WHY TRUMP WON

Rosie O'Donnell is floating a conspiracy theory that there was chicanery in the 2024 Presidential election and that an unnamed moneybags who owns the internet "fixed" the election. This is pure baloney. Trump won because Joe Biden looked like a pitiful, senile incompetent. And he hung around too long after it was painfully obvious that he was going to get trounced in the general election. Kamala Harris started her campaign in a deep hole and never could dig out of it. Had Biden stepped down at the beginning of the primary season, and had the Democrats nominated someone other than Kamala Harris, a person who who exuded competence and confidence, and looked like neither the second coming of Karl Marx nor a radical social warrior intent on cramming an ultra-liberal agenda down the throats of common people, Trump would have been spanked. In the final analysis, Trump didn't win; the Democrats beat themselves.If they can get their act together for the midterm elections, they just might take back the House and the Senate.

Back in the late seventies Lake City had a thriving chess club. Approximately twenty players met weekly at the old rec center just off Main Boulevard. I have been trying to resurrect the chess club, but the number of players is miniscule compared to what it once was. We meet at 6:30 PM every Tuesday night at Panera. You are invited.

One recurring problem we have is that an odd number of players show up, and that means that one person has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while everyone else plays. Last week I decided to do something about that problem. I invented a three-player chess game. I know there are already-existing three-player variants of chess, but I find the boards awkward. Especially when pieces are moving through the center of the board, they behave in what I believe to be un-chessic ways. 

My solution was to use the Glinski hexagonal board and put three armies in three of the six corners. We play-tested the game at our last meeting and decided that the Glinski board, with five circles of hexagons, was too small. I went home and added a sixth circle of hexagons, and I think the board is now large enough. Here is the array of the pieces on the enlarged board:

A clearer picture of how the pieces are set up can be found in this diagram:

For clarity, I have left the squares uncolored in the diagram.

The rules are as in orthodox chess, with the differences as follows:

MOVES OF THE PIECES: Instead of a rank and file, hexagonal boards have a file and two 30-degree cants. Thus, a Rook can move in three directions rather than four. The Bishop moves through the corners of the cells in three diagonal directions. The Queen combines the moves of the Rook and Bishop.

                

                 

THE ROOK'S MOVE

THE BISHOP'S MOVE

 

The King moves one cell on the file, cant, or diagonal. There is no castling. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player. The Pawn moves one cell forward on the file and captures one cell forward on the cant. The Pawn can make an optional two-cell first move. There is en passant capture. The Knight moves one cell on the file or cant followed by one cell on the diagonal.

MOVES OF THE KING AND PAWN

MOVE OF THE KNIGHT

Because there are three diagonals, the Glinski board has three different colors for the cells. For clarity, we have kept all the cells white in the diagrams.

PLAY OF THE GAME: White moves first and attempts to checkmate either Black or Tan. Tan moves second and attempts to checkmate either White or Black. Black moves last and attempts to checkmate either Tan or White. First player to checkmate an adversary is the winner. The un-checkmated player garners a half point draw.

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST NO-NO WHEN BEING ARRESTED?

In order of likelihood of making matters worse, do not:

Offer physical resistance, either violent or nonviolent.

Attempt to escape.

Refuse to comply with reasonable directives.

Verbally abuse the officer or otherwise be disrespectful.

Doing the first two have a high degree of probability of leading to physical injury, and they will certainly lead to additional charges.

Doing the third has a lesser chance of physical injury but can lead to additional charges.

Doing the last has a low chance of resulting in injury unless you are being arrested by an unprofessional police officer or an officer who has been having a bad day. It could, however, result in additional or elevated charges. If it is a warrantless arrest, it’s the officer’s decision what charge to book you under. Almost every criminal act violates a number of statutes. Copping an attitude increases the likelihood of getting booked under the highest number of charges and/or the most severe charges. There is a high percentage of prosecutors who will simply rubber stamp the officer’s charges without engaging in the requisite critical analysis.

Here are a couple of do’s:

Respectfully decline to answer questions about the charge on grounds that the answers might tend to incriminate you. You might think you can bull skate your way out of trouble, but you’ll more likely dig a hole for yourself with your tongue.

Ask for a lawyer. You’re probably not going to get one, but this should end questioning, and if it doesn’t, whatever answers you give to continued questioning are likely to be held inadmissible.

Do remember that the officer is most likely a decent human being with a family he/she would like to go home to at the end of the shift, and in this day of escalating violence against officers they can tend to be jumpy.

GOSPEL PARALLELS

AVAILABLE ON AMAZON.COM.
CLICK ON THE PHOTO TO GO TO THE WEBPAGE 

When I was a senior in college I developed an intense interest in the historical Jesus. I read many accounts of the “Quest for the Historical Jesus,” and decided to embark on my own quest. I embarked upon an intense study of the Gospels which lasted until I graduated from law school and began to practice law. Even after that time I still would engage in sporadic bouts of Bible study, and I have amassed two thick books containing notes of my studies.

 

One thing that I was especially intrigued by was the Synoptic Problem—an attempt to explain why the first three Gospels were so similar while at the same time being so different. I read as much as I could about the Two Document Hypothesis, the Four Document Hypothesis, the elusive Q Gospel, Proto-Luke, and many other theories of how the Gospels came to be. I examined several Gospel harmonies and Gospel synopses; and I decided I could distill the various harmonies and synopses into a more harmonious synopsis of my own. I worked on this synopsis for several years and made many false starts toward producing a manuscript of my synopsis. Since most of my work was done in the years BCE (Before the Computer Era), I found the project rough sledding as a spare-time project.

 

Now that we are firmly in the CE (Computer Era), and I have retired from full-time employment, I have decided to publish a manuscript of my synopsis. You might ask, “Why another synopsis (or harmony) of the Gospels. Aren’t there enough already? My answer is, “Yes, there are many, but I find none of them entirely satisfactory.” In harmonies, the authors try to interweave the Gospel of John in among the Synoptics. Given the wide differences between John and the Synoptic Gospels, this is a very difficult task which renders unsatisfactory results. In most synopses, the passages from John are either ignored or consigned to footnotes, another unsatisfactory treatment. Among the synopses, the pseudepigraphal gospels are usually ignored. Throckmorton’s is different in that his synopsis puts pseudepigraphal passages in footnotes.

 

I wanted a synopsis which moved John’s parallel passages out of the footnotes and into the main text. I also wanted the main text to include passages from what I consider the two most important pseudepigraphal gospels, Thomas and Peter. Although they are far inferior to the Canonical Gospels, they are far superior to all the other pseudepigraphal gospels which I have read, and they just might contain a small amount of authentic material.

 

The Synoptic Gospels contain many of the same stories in almost precisely the same order. These stories are called parallels. Although we see many sequential parallels in the Synoptics, many of the parallels are non-sequential. For example, Matthew and Luke report that when Jesus first enters the Temple during the Passion week, he immediately cleanses it. Mark says he just looks around and returns the next day to cleanse the Temple. Then there are doublets—stories which sound a lot like other stories but are sufficiently different to cause the reader to be in a quandary as to whether they are telling different versions of the same story. For example, Matthew reports the exorcism of two Gergesene demoniacs; but Mark and Luke say that Jesus exorcized one Gadarene demoniac. Then we have doublets, which tell very similar stories but are sufficiently distinct details that they are likely different incidents. For example, all three Synoptics tell the story of Jesus healing a leper, but Luke also tells a story about Jesus healing ten lepers. Then there are passages that I call analogs: they tell similar stories, but the stories are very different. For example, Luke’s Parable of the Prodigal Son is similar to Matthew’s Parable of the Two Sons, but they are so dissimilar as to be two different stories. Likewise, the Parable of the Sower, which appears in all the Synoptics, has an analog in Matthew’s Parable of the Weeds.

 

How do we prepare a synopsis which melds all these different types of stories into one harmonious whole? I have tried to accomplish this task by putting the sequential parallels in boldface and arranging them in parallel columns. The non-sequential parallels are included with the sequential parallels, but they are not in boldface. They may be put in parallel columns, or they may be set out below the sequential parallels. I have treated the doublets and analogs the same as non-sequential parallels, but they are usually placed below any non-sequential parallels. The bottommost entries in each section are the pseudepigraphal parallels and doublets.

 

In arranging the stories, I have tried as much as possible to adhere to the numbering system worked out by Albert Huck and Hans Leitzmann.  I have also tried as much as possible to have each story confined to a single page. Where it is not possible to get all the information on one page, I have subdivided the stories and added letters to the section numbers. For example, Luke’s Discourse against the Pharisees is in Huck’s Section 154, but I have subdivided it into 154A-F. When I can’t get all the non-sequential parallels, analogs, and doublets on a single page, I have also subdivided the sections and given them trailing letters. For example, Luke’s story of Sending out the Seventy is placed in Section 139A. The additional material is in Section 139B.

 

Sometimes this system breaks down, as in the story of Peter’s Denials. The parallels are not sequential, but making separate sections for each of the non-sequential parallels would have been tricky, so I put them all in a single section and set them out in boldface despite the fact that they weren’t truly sequential.

 

Throughout the synopsis I have used public domain translations of the texts. The main text will come from the WEB Bible, which is available online at Biblegateway.com. Quotations from the Gospel of Thomas come from Mark M. Mattison’s The Gospel of Thomas: A Public Domain Translation. Quotations from the Gospel of Peter come from M.R. James’ The Apocryphal New Testament.

 

You will encounter some unfamiliar words in the pages of this synopsis. I have appended a glossary of those words at the end of the book. One word which ought to be defined at the outset is “pericope.” It is a technical term used by Bible scholars which means “Bible story.” Thus, the Parable of the Prodigal Son is a Gospel pericope, as is the story of the baptism of Jesus.

 

Regrettably, the text of this book is single-spaced without spaces between the paragraphs. Although it makes reading somewhat more difficult, doing otherwise would have made the book a great deal longer and more expensive.

THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS?

 Sir Fred Hoyle (1915-2001), the British astronomer who gave the Big Bang its name, was a maverick among his contemporaries. He denied that the Universe started with a Big Bang, and he said that the likelihood of life arising on Earth through the accidental combination of amino acids (the theory of abiogenesis) was similar to the likelihood of a tornado roaring through a junkyard and assembling a Boeing 747. Hoyle was aware that he had many detractors, but he said, “I don’t care what they think. It is better to be interesting and wrong than boring and right.”

Something else that Hoyle said was, “I have always thought it curious that, while most scientists claim to eschew religion, it actually dominates their thoughts more than it does the clergy.” One scientist who fits Hoyle’s aphorism is Paul Davies (b. 1946), who has written many books discussing God and physics (e.g. God and the New Physics, The Mind of God, and The Goldilocks Enigma). In his books Davies wrestles with the questions of how the Universe came to be and why it is so conducive to the spawning of living things, including sentient living things such as ourselves.

He examines and rejects many explanations, including the explanation that God made the Universe.  In The Mind of God Davies asks the question, “In what sense might God be said to be responsible for the laws of physics?” He then summarizes the thoughts of Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716) on the subject. Leibniz first posited that God must be rational. Otherwise, how could we live in a rational Universe? The next attribute of God must be that He is omnipotent. He made everything. How could He not be omnipotent? A rational, omnipotent God must also be perfect. This concept is probably beholden to St. Anselm’s (1033-1109) Proslogion, where he argues that God is someone “than whom there is nothing greater.” What else can we say about a rational, omnipotent, perfect God? He must be omniscient. Leibniz held that God must have these characteristics. Then Leibniz asked the question, what kind of a Universe would be made by a rational, omnipotent, omniscient, perfect God? The best of all possible Universes.

Leibniz’s theory that we live in the best of all possible worlds was savagely ridiculed by Voltaire (1694-1778) in his work Candide, where he made a learned nitwit by the name of Professor Pangloss the butt of his jokes. Of course, Voltaire made the problem of evil his argument against this being the best of all possible worlds.

Of course, we, with our limited knowledge, doubt that this is the best of all possible worlds. But what’s best for us may not be best for the Universe as a whole. To those who would criticize God for making a less-than-perfect Universe, Rev. J. Vernon McGee (1904-1968) said, “This is God’s Universe, and God does things His way. You may have a better way, but you don’t have a Universe.”

Davies, of course, doesn’t believe God created the Universe, but he seems to think that our Universe is the best of all possible Universes. He bases this opinion on the twin facts that mathematics so perfectly describes everything in the Universe and that the Universe is perfect for the spawning of sentient life. In his book The Goldilocks Enigma, he considers several explanations for this, including the theory that God made the Universe. I forget which explanation he said that he  preferred, but I do recall that when I read all the possibilities he put forward, I decided that God is the simplest, best explanation for the Universe being the way it is.