant collection of African American art which they received from Savannahian Dr. Walter O. Evans who knew and collected most of the artists of the Harlem Renaissance.

Now you may ask why am I making note of all this. Savannah is a small city but has a decent art collection that involves its citizens. How much more could and do our larger cities in the West who have been part of the looting museums of yore must have in their collection must have than Savannah. Why do they need to abscond away with other countries’ art and for that matter other US cities art? Especially when one considers that the Met displays less than ten percent of their collection. Now some will say it is necessary to have what is called an inclusive collection. An inclusive collection is a collection that includes art from every culture around the world. The idea is you gain an appreciation of this art and the people and culture of the art. Of course this could in large part be done not through collections but exhibits from the different cultures of the world. This would also allow for the people of that culture to have a voice in how the art is seen and what it means. Otherwise you have Western curators as the voice of these cultures. In collection exhibits the voice of the people of other countries and cultures are absent.

Another more valid reason offered is that certain countries are so unstable that their treasures are under constant threat of war, terrorism, and the vagaries of different regimes. Or some countries are so poor they cannot conserve or protect their treasures from thieves. So ‘altruistic’ Western museums are assisting in the preservation and visibility of these country’s treasures. Of course China is quite stable and capable of caring for their treasures and no Western museums are rushing to give them their treasures back.  

There seems to be simple solution for the Western culture vultures to their stealing. I say if you want to have cultures represented in your country maybe you should be more open to the immigration from all parts of the world. Make your country a mecca of citizens around the world and they will bring their culture with them. And maybe you can stop stealing culture from poorer countries.
​

​We have the prophets speaking ‘Alternative facts’ KellyAnne Conway,’ Truth is not truth’ Rudy Guliani and ‘Do not believe what you read or see’ Trump. And boy do they never stop talking. They hit every talk show in the history of humanity, tweet into the early morning, and preen before every appreciative crowd they can find. They have a lot of explaining to do. And the truth is not very convenient to the way they want you to see the world. So the onslaught comes and continues to come until the end of time.

While I can not necessarily go the full monty with Guliani, Trump, or Conway (pleasing image huh) I can give some ground to the fact that many people’s truth is relative. In fact this can even be Gandhian. Gandhi taught that none of us hold the total truth. It is only in exchange with our opponent’s that we can find the greater truth that transcends any one of us.

Now having said that if you truly believe that truth cannot be fully known, if this is a philosophy of belief and not just convenient when you feel most people are not going to believe you then there is an ethical responsibility you have. If truth is not truth than you must err on the side of laxity of your beliefs. You cannot be dogmatic and demand draconian policies that may persecute someone whose truth and love or otherwise you can be guilty of punishing or harming an innocent person. Only those who are convinced they are right and they alone know truth can be dogmatic and measure out harsh punishments.

For example if you can never be sure someone has committed murder then how can you be a strong advocate for the death penalty. You can never have evidence beyond a doubt. If you cannot be sure when life starts how can you demand a woman carry to term especially in cases when their lives are in jeopardy. The fact that they want to build walls, reverse Roe vs. Wade, keep out immigrants, roll back gay rights is not the action of someone who believes that truth is not truth or the world is filled with alternative facts. 

So one must ask what are they doing. I think there are two things they are trying to accomplish. First they are attempting to be able to challenge the truth of the allegations when Mueller finally delivers his work. They have in fact at various times admitted such. But secondly I think they are being even more devious. They are sowing so much confusion as to what is truth that you give up your search for truth. When truth is no longer being searched for it leaves those in power with complete freedom to do whatever they choose. This too they have admitted to. Trump has declared that he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and no one would care. And of course this is the way they wish to roll. And they may even be given that right if we stop searching for and believing in truth.

This is the most litigious president and person our country has ever known. Over the last three decades the United States president Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases in U.S. federal courts and state courts, an unprecedented number for a U.S. presidential candidate. Trump spends a lot of legal time trying to bend the truth to the way he sees things. This is also why he tweets. Tweets by the way that are treated as much of a source as the AP. He writes tweets and his tweets are transmitted even more than an article the AP submits to newspapers for possible printing. I would not be surprised if the AP is having trouble meeting budget. This is why we have Guliani as the television lawyer for Trump. What is a television lawyer? Someone with charisma enough to make spin attractive. It is an attempt to not to win a case but determine how the politics of the nation go. That is why Trump attacks the press. To make them seem less trustworthy. That is why he immediately attacks someone who challenges his truth with a viciousness. He cannot win and seldom does in court.

They apparently have to do this because they know in a case of objective truth or in a court of law they will lose. But in the court of public opinion there are no objections or judges to even the scales. We have freedom of speech not freedom of truth. Therefore they throw everything at the wall and hope something sticks.

So hold on to your truth because there is a gust of hot air blowing your way every day and it won’t let up until its settled in court or at the polls.