A salute to The International Olympic Committee.

The 2016 Olympics has seemed like The Silly Olympics at times.First there was the Russian doping scandal.It was curious to say the least how more accountability for that was put on disabled athletes than on all of the Russian team collectively,but the Russian team is a top draw at a venue that has seemed somewhat beleaguered at times,Then,of course,there is the Zika virus,and concerns over water quality,and street crime.And,the unsavory actions of a few American swimmers is a trending news topic.But once in a while,the International Olympic Committee and it's member organizations gets something right.

Judo is perhaps not the highest profile Olympic event,but it matters to those who are fans,and to those who dedicate there lives to performing it at it's highest level.I would have to admit both ignorance and disinterest with this particular event,were it not time to commend the IOC for a job well done.

Following a match between Egyptian Islam El Shehaby and his Israeli opponent Or Sasson, El Shehaby left refusing to bow,shake hands with or otherwise acknowledge his opponent.He was called back,asked to bow and acknowledged his opponent with a quick nod.His actions were deemed unacceptable by the IOC,and that position was supported,at least publicly by The Egyptian Olympic Committee who sent El Shehaby home.Given the Russian doping scandal,we might legitimately wonder if the outcome would have been different if the athlete in question were involved in a higher profile event,like the 100 meter dash for instance,or if he were from some other nation,again,a higher profile one.But all that aside,lets give credit where it's due.

The Olympics is not the place to make a political statement,unless that statement is that sporting events like The Olympics is intended to be transcendent of world politics.To be certain,national pride is a big part of competition.Who is not proud when our competitors excel? And there is absolutely nothing wrong in that.As a Canadian I am unapologetic in my pride of our athletes.They have taken on and beaten worthy opponents from all over the world.But national pride and Nationalism,especially that sort of Nationalism that denigrates the nationalism of others are not the same thing.The later has no place in Olympic competition.

In viewing the actions of El Shahaby,at least at this point,I'm a bit uncertain as to his motivation.It may be a bit premature to put it down as anything more than simple poor sportsmanship,however badly he's behaved.On the other hand,it's a short step in thought to suspect that his motivations might have had a lot to do with the national and religious identity of his opponent.Such would not be the case were that opponent Canadian or Icelandic or Arabian or Paraguayan.But given the state of world affairs,his actions tend to be automatically assigned certain intentions.

In a world that is often racist,xenophobic and politically uneasy to say the least,the IOC and the it's Egyptian counterpart have scored a small victory.But small victories are not insignificant.Firstly,they have not allowed  indecent behavior to prosper,notwithstanding any past failings.Simply,they made the right call in issuing a game misconduct.Secondly,at least so far,they've prevented any group from claiming the actions in question as a victory for some political agenda,be it Islamicist or Zionist,or any other for that matter.So far the incident has been confined to the forum in which it belongs,and indeed sport has been made to transcend.This time,the IOC got it right,and in a controversial Olympiad and an often turbulent world every small difference adds up.

                                 blyndpapaya        

Caveman with too much testosterone in Alberta Canada.

Do you recall that commercial a few years back with the slogan"so easy even a caveman can do it"? The one that ended with a red faced announcer eating crow while apologizing to two cavemen for having offended them.It was a well received if only mildly amusing commercial.However,I just recently discovered that there is at least one surviving caveman,and his antics are not anywhere close to amusing.In fact,I find them repulsive,as anyone that has any sense of morality that is developed beyond a purely pre-historical level should. And,I will in no way apologize to this particular neanderthal once I've demonstrated on him how the pen is mightier than the spear,and left him gutted out but still breathing all over this blog entry.

Josh Bowmar is from Ohio.Recently he came to Alberta,Canada to  hunt bears.With a spear.He posted video of that experience for the whole world to see.Briefly,that video shows,initially an unsuccessful attempt to spear a black bear,which Mr.Bowmar had lured with bait.It shows Mr.Bowmar holding a spear which has been outfitted with a camera along it's shaft.It also has a menacing looking blade..As I say,initially the bear escapes,but comes back and is then speared,in the side and runs off again.It is found dead some time later and quite nearby.

The remaining minutes of the video show Josh Bowmar in his self absorbed,demented victory dance,laughing and shouting about how he speared a bear.What it does not show is Mr.Bowmar doing anything to track the bear,obviously still alive,to complete the task of dispatching it humanely.He claims,at that point that to do so would be dangerous.Yet coming to the woods without a sure means of securing his safety was not? His narcissistic display of self congratulatory orgasm was not? Mr.Bowmar is not a true hunter,he's a cold.callus killer and that sort of action,that anyone so inclined can witness on the video,is likely the only thing capable of causing him an orgasm.I'm imagining that Bowmar considers himself a purest in terms of hunting.I consider him a menace a sensationalist addict of barbarian thrill and  arrested in a pre-historic stage of moral development.In fact I find nothing at all redeeming about his actions. It's like shooting goats in a petting zoo.Only afterward does the idea of danger appear in Bowmar's mind,and only then as a excuse not to do the right thing.

And that's the most positive view of this whole situation that I can come up with.In fact,in viewing the whole video,I'm really convinced that it's not merely a matter of ignorant moral neglect on Bowmar's part.It seems far more malignant than that.It seems as if what I'm viewing was something that holds the suffering inflicted as an end in and of itself.But I could be wrong so watch the video yourself if you can stomach it.

Now you might be tempted to label me as a left wing, radical,tofu eating tree hugger Let me assure you that is not the case.Like a good many people,especially males,I took a firearms safety and was taught to hunt.In fact I was rather accomplished at shooting in years past when I had better eyes.But I never really took up hunting as an adult.I have no objection to hunting.Some people hunt to survive.Other people,including people I know in Alberta live far from town.For them the possibility of an animal attack,in particular a bear attack is real,and they keep guns to defend themselves against that possibility.In either event,I have no objection.I am somewhat less comfortable with the idea of trophy hunting,but I think I would have admit that even that can be done humanely.I'm just not convinced that it serves any real need.

I live in the city and have no fear of attack from anything more dangerous than a garbage eating raccoon with an attitude.There is lots of meat,which I eat with pleasure,in the supermarket,and which I can more or less afford.If I could not,I might well hunt as a supplement.I know,fully well that a living creature gave it's life that I might enjoy that meat.And in fact,I respect that sacrifice.

And therein lies the wrongfulness of Mr.Bowmars actions.As with most actions of it's sort,it comes down to a simple and total lack of respect.Again,as a Christian,I feel that in any sort of killing,one needs to have a deep sense of reflective reverence for the things which our Creator made,and which we could not.Again,there is no particular need to be religiously observant in order to find this reverence.But either way,killing is not a small thing,and most people seem to get that. In fact,it occurs to me that those who do not are less than fully endowed with human sensibilities.

Firstly ask,was the killing of Bowmar's bear necessary.Did it serve any legitimate purpose?.Was anything fed by it,save Bowmar's obvious blood lust? If it was a function of self defense,it was only made necessary by engaging in an activity that any reasonably minded person could have anticipated would bring danger,perhaps extreme peril. Mr.Bowmar however seems to have no such thought.And,to that end,it's a shame that he is not eligible for a Darwin Award.We would be well deprived of his DNA.

I would,finally,be remiss in not noting the sensationalism involved in this horrifying act.That is less a problem with Mr.Bowmar than a problem of epidemic proportions in society at large,in which we have been turned into a world of vicarious thrill seekers.Mr.Bowmar has no qualms about pandering to the reality of that world though,as he carries on,laughing and joking.In one news article,he even describes the spear in sickening detail,and the damage it can do to a bear.Mr.Bowmar,I for one fully comprehend your point in providing that description.You are overly fixated on the size and prowess of you spear.Had you not meant to convey it's power to penetrate,you would not have affixed a camera to it's hard,uncompromising shaft.It all plays so well in some morally decayed circles,doesn't it?

Let me ask,what's next Mr.Bowmar?What is you next act of self absorbed masturbation? May I make a suggestion? Why don't you go elephant hunting with a Swiss Army knife.Maybe that way you will reap the Darwin Award that you so richly deserve.



Just a note in ending this post:I find this to be the harshest thing I've ever written in my life.Yet I find Mr.Bowmars actions fully worthy of every word of criticism.I will pray for a world in which such things need not be said.It will be a far better world than this one.But again,I will not apologize to this neanderthal.

                                                              blyndpapaya.

Donald Trump 101.

It's really a very simple matter.There is so much that I really don't have to pay a lot of attention to.But I'll admit,it's been entertaining for the most part,if it wasn't so damn sad.Watching the greatest democracy on Earth sink to the depths that it has in this election cycle is sad and disturbing.American society has become so fractured and it's would be leaders are possessed of the lowest quality of debate I've ever seen in any society where debate really matters.Debate still does matter,doesn't it?

All through the preliminaries to the American election,I've watched Donald Trump,and I've come to one conclusion.I don't want him as The President Of The United States.I could go on and on about why,discuss his silly antics until November,but why bother.Frankly I've got better things to do,more issues to bring some hopefully thoughtful commentary to.As far as Donald and his merry band of crackers is concerned,I just hope that the Republican Party has enough left in the way of operating political machinery to overcome it's present circumstances,to protect the world from the whims of a leader who appears unstable.And beyond that I'll just pray to God for the rest.

Believe me,I'm not dismissing Trump easily,even if I appear to be doing so quickly.But you see,I've decided that I learned all I really need to  know about him in one rather short,succinct video.You may have seen the same video.It's the one where he is childishly mocking a disabled man.Full Stop,go no farther.What this video tells me is one single,vital fact.The man lacks empathy.But he carries on about making America great again.Don't believe it,he will only represent the interests of those most like him,that's all that we can expect from someone who lacks empathy.And those most like him are rather small in number...about 1% perhaps.

America cannot be made great without empathy,nor can the rest of the world be made safe for humanity.

                                                                  blyndpapaya

Carrion eating tourism in Vancouver?

Vancouver,Canada is a magnificent city,well worth the visit.I lived in  Greater Vancouver for a very short time in 1979.It has unparalleled scenery,Gastown,Stanley Park and Canada's largest Chinatown.The saying of the day used to be"even our cities have a countryside".

But Vancouver has another side as well.It always has had.That is what's  known as the Downtown East Side,around Hastings  and Main.It's a shadowy world of prostitutes,pimps,homeless and displaced persons and the addicted.It's the former hunting grounds of serial killer Robert Pickton.Drug use and violence are clearly in evidence even to the unobservant eye.Every form of human degradation and vulnerability is on display here.And now,there is at least one tour company conducting walking tours of the area,so that visitors might have the chance get a close up view of all the neighborhood has to display.

The idea,such as I understand it is not dissimilar to celebrity tours.Celebrities in this context though are the people of the street,users,hookers,mentally ill persons,bottle pickers and petty criminals.For a price,and not a small one,tour operators get you up close and personal with everything that this sort of existence implies.Kind of a new twist on a trip to the zoo.

I have two  distinct reactions to this enterprise.Firstly,as a Christian,I find it abhorrent to see anyone making a living of the dire misfortune of others,regardless of whom,or what brought about that misfortune.We are called upon to love others, to seek to relieve suffering,and to provide enlightenment to the lost,not to regard  deviance and it's attendant hardship as a curiosity or an entertainment or opportunity for entrepreneurship.As a Christian,I simply and loudly pronounce this as being unseemly and morally wrong.Without the least hesitation.

As a thinking person,I also find an abundance of reasons why this sort of undertaking is wrong.There are those that say we do not need to appeal to religion to inform us in matters of morality.Obviously I disagree,but an appeal to intellect does not leave these tour operators in a favorable light.

First,at over two hundred dollars for a two hour tour,this is simply crass,callous capitalism at it's worst.An average zoo,by comparison charges something in the neighborhood of  twenty dollars to enter and stay for most of the day,and,from those proceeds provides not only an enjoyable and informative family experience,but is instrumental in providing support services for conservation of endangered species as well.But apparently humiliation and ridicule can command a higher price.And given the totality of human history in this respect,that's exactly what should be expected.Shades of an American Presidential candidate mocking a disabled man come immediately to mind.

There are those who suggest that walking tours of this blighted neighborhood are one way to encourage empathy for marginalized populations.I am not buying into that idea in the least.In fact,I see this as being nearly entirely based on the desire to ridicule.Were empathy the goal,the tour guides would be providing education on the psychological,sociological and philosophical aspects of social problems.I'm guessing that that's not happening.I'm guessing it's more or less a quick and dirty tour of a readily available"zoo" in which the tour operator bares no responsibility for the upkeep of the "animals". If anyone finds themselves in need of more empathy,there are an abundance of volunteer opportunities in most such areas.Feed hungry people,step up and provide for a need.In the process you will inevitably get to know some of the people who live in these circumstances.With the tour provider,you will most likely come away with a heightened awareness of the stereotypical,at best.

Stereotypes attach themselves to everything.But in marginalized populations they loom disproportionately large in the lives of those being typecast.What are these tour providers doing to promote the humanity and individualism of even one street person? How do they provide any enlightenment of  the root causes of addiction or homelessness or prostitution in individuals? They simply provide a sensational,visceral experience that does not edify and is often quickly forgotten.A low form of entertainment.

Perhaps the people conducting the tours in Vancouver can speak to a concern that I have.I invite them to  comment here if they wish.Who are your clients.I don't mean that you should name them,after all I respect privacy in a way that these people clearly do not.But,do tourists include children?And,if so what is being done to minimize risk,not to mention emotional trauma associated with the activities providing the entertainment.For that matter,what is being done to ensure anyone's safety? Hopefully Vancouver police are as concerned with this as much as I am.

Humans are entitled to a presumption of dignity,no matter what state they find themselves in,and it's true that many sacrifice that dignity to feed their base desires.Again,as a Christian,I would  suggest that this is because we are all created in God's image,but you needn't appeal to religion unless you see fit.When in shelters,homeless people are entitled to an expectation of privacy,though I'm uncertain of how strictly this is enforced.But the absence of that expectation does not mean that persons-any persons can be deprived of their dignity.Now I ask,how many persons are photographed during these tours?Not just engaging in deviant acts such as prostitution,but also necessary acts,such as perhaps urination,which is not always easily facilitated within this population.And,do any persons ever come to be portrayed in a particular and almost always unflattering light,even though their presence may be nothing but the merest coincidence?

To people visiting Vancouver,I urge you to partake of all the city has to offer.It's a truly great place and,as a Canadian,I am very proud of it.I usually like to get off the beaten track when I'm in an unfamiliar city,and I encourage you to do likewise.If you want to photograph,or write about,or sketch,draw etc.,homeless,addicted or less fortunate people,I urge you to get their permission,and seek to dignify in any of your interactions.If you seek to be more understanding and empathetic,take some time to get to know someone you might not otherwise seek out.When you do,bring a sandwich,a dry pair of socks,a warm jacket,maybe a hug or a prayer.You can see the troubles of this world for yourself and come away educated and with a better point of view.But most of all,I urge you not to patronize those tour companies that make their living by increasing the uncalled for humiliation of  fellow human beings

                                                                                                  blyndpapaya

Charlie McGillvary,Part II.

First,apologies for not getting to this story in a more timely fashion.As you are already aware if you've read my past entries,I was,and continue to be greatly disturbed,and yes,offended by the death of Charlie McGillivary at the hands of Toronto police in August of 2011.So much so,that today,five years later I'm not prepared to allow anyone to forget.Because disabled person's lives,like all lives matter.I have decided however to present a rather shortened version of what I had to say in response to this matter.

In my last entry,I indicated that I attended a pizza party/vigil/protest for Mr. McGillvary about a week after his fatal encounter with police.But that's not where it ended for me.There were maybe eighty people in attendance at this vigil,and it can best be described as a fond remembrance for a man who was rather well known in his community.I,however had never met the man.He was recognized by many at that vigil as "a gentle giant" and a "gentleman".In speaking to dozens of people,a picture emerged in my mind of a person who was what a great many disabled people tend to be by a largely uninformed populace-misunderstood.And,when I think about it,that doesn't make him so very different from most people.I think it can be safely said that he was tragically misunderstood by Toronto Police.

I've worked with disabled people,I count some among people who I respect,admire and love.And therein partly lies my interest.But a big part of it too was that the tragic events that befell Mr.  McGillivary happened very close to home,in my neighborhood,along streets I pass every day.So,when I was invited to attend a protest rally at City Hall a few days later I went out of a sense of concerned duty.It was an eye opening experience.

Protest was very much in style in 2011,the year of The Occupy Movement.It was before the emergence of  Black Lives Matter,but that's not to say that the sentiments of that movement were not clearly in evidence at the protest over Charlie McGillivary's death.Generally we paraded around,made a lot of noise,and took the time to speak with a good many people about our concerns.We demanded answers.We demanded,LOUDLY a full investigation,which was to be carried out as usual by The Special Investigations Unit,the body that investigates critical incidents involving police in the province of Ontario.Many of the protesters indicated a concern with the composition of The Special Investigations Unit,insofar as they claimed that it was constituted mainly of police,or former police personnel,and thus was over representative of police interests,as opposed to wider community concerns. As one of the more moderate of the protesters,I noted among my fellow citizens that if we wanted a capable,creditable investigation,we needed to rely on qualified,experienced investigators,and that often meant resorting to police as a necessary evil.That's not to say however that investigations should be carried out exclusively by police.Even I,as a moderated,given to diligent consideration of issues,tend to suspect bias when such investigations are carried out solely within a police culture.To be sure,though,I am not pointing the finger here at the Special Investigation Unit.Like all aspects of policing,it is a difficult and thankless job,but it does need to be done.

My biggest  concern was ,and continues to be the ability,or even the inclination of The Special Investigations Unit to access outside help in completing it's work.Specifically in the case of Charlie McGillivary,I'm concerned that investigators may not have understood how disability in general and Mr.McGillivary's disability in particular played out in the tragic events being investigated.Because I'm certain this was not an ordinary police killing,if indeed there can ever be said to be such a thing.I'm still not convinced that all of  my concerns in this regard have been answered to my satisfaction.

I've noted in my last entry that information now seems rather scanty on the Charlie McGillivary case.A few days after the events in question it was the talk of the town and a google search provided literally dozens,if not hundreds of related articles.Five years later,a similar search reveals much less material.To be sure you can find a basic outline of the case from beginning to end,but much less in the way of supplemental material.But,of course the ruling of the Special Investigations Unit was there.Mr.McGillivarys death was ruled to be an accident.And,because I've not been able to read the actual text of the ruling online,I do grudgingly accept that ruling.However,I wonder if given the intent that must be involved in undertaking policing,the results of such interactions can be considered to be accidental.In my view,we simply have to do better."No harm,no foul" is not the right answer.It's simply not good enough.It offends our community and is reflective of a negative value we put on the lives of disabled people,relative to the lives of others.

As a footnote,I should say that many of the protesters at City Hall were both much more experienced and more radical than myself.One of them even suggested that she would simply want police out of their neighborhoods completely and would be willing to accept any increased danger within the community as necessary if it achieved that end. For my part,I've not yet acquired that level of mistrust  in those who police us.I hope I never do.

For what it's worth,I want to take note of a small but perhaps significant event that took place after the protest that day. My new found colleague suggested to me,as I was about to take my leave that I decide upon a route home and let her know just what that route was,in case of any "retaliation." I was not in the least concerned with this as a possible outcome of my militancy,but nevertheless decided to humor my friend,and provided her with my plans for a safe walk home.Upon arriving on my street,I noticed two police cruisers parked just south of my house.As I approached,an officer greeted me,in a not unfriendly way and asked where I was going."Home." I replied. "Where's home" he asked,but I just walked past and turned into my walkway,assuming his question would be answered.And indeed he did not make any further inquiry.While I don't know if this incident was at all connected to my presence at the City Hall protest,I do note it's seeming coincidence,and the fact that it's the only time I'd ever been approached by police in all the time I'd lived in that neighborhood.

                                                                                                            blyndpapaya

Does violence in your community offend you?

There seems to be something that Black Lives Matters are getting  that I'm not sure that the rest of us are.And that is that police violence deeply offends in the communities where it happens.I'm not sure yet if they are equally offended by non-police violence,or by violence among blacks,or violence perpetrated by blacks on others,but they've nonetheless taken the time to be offended.Being offended seems reasonable and it matters.

I now live in Toronto,which is Canada's largest city.I love it here.It's my second stint living here and for the most part I feel very safe in any community where I venture.I might feel differently were my skin black.Who's to say? Toronto may well be the most diverse city in the world,and while it has it's share of problems,some of related to race and violence,for the most part we get along amazingly well here.

When I lived here from 2010-2012,I lived in the west end,in a Portuguese enclave near Bloor and Lansdowne.While the Portuguese community can be a bit insular,they really are good neighbors.Their children don't hang out on the street corners spewing profanity and looking for petty crimes to commit.Their houses and yards are well kept.If there is a crime in progress you can be assured that someone will call the police.You see,they care about their community.And if the stories of my friends are true,most of the ethnic communities about town are similar in that respect,with  few notable exceptions.Most of the time I'm glad I live here.But police violence when it occurs in my community offends me.Not just police violence,but all violence offends me.Police violence though is especially offensive because it is a corruption of an agency that was meant to serve and protect us.Later this week,I will have more to say about a particular case here in Toronto that happened five years ago this week-end.It did not involve a black man,but it was nevertheless at least as disturbing to me as anything  in the news recently.

Bloor Street is one of the busiest streets in Toronto.It runs east and west through the city for a long distance.In the east end,it's called Danforth,but it's the same street.There are shops of any kind you might imagine along Bloor including many open air markets.You can purchase food at very reasonable prices at these markets.A walking trip down Bloor is always a unique and wonderful experience.You can purchase all manner of things at Honest Ed's ,at the corner of Bloor and Bathurst Streets.It's a large,very cheesy and cheap place to shop for nearly anything.Iconic here in Toronto.It's part of the Toronto experience,at least for the next few months.There is the lady that sells samosas at the corner of Lansdowne and Bloor as well.They are Hindu ans serve only vegetable samosas.I was looking for the chicken samosas I prefer when I first went into her shop,which she explained they didn't make.But she really was such a sweet woman that I often found myself going back for a vegetable samosa every once in a while just so I could say hi.Such is Toronto.I recall too the fall of 2011,walking down Bloor Street and seeing the hugest pumpkins I've ever seen, at a fruit stand in Korea town.Nobody bought them,they were just too large to move,so they just sat there adding to the charm of the city.

I remember a pizza party too,one August night at the corner of Bloor and Christie.That all came about because of that incident of police violence that so disturbed me.We all gathered around,maybe about eighty of us and laid out candles and slices of pizza at a memorial for Charlie McGillvary. Charlie was a disabled man that had been killed by police at that intersection a few nights before,in a case of mistaken identity.Charlie loved pizza.His story pointed out,and continues to point out the need to find a way to enforce the law without resorting to the same old business as usual approach.As the fifth anniversary of that event approaches,you may not here much about it in the mainstream media.In fact,I was hard pressed to find a lot about it on the internet.But you will hear about it here.Because it happened in my old hood,a part of town I love.And it offended the hell out of me.

A last stand for American Exceptionalism?

So what does it really mean when the Republican
Presidential  candidate shouts"let's make America great again",or some such closely related slogan.It would seem to suggest that America was great at some point,and that Mr.Trump has some preconceived idea of what made America great.Whatever that notion actually is,and I believe that Mr.Trump is less than completely forthcoming in revealing that publicly,the slogan in and of itself has the ring of an ideal commonly known as American Exceptionalism:American greatness based on a unique American history stemming from The American Revolution,and resulting in a break with European roots that was seen as being more or less complete in political terms.A new way of doing business ,if you will,based on new ,American ideals of  Democracy and freedom.As a related idea,this concept also expresses the idea that America bears the responsibility of being a role model to the world in living out democratic ideals.This is sometimes expressed as "A city on a Hill" which enlightens,informs and inspires other nations.And,from this springs an additional; idea,that of American superiority.

But can anyone truly believe in this notion today,in 2016?In fact,was American Exceptionalisn ever a valid idea?It might have worked well in a time when the American reality was that of geographical separation from the power of warring European nations,and at a time when it was forced to direct it's energies toward developing and molding it's own expanding nation.But those conditions hardly exist in today's world.American Exceptionalism seems less well fitted to today's world.


Still,I'm not certain the politicians of any stripe really get this.America is broken,fractured along all of it's social and political cleavages,and as a result is possessed of a malignant anger that's turned inward on itself.Politically,partisanship rules the day. Economically and racially,people have never been more divided.In some circles there is talk of another American Civil War,the only difference  being that this time around there is more than one fault line which could conceivably propel America in that direction.That "City On The Hill" is a shimmering mirage that no longer generates even enough light to illuminate it's own feet.


And so it's no real accident I suppose that the political slogans of the season all have to do with restoring American greatness.But we need to look very critically at those who are preaching this American Gospel.To be certain,these men and women are no John Adams or Thomas Jefferson,their ideals are not anywhere near as lofty.But could we reasonably think that they might ever resolve,or even improve what's ailing America today.So,when Mr.Trump says"Make America Great again" what does he mean?What form is that likely to take? Well,part of the idea of greatness is the idea of safety.So,I'm assuming that this implies some notion of "Law and Order" however ill defined that might be at present.It could include a lot of things,but in my mind I have to connect it to some of the ideas put forth by Mr.Trump,ideas based on some of his statements.Ideas like building a wall or a fence,or stopping immigration based on Muslim belief,or country of origin.Presumably it would have some bearing on the armed violence in America as well,on the social conditions which gave rise to groups like Black Lives Matter.Now "Law and Order" is something to be valued to be sure,but how does a potential Republican government intend to bring that about.I'm  guessing that it has more to do with a big stick with a lot of clout behind it than it does any notion of social justice.Lest we forget,Donald Trump once mocked a disabled man.And that speaks loudly on his ideas of what value he places on social justice.Yet social justice is foundational to law and order,but remains an elusive ideal in America today.

What does it mean to "Make America Work Again"? Does that mean "Employ Americans" and,if so employ them to do what,to serve whom? Does that mean restoring some hope that people might actually be able to achieve some valued goals,such as advancing themselves socially and economically and seeing their children aspire to a better life than they had?No,that seems far to progressive to suit an essentially conservative,elitist laissez faire capitalist mindset.And,speaking of capitalists,who was it that actually exported  American industry? So,does anyone really believe a right wing shift in government is going to be the solution to a problem that was caused in no small part by just such a mentality?

If ,on the other hand making America work refers to overcoming a deeply dysfunctional nature in all things American at the moment,I could hardly argue that this is a bad idea.But where does one start? Again the problem is one of social justice,and of putting off long entrenched ideals.America needs first to put it's own house in order.It needs to hold forth an ideal that offers something of relevance and value to it's own individuals and communities.It needs to rethink the idea of maintaining an military industrial complex,of tying economic well being to  the reality of permanent war,which cannot exist without omnipresent enemies even if those enemies have to be imagined or manufactured.It's a supreme irony that I quote a former Republican President in this regard:"Tear down this wall."

America also has to deal with legitimate enemies,in legitimate ways.Right by might is called for from time to time,and America needs to be adequately strong militarily,but it also needs to find other ways to deal with enemies both within and without.Right now it's too much like that athlete with all the physical prowess in the world that thinks there is no need for it to set a moral example,to be a role model of virtue.America needs to totally rethink itself in terms of what makes it legitimate in the eyes of others.Because hatred does not arise organically in a vacuum.So what could America do to offer others,with very different worldviews  ways to respect it?A great place to start would be to  assert the true status of The War on Terror.In other words,make it clear that this war is the function of terrorist behavior,not a war on Islam.Stop insisting on democracy at gunpoint in those countries that have no historical tradition of democracy.Insist instead that those nations articulate and achieve some acceptable human rights goals,and reinforce them economically and politically for doing so.And above all,make human rights a priority within Americas own boundaries.Reaffirm the ideals of American Democracy.Because any legitimate form of American Exceptionalism must be founded on the highest possible standards.Americas founding ideas were good ones.Not perfect,but some of the best, idealistically, the world has ever produced.But America needs to put a lot aside in the way of it's own hypocrisy and start living it's own ideals before it imposes any ideals on others.The crucial question is,are there any among it's leaders that are capable of and willing to do so?