Month: June 2023

By on

The investigation into Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide is complete. Bad employees made bad decisions. The cameras were down, Epstein didn’t have a cell mate, Epstein collected extra sheets and his watchers decided not to watch him that night. All these errors culminated in the death of Epstein. But, despite this odd convergence of completely unrelated events, there is nothing suspicious about his death.

Let me think about this for a moment. No, sorry. I am just not buying it. Epstein, a man who could provide evidence implicating Presidents, Cabinet members, and members of Congress and who had been on suicide watch before, despite all the knowledge of his importance and his suicidal tendencies, still he manages to commit suicide on the very day that the numerous failsafe procedures designed to prevent such an action fail. It was almost like he knew this would happen. How convenient.

Two low level employees have taken the fall and that will be that. This is both unsurprising and shocking. I don’t know about you but if I was the warden tasked with keeping such an important person alive, I would pay attention to how my staff was handling the person. It would be my number one priority. I would visit Epstein’s cell every day to make sure everything was in order. I would call his watchers late at night and make them go to his cell and come back and tell me his alive. I would be consumed with worry that something terrible was going to happen to Epstein. It doesn’t appear that the warden was worried much about the performance of his lower level employees.

To pawn this off as a series of misdeeds by low level employees fucking up on their daily tasks is unbelievable. I know this to be true because I used to be a lower level employee with bosses and important projects. Concerned bosses check up on important projects. Concerned bosses put their best people on important projects. They keep tabs on what is going right and what is going wrong because they know if something goes disastrously wrong, they, and not the low level employees, will be called to account for what happened. And that manager better be able to provide an explanation.

Also, speaking as an ex-lower level employee, if my boss told me that the my most important task was ensuring that my charge is alive in the morning, I would make pretty damn sure that person was alive. I wouldn’t want to explain why Epstein had extra sheets, or no room mate, or that the camera wasn’t working.

So, if the report is true, there was a stunning lack of supervision of lower level employees. For a prison. You know one of those places that house really dangerous people and that the public needs to be protected from. That is kind of why they are there. So if low level employees can fuck up so much that the most important prisoner in the building turns up dead, I might be concerned with a little more than those low level employees. That this isn’t happening speaks volumes of what is really going on here. It is a bit sad that the best case scenario is gross incompetence up and down the food chain. The worse scenarios involve corrupt prison officials and phantom assassins are even more troubling.

Artfully hidden in these reports, at least I have not read anything about it and I would think given the media’s desire for juicy tales would be at least mentioned, is the possibility that Epstein was helped in his act – either by prison employees or by invited assassins. This would seem to be an important point to address because there was a lot of speculation about this after Epstein’s death. Not a word. He committed suicide and that is that.

That nobody believes this story goes without saying. It is an insult to the public’s intelligence. The inability for investigators to provide even a plausible answer to what happened that night reveals a shocking arrogance. They clearly don’t give a rat’s ass if we believe this report. They had to provide a report, they did it, now shut up. There also is, at least so far as I’ve read, a surprising lack of outrage from the press and elected officials which moves us into even more troubling territory. Are they complicit? Are they scared?

The whole mess is disappointing. It reeks of conspiracy and cover up something I try to avoid because it makes you sound crazy but then this report does nothing to make me feel differently.

By on

I know that a lot of people will disagree with me about this but I think the best way forward is to leave Donald Trump alone. If nobody pays attention to him, he might (notice I said might) just disappear. Now, personally, I admit it would be great fun to see the man in an orange jumpsuit. He certainly deserves it. On the other hand, the effort to get him in the orange jumpsuit might be more trouble than it is worth. All of Trump’s legal trouble keeps him in the public eye which gives him the attention he craves. The problem is people think of Trump as a normal person who might be embarrassed by all of this negative publicity. I know I would be mortified but Trump is not a normal person. He loves attention and because of that there is no such thing as bad publicity. He will take what he can get.

Then there is the media who, despite their seeming outrage over Trump’s behavior, in reality, love the man. And I mean love that has no bounds. Trump actually is aware of it and plays them. He didn’t become a reality television superstar for nothing. The media, however, isn’t so savvy or they just don’t care. Neither of which is particularly comforting. Trump, on the other hand, knows how to generate headlines. The media has to pay attention to headlines. Headlines drive the media.They can’t very well ignore them, can they? They need an audience for their news and Trump supplies it in spades. It is a very sick relationship.

But how can the country let such a prominent law breaker like Trump get away with his criminal behavior? It is pretty clear that he has engaged in illegal activities. The man needs to be punished or, at the least, reigned in. I would argue in this special case we would be better off not pursuing it. Half of the country thinks he is a martyr, finding a jury where at least one Trump supporter doesn’t slip through the jury selection is going to be difficult if not impossible. Then, even if the impossible does happen, and he is convicted, he is wily man with access to wily lawyers. Being an overweight 77 year old man, I am pretty sure that he can drag this out long enough that he will die in his own bed. There is a very small chance that he will get convicted and go to prison. In the meantime we are giving Trump endless access to the spotlight he craves. He is a careless man who doesn’t care a whit about anybody but himself. He will burn the country to the ground if he has too. Is it worth it just to see him behind bars?

If by pursuing legal action, we hope to shake loose his supporters and get them to see reason, then give up. It isn’t happening. His crimes seem to have little effect on his followers who, instead of seeing the man for what he is, are opting to take Trump’s complaints against the justice system and the media at face value. It has strengthened their commitment to him which, I am afraid, means that they will follow him with matches if he decides it is a good idea to burn down the country. Given Trump’s insatiable narcissism, I don’t like the odds that Trump can be persuaded to do the right thing.

The continued pursuit of legal action against Trump gives him a platform to talk about the really important issue of how horribly people treat Donald Trump. Again and again, day after day, waah, waah, waah. With his chorus in the media breathlessly asking the important questions. Did you hear what Trump said today? Is he admitting to a crime? How can prosecutors use this information in the coming trials? Will this finally force Republicans to abandon him? All great media fodder but increasingly meaningless sideshows to what really ails the country.

Every minute spent discussing Trump is one less minute Americans are talking about real problems like homelessness, crime, the Ukrainian War, inflation, educational reform and onward and so forth. He won’t stop talking as long as we continue to listen and the bright minds in the media can’t stop themselves from talking about Donald Trump. It would be better for everyone to ignore him and that means biting the bullet and leaving him alone. Let him rot away in the Florida sun.

Some Democrats think that all this attention will force the Republicans to nominate Trump again for president because they believe that Trump will be easier to beat. Maybe. But if all the Democrats have is a weak Republican candidate then the Democrats deserve to loose. The election should be about better ideas and good candidates. Talking about what a stupid asshole the Republicans have nominated is hardly a winning strategy and it is embarrassingly weak too. It is dependent upon the Republicans doing what the Democrats want and is pretty nakedly apparent that’s what the Democrats want. The Republicans might surprise us and change their minds about committing political suicide. Then where would the Democrats be.

It would be better for the country to start with a fresh face. Ron DeSantis maybe an asshole but he is a different asshole with different ideas and different ways of doing things. It is a risk. Yes. But I would much rather face someone like Ron DeSantis or anyone other than Trump. Because if someone other than Trump is the Republican nominee there is a remote possibility that Americans might talk about something other than Donald Trump. If Trump is the nominee, the media spotlight remains focused on Donald Trump. And all that means is waah, waah, waah people are so mean to Donald Trump. The media will give him 24/7 coverage and nothing will change. It is, however, great television. There is that.

By on

My mouth dropped open when I read this Salon article where a town in Delaware is trying to give business owners who have business in town but the business owner lives elsewhere the right to vote. Proponents of the law admit that they are trying to give businesses more power in the decision making process of the town which sent my already slack jaw all the way to the floor.

What? I mean what? Really, what? I can’t even wrap my head around this pile of bull shit. Businesses should have more power than regular people. Why?

It is a shameless power grab, and nakedly transparent at that. Business owners could vote in their own home town and, if they own a business in the town of Seaford, there as well. People are actually saying this shit like this is a reasonable argument. Why would non-resident business owners need more power? More importantly, why do they deserve more power than every other citizen? And why is nobody making a bigger deal about this? For years, Conservatives have been trying to restrict the vote, now perhaps they have found a backdoor way around it — give the rich more votes and you would have the same effect.

I suggest that if the business owners can’t win the votes of individuals without ginning up their own numbers then perhaps there is something wrong with their position. Giving business owners an additional vote so they can win elections is just a smoke and mirrors trick to give the illusion of democratic decision making. It is, to say the least, the opposite of democratic and an incredibly dangerous idea to even consider if democratic institutions are to survive.

By on 1 Comment

One of the things that bothers me about American Christianity is the delight they take in punishing people on earth when they have already decided these sinners are doomed to an eternity in Hell. This vail of tears is relatively short time and, and lets be honest here, there is only a good 20 to 30 years of really good sinning in an average person’s life, giving most people plenty of time for last minute repenting. leaving Christians plenty of opportunity to salvage some of these hell bound souls.

So why can’t they just give us these earthly delights knowing full well that, good Christians that they are, they will have an eternity in Heaven while everyone else is going to Hell. But no, Christians can’t be happy with an eternity in Hell, they want to make us miserable even before we descend into the fiery pit which is downright petty of them. My theory on this is that they are afraid sinning will look like too much fun and they won’t be able to compete with us sinners. Understandable but isn’t it really relevant to God’s decision making process. I mean God knows what is in a person’s heart. So, if in your heart you are a man who wants to dress up in women’s clothing, God knows this and even if you never put on a wig, go go boots and a leather mini skirt, God will punish the you accordingly. Which, on careful consideration, is also a good reason to go ahead and go for the full Drag Queen experience. I mean if you are going to Hell whether you do it or not, you might as well do it.

Here is the thing. God will take care of the sinners. All you need to do is make sure your are right with God and I think God commanded Christians to Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. If you heart has harden to such a point that you delight in seeing sinners go to Hell, you might have some explaining to do when you meet your maker. I would love to hear the explanation but I think I might be suffering from heat exhaustion.

By on

So, apparently there are billionaires who will pay $250,000 to see the wreckage of the Titanic. I suppose if you have an extra $250,000 to burn through gawking at a sunken luxury liner might be a way to do it.

I don’t wish anyone ill. It is sad that people died in this tragedy nonetheless I find the whole past week more than a little irritating. First, how much government time and money was used to find these billionaires. I agree you have to look for them. It is the humane thing to do when people are trouble. Let me rephrase that when rich people are in trouble. When poor people are in trouble due to their bad decisions, the answer is to leave them on the streets because they will never learn their lesson from their mistakes unless they suffer. But OK, I understand the need to search for missing rich people despite the less than gracious response to other people in trouble.

I feel the same way about rescuing untrained people from Mount Everest. People want to climb Mount fucking Everest because they have the $65,000. They are untrained mountain climbers and they are, just for the thrill of saying they climbed Mount Everest, endangering the lives of the sherpas and the other trained mountaineers on the climb. Climbing Mount Everest should be something you work your way up. It certainly isn’t a starter mountain. Of course, the wealthy person’s story is all that is really important. The poor people that have to rescue the stupid mother fuckers are just a footnote.

And what a story it is. Billionaires in a missing submersible. The press went crazy over this one. There were countdown clocks of when exactly the oxygen would run out for the people trapped. Stories from previous submersible passengers dredging up their horror stories and how they knew some disaster like this was imminent. There were engineers discussing the poor quality of the materials used in the building of the submersible. 24/7 reporting on the fates of these 5 people while, at the same time, the Greek Navy was trying to save hundreds of desperate refugees floundering in the Mediterranean. You will be excused if you didn’t know about this particular disaster as the coverage wasn’t quite the same for the poor immigrants. Funny how the drowning billionaires trump the drowning immigrants but not particularly surprising.

Then there is the money. $250,000 to see the wreck of a ship on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. $65,000 to climb Everest. That’s a lot of money and these people can afford it. Which is incredibly disappointing if not anticipated behavior. I thought one of the benefits of low taxation for the wealthy is that they would use their excess cash to invest in their businesses thus helping everyone. That they are spending their money on these expensive thrills is unsurprising evidence that they are not good stewards of their own money.

And this is not an isolated incident. They spend billions on space travel and losing law suits, on giving money to other wealthy people, on hush money to cover up their crimes and on buying fake vintage wine. Just like the poor, they waste their money on crime, sex, thrills and drinking. The price tag they are paying is just a bit more. This is the problem. To be told that we can’t afford to help the poor is a lie, the world is afloat with extra money. It is, however, being used at the whim of people who have too much money and not enough sense. The outrageous sums these people have paid for their fun would be better spent on giving every poor person in America some housing which included a life time supply of cigarettes and alcohol.

In any case, spare me the lecture on the rich being good stewards of money. I don’t believe it.

By on

A BBC talk show guest recently corrected his host on the proper phrase for seaweed which is apparently marine algae. This is news to me as well. But Ok, yes, maybe seaweed is confusing and isn’t exactly the best way of saying it. On the other hand, people have been saying seaweed for thousands of years. These changes take time and most people don’t take kindly to lectures that make them appear stupid. Since the seaweed/marine algae isn’t a particularly urgent matter, it would be wise to put a lid on it.

It also give the Conservative Press a chance to point out the hectoring ways of some language policing Liberals. Since there are so many more important battles to fight, it would seem prudent to pick the right battles to exert our time and energy. Sometimes you have to fight losing battles but this isn’t one of them.

There is a better way to finesse this. You just start using the correct phrase when speaking with the interviewer. Then, the interviewer can respond to your phrasing and maybe even inquire more about why you prefer marine algae. But to do it in the corrective manner reported is ridiculous. All it does is make me want to say seaweed in the most annoying tone possible: seaweed, seaweed, seaweed. So there.

More importantly, you don’t change people’s minds by making them feel stupid. Once you’ve made someone feel stupid, they aren’t going to listen to a word you say. So, good you are are correct but you aren’t a very effective agent of change. People have to see why they need to change and then they do. Remember Ms? Or should I say, remember Mrs and Miss? Nobody uses Mrs and Miss any more. Ms is just easier. The moment people realized that they could just use Ms instead of inquiring about the woman’s preferred title, the battle was over. I might add that people changed to using Ms in a very short time.

This is also why I think the various personal pronoun options are doomed. It’s too complicated, you have to ask everyone you meet their preferred pronouns whereas, in the past, a quick visual assessment of a person’s gender did the trick and 99% of the time this works. Yes, you might, on a rare occasion, make a mistake but, by and large, you will get it right. I am certainly not going to ask a person for their preferred pronouns and risk getting my head bit off by someone who thinks preferred pronouns are a crap idea which, by the way, is most of middle America. If you want me to use something different, you are going to have to tell me. I will be happy to oblige.

In the meantime, I am telling you now I am not going down fighting to ensure people use the term marine algae for seaweed. Because my reply will be: Seaweed. Seaweed. Seaweed.

By on

Given the hullabaloo over gender affirming care, I am wondering why circumcision is still legal. Parents, without consulting the child, can permenantly disfigure a boy’s penis. It is a part of Jewish and Muslim custom yes, but this assumes that the boy will continue in the parent’s religion. Shouldn’t they have to wait until the child is 18 and can make the decision for himself? Some non-religious parents have the procedure done for aesthetic reasons. Again, shouldn’t the parents wait until the child is able to make this decision for himself? There some potentially minor medical benefits to circumcision but are they sufficient to allow circumcision? It seems to me that there is no legitimate reason for allowing this procedure on an infant, so why is it still legal?

By on

Right now, Conservatives generally run into two types — the raving lunatics who clearly state that the world is going to Hell in a hand basket and it is all due to Transexuals or Diversity Training or both. And then there are the intellectuals who hide their lunacy and try to show a reasonable face but who, when all is said and done, are essentially saying the world is going to Hell in a hand basket and it is all due to Transexuals and DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) Training. The first group is easy to spot because they make no bones about what they are talking about. The second group is a little more difficult because they couch their lunacy with a lot of multi-syllable words, foreign phrases and references to 19th century philosophical debates that have nothing to do with the subject at hand but diverts readers from the madness of the author’s point. Peter Thiel’s recent speech/article regarding diversity falls into this later type of rant.

Thiel’s erudition is indeed impressive. He went to Stanford where he engaged in great philosophical debates. In the process of his education, he co-authored a book called the Diversity Myth. He says he made some important points there but I am not sure what they are because he fails to review them and assumes that everyone knows what he is talking about. I didn’t. But, if you were to ask me, I think that he is against diversity training of any kind. Most importantly, Thiel made a billion or so making some smart moves in Tech.

Since Thiel is a billionaire, people take him seriously. He tries to be serious in this article and his initial point is worth looking at. He thinks that people are being distracted from the real problems in Academia by focusing on DEI. There is something to be said for that position. Budgets need to be allocated based on highest priorities. The university’s core mission is Education and Research. If DEI is draining limited resources from Education and Research, then, perhaps, the universities should reexamine their priorities. But then Thiel reveals his real worries which is that proponents of DEI are crazy and are destroying university education. He brings up silly classes that have taken root in Academia and the unreasonable rules these administrators are foisting on the schools.

From there, he pivots to how unreasonably expensive the Real Estate market has become in such a short time. Which, yeah, he is right about but how is this relevant to DEI is unclear. How is DEI is affecting the price of real estate? Thiel is not the kind of guy who will let a lack of connection stop him from spreading a good conspiracy theory. He hints that there might be some conspiracy involving bankers and university DEI administrators. At least, I think that it is what he is saying. I’m not sure. It’s all very Washington dark government with enough caution that he could deny any meaning someone has ascribed to him and also be absolutely correct if he likes their interpretation. Are you still with me?

Thiel continues to roll forward with his worries and concerns and even more conspiracy theories. He pivots back to the university. He points to the division of the university — the Humanities and the Sciences. The Humanities, in Thiel’s eyes, is full of crazy people with crazy ideas who have made the Humanities so ridiculous that they are an easy target for conservative critics. But that is not the problem. It is the Sciences that is the better target because the Sciences continue to have some respect within the general public. Conservative critics pretty much leave the Sciences alone because of their strength which is precisely why conservatives should spend some time harping about the Sciences. If conservatives can take down the Sciences, then Humanities and, thus, the university will fall with them. And all will be good with the world.

Where would Thiel attack the Sciences? Thiel believes that scientists within Academia are just scamming for government grants to fund their worthless projects. The science is useless and the scientists are in a massive coverup to hide the uselessness. Again, little evidence is given to back this point. He does point out that a Nobel prize winning scientist believes that in the 50,000 papers on his area of expertise that only about 25 are good. Which sounds about right to me. How many groundbreaking discoveries can there be? I would imagine that most papers would be discussing mundane research topics. Like with most things. There are only so many geniuses around. Someone with an ego like Thiel should already know that. He is just wrong about it. I know this to be a fact because every day I read about new discoveries in science — better cancer treatments, space ships traveling to the far reaches of the solar system and giving the world glimpses of other planets, and a greater understanding of how the body operates and how the earth’s environment works. How could this be if nothing at all is happening in the Sciences?

But let’s get back to DEI. I promise I would like to but I am afraid I am at the mercy of Thiel. He tosses lot of dots into the air, keeps them flying about but he never makes much of an effort to connect them. So, DEI, yeah, well, honestly I don’t have a clue what he is driving at and I read the damn thing twice. I was about to try a third time but I thought Jesus I tried this twice. I am not that dim, he is incoherent. He isn’t going to get any more coherent on a third reading.

Let me end with Thiel’s concluding statement where he completely goes off the rails. Well, not completely, he doesn’t want to shed his seemingly rational front he is working on so, instead, he comes off as confusing. He writes:

“So in conclusion—and this is a simplification, perhaps a distortion, but I think you know what I mean—it would be healthier that, whenever someone mentions DEI, you just think CCP.”

He undermines his own point by saying it is a simplification and perhaps a distortion. So how does this additional information help me help understand what he is saying? If it is a simplification and a distortion maybe Thiel should find a better way of saying it so that it isn’t a simplification and a distortion. Next he assuming I know what DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) and CCP (Chinese Communist Party) mean. I didn’t. Then, I discovered what they did mean and I was even more confused. DEI departments are actually Chinese Communists. WTF. Is he saying that CCP has infiltrated DEI departments in universities to such a degree that the DEI, being an arm of the CCP, is plotting to overthrow of the American government? Or is he saying that the DEI act like the CCP? Either reading seems unsubstantiated from the information Thiel provides.

This seems to be nothing more than a rant with some conspiracy theories gently tossed in so as not to scare away reasonable readers. Yet Thiel ruins it all at the last minute. He couldn’t resist talking crazy It is all good and fine to be critical of universities. Go for it but I thought a tenet of conservative thinking is that reform is better than revolution. Thiel isn’t after reform. No matter how he tries to mute his rant, it is rant – devoid of facts or even a coherent argument, and chockablock full of wild conspiracy theories. It is worrisome that a seemingly rational tech billionaire believes this utter bull shit.

By on

When hearing stories about swindlers and marks, Americans have a peculiar tendency to be angry at the mark instead of the swindler. The mark is almost as guilty as the swindler for being so gullible. If there weren’t so many dumb marks, swindlers would all be out of business.

This odd belief has created a rather interesting way of looking at business transactions. The basic assumption in business is that the other guy is somehow trying to screw you and you need to be extremely vigilant in order to avoid being taken. People expect salesman to overpromise, overcharge, and avoid talking about problems with the product. Since swindling is a part of the salesperson job description, people aren’t much bothered when they learn that the salesperson they are dealing with is a swindler.

Swindling is part of the American DNA. Swindlers began arriving on these shores pretty much the start. I remember Sister Mira telling the story of the Dutch buying Manhattan from the Indians. It amused her to no end how stupid the Indians were when they sold the island for $24. How could they sell such prime real estate for such a low price? Couldn’t they see that New York would soon become one of the most important cities in the world? The Dutch, on the other hand, were smart businesspeople. Doing what businesspeople do screwing over people to get a better price. The Dutch were smart, the Indians weren’t. There was no shame in underpaying the Indians.

Of course, Manhattan was not the great city it became when the Dutch settled, so the $24 might have been a fair price at the time. That, however, isn’t the story the Sister Mira was telling. She was telling a story about how the Dutch outsmarted the Indians and it was perfectly acceptable business practices to do so. Yes, children, at a Catholic school no less, learning that it is perfectly all right to screw people over in a business transaction. Being fair is not a part of capitalism. If the Indians wanted a fair price it was their responsibility to bone up on Manhattan land values and not for the Dutch to offer a fair price. Deception is just a part of business.

When I moved to California, I learned that my car would not meet California pollution standards. It was an older car. I decided it would be easier to buy a new one in California and sell my old car in Kansas rather than driving an old car half way across the country and upgrading. Since I never sold a car before, I asked for advice from a guy who I knew had experience in buying and selling car. He immediately offered to buy my car, giving me the impression, that, oh shucks, I know you are in hurry to leave, I don’t need the damn thing but let me just take this off your hands so you can leave without worrying about selling your car. I took him up on the deal. Once the title and the check changed hands, he couldn’t wait to tell me how he just screwed me over. The car was worth at least a thousand dollars more than he paid.

I should have known, right? Absolutely I should have known that was why I asked him in the first place. I wasn’t trying to sell him the car, I was trying to learn how. Instead of telling me how, he, knowing I didn’t know what I was doing, offered to buy the car. Then, after the sale, he gives me the lesson that I wanted in the first place. He took advantage of me and felt absolutely no guilt about it. To add salt to the wound, nobody felt the least bit sorry for me. I should have known better.

These stories litter the American Business history. Antique dealers going to garage sales and finding a treasure. They buy the treasure for a song and then earn a fortune on the resell. The antique dealer is admired for his business savvy while the seller is a chump. If the seller doesn’t know what he has that is his own damn fault. The seller got the price he was asking for. There are no moral qualms about it that is just the way Capitalism operates.

Getting a fair price is different from getting a good price. One is laying all your cards on the table and the other is just deceiving someone. Shamelessly deceiving at that. This is particularly annoying when many pro-Capitalist apologists try to argue that Capitalism is the only moral system. I am uncertain what lesson Sister Mira was trying to impart to her class. What I learned, though, was that you don’t have to be fair when working in business. Do whatever you need to do to get the deal done. Be the swindler and not the mark. How this jibes with making me a good Catholic, which I mistakenly believed was Sister Mira’s primary responsibility, is beyond me.

By on

The recent coronation of Charles III got me thinking about tradition. Charles became king because, somewhere in the distant past, one of his relatives climbed to the top of the greasy pole. Now, because of his family’s good fortune, he gets to become king. It has nothing to do with his talent or ability to do the job. Tradition made him king because members of his family have set on the throne and he is the oldest in his family. Tradition, for some reason, must be honored.

Even though tradition has very little bearing any longer on the monarch’s actual role in the modern UK. Traditionally, the king once held great power. It was so important that the coronation was a religious ceremony performed in a church. The king’s role came from God Almighty and not the people he ruled. This is no longer true. The King has very limited power. The government is installed through a democratic process in which the monarch can’t even participate. As for the religious aspect of the coronation, it is doubtful that in a country where over 50% of the population never attends church services that any British citizen actually believes that God has invested the new king with any power what so ever.

To summarize then, a church that has a very tenuous allegiance of UK population installs a king who has no real power in a modern democratic country because of tradition. Charles comes to church one day to have an archbishop plop a crown on his head and walks aways with billions of pounds and real estate and little else.

It connects the British people to their past. Really? Whose past? Certainly not the average UK citizen. The past for most citizens had little to do with the petty squabbles of the nobility. The history of the monarchs is all very fun and interesting but meaningless to the actual history of the British people. Indeed, the tradition that might be remembered with more relevance is the constant battles of the average citizen wresting power away from a resistant nobility.

But, tradition, it is important to keep up with the old traditions. Why? What would happen if the monarch disappeared over night? Would the lives of the average British person change much? Look I don’t actually care about Charles being King. If the British people want a king, let them have one. What bothers me is this slavish devotion to meaningless tradition. Why call a person a king when he really isn’t a King? Why say he is blessed by God when a great number of people don’t actually believe it anymore. Because of tradition?

Perhaps a better example of this is the continued celebration of Christmas and Easter for people who have long ago abandoned traditional Christianity. Don’t get me wrong, I love Christmas trees and presents and chocolate treats as much as the next person but the connection to Christianity has been severed. A lot of people, including myself, continue to celebrate these holidays because well it is traditional. Is that really a good reason to do something you no longer believe in?

When all you got is tradition, it is time to rethink what you are doing.