huli ‘au (upside down) reality of the Scopes trial






You know what grassrooter/egalitarian D.A. Bryan told populist Darrow?  “Negroes are not monkeys.  Because of social darwinism, Negroes go into the dustbin of history along with Jews & gypsies (like Charlie Chaplin), because this new science of Eugenics invented by us social darwinists in New York and California is all about Superman, not everyman.”


Watch the movie “Inherit the Wind,” about the freedom to think, based on the Scopes trial.


Great writer Mencken of blue collar Baltimore monikered the trial the “Monkey Wrench,” Mencken calling earlier Mark Twain’s Huck Finn character “the most stupendous event in my life!”


Little would Bryan/Darrow know (both died before Hitler’s peak) that Hitler’s eugenics later caused the Holocaust.   Inherit the wind is Biblical, about taking a stand before it’s too late.  Proverbs 11:29.   Freedom to think, freedom to lay down the yoke of bondage.


BTW, broken-down Darrow represented infamous Thalia Massie et al in the trial of the century in Hawai’i, in which D.C. was a step away from lock-down/martial law against Hawai’i, for Massie’s false charge of rape vs. great boxer Ben Ahakuelo (beloved Palama fireman-daughter became noted court administrator)/Joe Kahahawai (murdered by Massie et al — Massie got 1 hr. detention in Gov. Judd’s office as punishment — Joe’s gravestone says, “Killed!”)/ethnic rainbow array of other defendants.






Mark Twain’s & KingLit Ching’s radicalization to the Left   —


Although Twain remained neutral during the Civil War, his views became more radical as he grew older. He acknowledged that his views changed and developed over his life, referring to one of his favorite works:

When I finished Carlyle’s French Revolution in 1871, I was a Girondin [centrist]; every time I have read it since, I have read it differently – being influenced and changed, little by little, by life and environment … and now I lay the book down once more, and recognize that I am a Sansculotte! [liberal]– And not a pale, characterless Sansculotte, but a Marat. [leftist radical]

Just the same, here is KingLit Ching born 1936, inimitable son of our greatest destiny-maker, Rev. Hung Wai Ching 1905-2002:

From esteemed moonbat [political leftie] KingLit Ching born 1936–

I can’t stand Boehner because he personifies the evil that the Republicans under the leadership of Karl Rove have foisted on America.   I am aware of his humble working class upbringing (his need to gain acceptance). We are all aware of how the Republicans blocked Obama’s reforms at every opportunity which is why I am cynical about Red America (racist) and Blue America (sensible). I believe in fighting fire with fire when necessary including overt acts (I am an ultra radical). To fight a Boehner and his ilk, I need a better understanding of his psychological makeup.   –KingLit [Rev. Ching’s eldest son]

Megalomania —   delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.  Boehner’s problem.


“Principle” often is more about overpride

“Principle” is a seductive notion, a convenient disguise for overpride/ego.

Pride/principle propounded as ethical elitism

are hardly useful nor merited.   They swell in the head of one’s pride/ego who excites in judging

down anyone but oneself.    I love to read the body of work of Steven Kalas, who is only in his mid-50s age.

Here are Steven’s consoling expressions from the heart –

Let me save you some time. You are weird. So am I. Everybody’s weird, at least in the sense that everyone who seeks depth connections eventually must connect his particular, idiosyncratic weirdness with somebody else’s weirdness. Connections of weirdness, in the end, are the “good stuff” of great friendships and marriages. It’s the stuff you remember long after people are dead and gone. The joy of depth connections is to meet folks whose weirdness makes you smile a bemused smile, and likewise your weirdness is endearing to them.

Manifesting an “inner soul” within one’s deepest unconscious core is a cosmic attraction for discovering depth connections with others. Depth connections are a gift. A discovery. Not a decision or an achievement.  They simply are inexplicably climactic.

The hobo speaks of an aloneness and misery so stark, so complete, well, it’s not easy to behold.

His poverty — physical, psychological, spiritual — is matched by the poverty of my response which I so tormentingly regret.

Yet, I rather enjoy random encounters with human beings. I pay attention to these encounters.  Especially when I become and am the hobo of humanity.  Some part of me is always ready for these encounters to have meaning. Maybe profound meaning.  From both contradictions of the giver and the given.  It comes from the way my mother raised me. From watching her. I translated a message from her that goes something like, “No one doesn’t matter.”

Then there was my maternal grandmother, an Anglo-Catholic, who wrapped that same message theologically. She was keen to remind me that I might be “entertaining angels unaware.”

This last piece now I add on my own. I pay attention to otherwise random encounters not merely because I might have the opportunity even to change a life, but because I might, too, be changed by the encounter.  From both sides, as giver and as given.   Hitherto unexplained and unexplored.

It is a profound walk to find the courage to be here at all. To scratch and claw for the truth. Fundamentally, the truth about myself, ourselves, lovely and unlovely.  For we all fall short, except to the fetid self-righteous who judge down to ascend up their lecherous pole of prideful opulence.

No one doesn’t matter. You never know when you might entertain an angel, nor if you become an angel.  You never know when the answer to your most pressing question will come in the form of some stranger who crosses your path.    Not every random encounter has profound meaning. Not every encounter shifts the course of destiny. But still, the next encounter might.   You never know.  Mindful, heartful.   What do these matter?   Maybe a Lot [Biblical].

Want a thriving marriage? Then be careful. If you’re going to invite someone’s whole heart out into the open, you have an obligation to receive that heart with a near sacred tenderness. Whatever comes out of your mate’s mouth, however hard it might be to hear, give thanks that you are the one hearing it. Or, you are welcome to continue the Lucy-Charlie Brown-Football love affair: “Trust me. WHAM! … Trust me. WHAM! … Trust me …” And then you can act all surprised and hurt and betrayed when your mate pretty much never comes home from work. Or gains a hundred pounds. Or drinks all weekend. Or prefers surfing porn sites over talking to you. Or runs off with a firefighter. Or a redhead. Or simply says, “I can’t do this anymore,” and walks away.


As to my coining of Obamathology, I love Francis Fukuyama’s synthesis that democratic vs. communist ideologies are passe —  but regional conflicts such as in oil rich Middle East countries impact us all globally because of our mission for oil to run our nation. Any vital region (per Fukuyama’s Reagan Doctrine, which precocious 1952-born Fukuyama in part germinated) always fuels wider conflict, exacerbated by our imperialist expansionism. Fukuyama is my age peer, as is Keaukaha boy Ed Case.

As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism. He is a silent partner you never hear about, unlike younger President Bush’s notorious waterboarder Korean John Yoo born 1967.

From KingLit Ching born 1936, son of our greatest destiny-maker Rev. Hung Wai Ching –

Hey Curt –

Did you read the review essay by Richard Betts?  Fukuyama, Huntington and Mearsheimer are brilliant! Fukuyama born 1952 like you became my hero when he first rejected the neo conservative movement after the US invaded Iraq. Of course I became a fan when he wrote “The End of History.”  He was viciously attacked by the neo conservatives who had, up until then, considered Fukuyama their leader. I explained to you at that time that Fukuyama was my hero.  Franklin Odo does not give much credit to Fukuyama for some vague reasons [Odo a leftist all the way, Fukuyama a crossover johnny come lately].  This latest review essay demonstrates Fukuyama’s ability to evolve with the times.  Betts does a great job of inter phasing Fukuyama, Huntington and  Mearsheimer.  US foreign policy leaders, unfortunately, have not had a detached unbiased view (not practically possible I guess)  grasp of world civilization’s development over history and still don’t get it today the way  these guys do.    You are also my hero for your brilliant insights, not necessarily appreciated by people -99% of us- who don’t understand you.  Regards,  KL

Franklin Odo born 1939 [greatest Japanese-American chronicler] is in the wrong field.  He should stick to hole hole bushi [immigrant Japanese in Hawai’i] music.

Fukuyama’s record is quite clear as part of the original group of neo conservatives that the younger Bush administration embraced (you can go down a long  list to identify them – Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Freith, Libby, Bolten, Perle and Woolsey of the CIA.).  Fukuyama caught the public’s attention when he questioned their mission in Iraq and drew the wrath of his neocons. That was huge in that  it questioned nation building.   If Fukuyama’s views had prevailed, can you imagine how much more quickly we would have withdrawn from Iraq and how we would have entered Afghanistan with a much different strategy and plan?

Fukuyama’s view is over arching so I can see why Odo feels that he is an elitist.  Unfortunately, these neocons  had more influence through Chaney and Rumsfeld on Bush than Colin Powell did and Colin should have emerged as the ultimate spokesman and statesman for the US.  Very sad. Bush cost America plenty and history will eventually condemn him as one of the worst ever presidents.

Did you read the entire Betts’ essay review?  [yes]  What do you think?  [regional conflicts always impact globally] Are these views valid?  [yes]  Now do you understand why Fukuyama is my hero?  [yes, because Fukuyama sees the big picture]   You too are my hero for your uncanny observations.   Regards,  KL

From Curt: Subject: Franklin Odo is Biblical Nathan/Fukuyama is formerly errant David :-)

Odo is a peculiar creature.    Fukuyama is a carpetbagger/johnny come lately crossover to Odo, who is a hard core leftist.   Odo does not tolerate “stock formula” elitists like Fukuyama.    Odo is a salt of the earth

Kaimuki hard scrabble kid, not an urbanite like Fukuyama.   Nor a radical overt act leftwinger like you.    –Curt




This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s