#50 / Arrogance And Ineptitude

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

An article in The New Yorker analogizes the Musk "takeover" of various agencies of the federal government to the "shambolic American takeover of the Iraqi government," in 2003. 

I don't know much about those events in Iraq, to tell you the truth, and The New Yorker article, "Elon Musk’s Revolutionary Terror," was revealing. Hopefully, the magazine won't have deployed a paywall that will prevent interested persons from reading the full story. In case there is a paywall, though, here is the first paragraph. This will certainly give you the basic idea: 

Nearly twenty years ago, the Washington Post’s Rajiv Chandrasekaran wrote a classic account of the shambolic American takeover of the Iraqi government, “Imperial Life in the Emerald City.” Most memorably, he described what a Times reviewer called “the lethal combination of official arrogance and ineptitude” that plagued the foreign occupiers from Washington who, after the 2003 U.S. invasion, moved into the Green Zone—the walled-off compound that had once belonged to Saddam Hussein. Young conservatives were favored, heedless of experience. Some job seekers were asked their views of Roe v. Wade. Others were hired after sending their résumés to the right-wing Heritage Foundation back in D.C. While Baghdad spiralled into out-of-control violence, the G.O.P. ideologues who reported for duty in the desert worked to privatize Iraqi government agencies, revamp the tax code, and launch an anti-smoking campaign. A clueless twenty-four-year-old found himself in charge of opening an Iraqi stock exchange. It didn’t work out well.

In the United States, WE - ordinary people - have been legally placed in charge of the government. This is not only "theoretically" true. That is absolutely what both our Constitution and the laws provide. This means that if we exercise our democratic powers of self-government we can dislodge the arrogant and inept Elon Musk, and strip him away from his pretentious idea that he is, somehow, entitled to run the world, just because he seems to be, at the moment, the world's richest person. 

"Arrogant and inept" is a pretty good way to sum Musk up. Let's not be afraid to comment on "Emperor" Musk's clothing choices, either, as depicted below, in a cartoon that was published in the Daily KOS. 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-trumps-washington/elon-musks-revolutionary-terror

(2) - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/12/20/2142943/-The-Emperor-Elon-has-No-Clothes

#49 / Humility Would Be A Great Asset

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Pictured with the flag is Boris Yeltsin, who served as the president of Russia from 1991 to 1999. The picture dates from August 22, 1991, and was taken in Moscow. I retrieved this picture from a posting on Consortium News, and I would be delighted if anyone reading this blog posting would also take the time to read the article from which I obtained the picture. I don't think there is any paywall to prevent you from clicking right through. Here's a link to the article I am referencing: 

An Ignored US Diplomat’s Warning on Russia

The article in Consortium News was published on January 1, 2025, and was written by Natylie Baldwin, an independent writer specializing in Russia and U.S.-Russia relations. She authors a blog, entitled, "Natalie's Place: Understanding Russia." 

In the Consortium News article, Baldwin conducts an interview with E. Wayne Merry, who is a  Senior Fellow for Europe and Eurasia at the American Foreign Policy Council, a conservative nonprofit located in Washington, DC. The interview presents Merry's reflections on his 1994 State Department telegram concerning Western relations with post-Soviet Russia, which has only recently ben published by the National Security Archive. Here is a short summary of that 1994 telegram:

Titled provocatively “Whose Russia Is It Anyway? Toward a Policy of Benign Respect,” the Merry long telegram argued that radical market reform was the wrong economic prescription for Russia, with its history of statist direction of the economy, uncertainty of political transition and extreme challenges of geography and climate. The message described “shock therapy” as so visibly Washington’s program that the devastating austerity already evident in 1994 was blamed on the U.S., and the long-term consequences would “recreate an adversarial relationship between Russia and the West.” Plus, Merry warned, “we will also fail on the economic front.”

The United States did not follow a policy of "benign respect" in its relationship to Russia, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. In general, the United States government's attitude towards Russia was the opposite of "respect." I have a neighbor who is an expert in Soviet politcs and social policy, and his personal outrage about the United States' treatment of the former Soviet Union - now "Russia" - bubbles forth, not infrequently, as we discuss current events, including the War in Ukraine, which my friend believes was, essentially, started by the United States. 

Baldwin's article focuses on the choice made by the United States to urge "free market" reforms, as opposed to "political" reforms, post the dissolution of the Soviet Union. She and Merry both argue that the Russian people were not, particularly, willing to try to advance an "individualist" economic system, being used to a more "collectivist" approach. What the Russian people might have appreciated more than pressure to open up a "free market economy" was a focus on political "democracy," what I generally call "self-government." The course of world history might have been quite different had we taken the approach that Merry suggested. 

My own thought, as I have read through the materials I came across thanks to the article in Consortium News, is that our own political and governmental challenges are now ones that revolve around "self-government," not a "free market" approach to our economy. 

What the "free market" has brought us, since the "Reagan Revolution," is vastly-increased income inequality, and a growing tendency towards autocracy - the very same things we see in Russia today. The "billionaire bros," like Elon Musk, who increasingly dominate our economy and politics, are local parallels to the economic "oligarchs" that dominate Russia. 

Watch out, in other words! We seem to be making the same mistake today, vis a vis what needs to happen here in the United States, that the United States made, in terms of its foreign policy, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The last line of Baldwin's article is a statement by Merry: "Humility would be a great asset in U.S. policy, but I do not expect to live to see it."

Humility? Have you ever noticed the approach taken by Musk and his presidential sidekick, Donald Trump? There is not a whole lot of "humility" on display, is there? Watch out! 

Oh, yeah, I already said that once, didn't I?

It bears repeating!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/01/01/an-ignored-us-diplomats-warning-on-russia/

#48 / Sticks And Stones

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The article to which the above image was attached is entitled, "Sticks and Stones: Why language is more powerful than you think." Probably, almost everyone reading this blog posting will be aware of the "Sticks and Stones" reference. I first heard this little poem from my Mother: 

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me. 

As presented to me "way back when," by someone who continues to be an authority in my life, this "children's rhyme" was intended to have exactly the impact suggested by Wikipedia. My Mother gave me this little verse to serve as "a defense against name-calling and verbal bullying. [It was] intended to [help me] increase resiliency, avoid physical retaliation, and/or to remain calm and indifferent."

In fact, thinking logically, the same verse, intended to help me to remain "calm and indifferent" in the face of a verbal attack, could also be seen as advice to prepare to fight and win a physical battle when someone attacks with something more than mere words. Quakers and draft resisters, and Gandhi, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who become influential with me after I was no longer, strictly speaking, a "child," didn't have a cute little poem to advise me, but I did become convinced, nonetheless, that we needed to develop a society in which attacks - verbal or physical - are not immediately countered with opposing force (and hopefully superior force). We need some different "non-violent" strategy, but just ignoring attacks, even if non-physical, isn't sufficient.

Our political conflicts, today, reflect real, and substantial, and meaningful disagreements and have "real" consequences. We may, for instance, be on the road to "dictatorship," in the estimation of many. How do we resolve these attacks upon us, in our current political situation? This question came to mind when I read a recent edition of "The Warning," a Substack blog published regularly by Steve Schmidt, a political and corporate consultant who has most usually worked on Republican Party political campaigns, but who is "warning" us against Donald Trump, and his entire retinue, including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance. Schmidt's blog posting from February 11, 2025, can be read in its entirety if you will just click this link. It's worth reading.

Despite my appreciation for the counsel delivered to me by my mother, I think I agree with the National Children's Museum (who published the article about "Sticks and Stones" that I referenced right at the start of this blog posting). Words have consequences, and can "cause great pain." They can, in fact, transform the realities we inhabit, becuse we build the social, economic, political, and physical realities upon which we depend on the foundation of the "words" we use to define that "political world" in which we most immediately reside.

Ignoring verbal attacks is not enough. Instead, I am recommending that we "Speak Truth To Power."

Speaking out and presenting our best understanding of what is "true" is very important. In fact, it is vital. The social, political, economic, and physical realities that constitute the "real world" we most immediately inhabit are based on the words we use to describe it, and if those words don't "tell the truth" then we can lose all that is best in what we have achieved so far, and will be stymied in our efforts to do better in the future.

Despite that children's rhyme, words can hurt us (sorry, Mom). When attacked with words - and we are under attack - it is absolutely vital that we insist that the words we deploy will tell "the truth" in opposition to the "power" that is deploying its untrue words against a government that is, truly, "of the people, by the people, and for the people." 

If we want that kind of world - and that has been our aspiration since 1776 - it is "we, the people," who must speak out now - speak truth to power - lest that government so wonderfully described in Lincoln's words does, in the end, "perish from the earth." 

 For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://play.eureka.org.uk/blog/sticks-and-stones-why-language-is-more-powerful-than-you-think/

#47 / SPICES

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Quakers have sometimes referred to what might be called a list of their most important or core values by way of the following enumeration, which is then rendered with the following abbreviation: 

"SPICES" 

• Simplicity
• Peace
• Integrity
• Community
• Equality
• Stewardship

The above-listed values, in fact, are sometimes called "testimonies." By calling this list of their core values "testimonies," Quakers seek to make clear that this articulation of these named values originated, and continues to originate, in the verbal testimonies of Quakers, made during a Meeting For Worship. 

Quakers do not operate upon the basis of "dogma," or upon the basis of a "creed." There is no "Book of Prayer," or other written or verbal direction to guide Quakers in their worship. There is no priest or pastor, no minister, to preside over or to lead Quakers as they worship. There is no designated authority whose job it is to convey any specific religious understanding. 

Instead, Quakers rely on their "practice." They simply gather together, in silence, and then wait for the Spirit to speak through one or another person, among those who have gathered together. The only "preaching" done in a Quaker Meeting (which is not, in fact, "preaching" at all) occurs when one of the Quakers in attendance is moved to speak - or even to "sing," sometimes. That happens not infrequently in the Santa Cruz Monthly Meeting. 

The Quakers have the idea that there is "that of God in every person," so there is no hierarchy or "priesthood." When a testimony given in a Meeting for Worship is heard by those others who are in attendance, it may, sometimes, be recognized as, in fact, a statement of Truth, divinely inspired. Over time, observations frequently repeated are recognized as testifying to the Truth, and these then become statements which Quakers recognize as truly inspired by and coming from the Spirit, something beyond mere human "opinion." 

To the degree that Quakers have any written guidance for their worship, that comes in the form of a statement of "Faith and Practice," which is focused on the "practice," or "experience," I have tried to describe here. Quakers worship in the "Faith" that the "Practice" just summarized is, in fact, a way that Quakers can hear and be guided by God, by the Creator, by the Creative Spirit that made the world and that speaks to us still, the Spirit that calls us to live in simplicity, and peace, and integrity, in community and equality and stewardship, the Spirit that seeks to guide us both individually and collectively. 

I have talked about the Quakers before, in several of these blog postings. If you would like to know more, click the link found in the first sentence of this paragraph for some information about the Santa Cruz Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends. If you do that, you will find this advisory: 

"You're Invited!"

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://goldenspices.co.za/blogs/news/golden-spices-how-to-distinguish-a-good-quality-spice

#46 / Ritter Is Right (About One Thing, Anyway)

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Scott Ritter is prolific. He is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, and he has written a lot of books. He also writes for Consortium News.  Ritter is also, according to Wikipedia, a convicted child sex offender. 

EuroNews suggests that Ritter "is an example of a typical disgraced American – often a man – who discredited himself in the US and now wants to be perceived as a source of 'honest analysis' in Russia as a means to achieve renewed or increased glory."

In a relatively recent article in Consortium News, Ritter opined that "today is the gravest danger of nuclear war than at any time in the nuclear era." I am not sure whether he is right about that (though I take that that threat very seriously, myself). Whether Ritter is right, or not, about an incipient nuclear war between the United States and Russia, Ritter does say something in the article I have linked that I think is absolutely correct:

Congress can be somewhat intimidating to the uninitiated—a literal shining house on a hill, where the empowered elite gather in chambers to debate the finer points of issues that impact our daily lives. 

What is sometimes overlooked by the average citizen is that the vehicle of empowerment that allows these anointed lawmakers to take their seats in these chambers is themselves — every two years these representatives of the people must stand muster before their respective constituents and convince enough of them to cast a vote in their favor. 

If they win a majority of votes, they can remain in Washington, D.C. If not, they return home unemployed. Because of this electoral reality, the men and women who populate the House of Representatives are very responsive to the will of the people, especially when confronted with numbers they simply cannot ignore. 

This phenomenon holds true for Senators, too, although they only must face the crucible of the voter once in six years (emphasis added).

In fact, what Ritter is describing is the essence of representative self-government. Our elected representatives do owe their employment (which is pretty short term, generally two years is all that is guaranteed) to the fact that voters have entrusted them with the right to vote on the most important issues that the voters care about. Where a majority of the voters has a particular point of view - when there is something that they care about - the voters will be able to throw their representative out of office if the "representative" is not, actually, representing the people who sent him there. 

At least.... that's the "theory," right? Many, many people, having read what I just wrote, will say that this is a system that only "theoretically" works. Why do they say that? They say that because for representative government to work the way it is supposed to work, the people being represented have to be (1) paying attention and (2) have to be organized so as to be able actually to throw someone out of office, if the representative isn't doing what the majority wants. 

These two prerequisites to effective self-government are not impossibilities. Quite the opposite, actually. However, it's not "easy" to make self-government work according to plan. To make the system work as it is supposed to, those being represented actually have to spend their own, personal time and money to do the two things necessary: (1) follow what's going on, so they know what their representative is doing, and (2) getting organized with others in a way that will actually allow the voters to mobilize a majority of voters to throw a non-representing "representative" out of office when that representative is not doing what the majority want. 

In other words, we can, in fact, have an effective self-government, prevent nuclear war, improve our health care system, deal with Global Warming, begin eliminating the massive income inequality that has so distorted our society.... ETC. We can do all that.

Ritter is right about that!

But that won't happen if we don't get involved in government ourselves. We won't change the world by watching what is happening on TV, or online - or not even paying any attention at all, except at election time when we bemoan the fact that the "Deep State" is just not representing us. 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/12/03/scott-ritter-congress-must-prevent-nuclear-war/

#45 / Dear Valentine: Beware The Algorithms

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A healthy politics - the process by which we pursue and effectuate our system of self-government - demands the recognition of our manifold diversity. In fact, a truly healthy politics demands the celebration of our diversity. 

We are all different. We are all "equal," but we are all different. Very different! The strength of any group - the strength of any nation, any family, any society - will ultimately depend on whether or not those who are part of the group truly understand - and celebrate - the diversity that is the reality of who we are. Faced with an understanding of the truth that we are "different," any group will be strong only to the extent that those in the group recognize that, despite our diversity, our "plurality" as Hannah Arendt puts it, "we are in this together." 

We are "in this together" not because we are the same. We should remind ourselves that we are "in this together" precisely because our differences are so apparent. If we didn't tell ourselves about our interdependence, and about our commitment to one another, we might not notice how critical it is that we are "in this together." I am talking in general terms, but I am talking specifically about the United States of America.

Pull out a dollar bill. That eagle on the reverse, holding an olive branch on one side, and a sheaf of arrows on the other, bears this talisman in its beak: "E Pluribus Unam." You know what it means: "Out of many, one." 

"Out of many, one." In other words, we are all very different, but we are "in this together." We are all different, but we are all "equal," when we consider ourselves as citizens, and we are "in this together."

This understanding of our diversity and interdependence is what makes us a nation - not "blood" or "conquest." What makes us a nation is that commitment found on our dollar bill, a commitment made famous, although in other words, by the Three Musketeers: "All For One And One For All."

Our political polarization, much noticed and much decried - and much worried about, and for very good reasons - goes contrary to the truth to which we, as a nation, have pledged ourselves. Therefore, let me issue a warning to which we should all take heed. If we want to maintain our national pledge to each other, we must beware of the evil of the algorithms that are, more and more, defining and delimiting the world in which we actually live.

More and more, we don't live in what I often call the "real world." We live "online." There are many advantages to doing that; however, there is a massive danger which we need to understand. Contrary to what we might suppose, the vast "diversity" of the online world, which is often what attracts us to it, is systematically undermined by the portals and platforms that actually constitute the online world we encounter. Whether we log in to "X," or to "Instagram," or to "Facebook," or to "TikTok," or to "YouTube," or to any other online platform (all of which are owned and operated of, by, and for some giant corporation), what we find "online" is not the "diversity" we find when we go walking around in the "real world." 

Algorithms decide what we see, what news we get, what pictures are presented to our eyes, and what opinions are brought to our attention. Far from opening us up to new experiences, when we enter the "online world" we are ruthlessly furnished with more and more of what the algorithms have determined we already know about - what we already think. 

Please be aware of the evil of the algorithms. 

The future of self-government in the United States of America depends on our ability to extricate ourselves from the segregated and siloed online world. The future of self-government depends on our ability to realize and celebrate the diversity, the plurality, and the differences that truly define who we are.

We are so different. But we are equal. And....

We Are In This Together

oooOOOooo

Given the date on which I am posting these thoughts (and I just noticed the date, having finished writing down the thoughts with which you have been presented), let me officially declare that this particular blog posting should be understood as a "Valentine" to the United States of America, a Valentine message dedicated to all of us who are here in this country and are prepared to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to the proposition that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth. 

💘

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

(1) - https://x.com/

(2) - https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/united-states-one-dollar-bill-reverse-side-with-the-seal-of-the-united-states-with-e-gm1204568123-346648420

#44 / A Salute To Chris Deluzio

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Chris Deluzio, pictured above, is a Member of the United States Congress. Deluzio represents a Congressional District in Pennsylvania, and last December, Deluzio got a nice shout out from George Packer, writing in The Atlantic:

A few weeks before the election, Representative Chris Deluzio, a first-term Democrat, was campaigning door-to-door in a closely divided district in western Pennsylvania. He’s a Navy veteran, a moderate on cultural issues, and a homegrown economic populist—critical of corporations, deep-pocketed donors, and the ideology that privileges capital over human beings and communities. At one house he spoke with a middle-aged white policeman named Mike, who had a Trump sign in his front yard. Without budging on his choice for president, Mike ended up voting for Deluzio. On Election Night, in a state carried by Trump, Deluzio outperformed Harris in his district, especially in the reddest areas, and won comfortably. What does this prove? Only that politics is best when it’s face-to-face and based on respect, that most people are complicated and even persuadable, and that—in the next line from the Fitzgerald quote—one can “see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise” (emphasis added).

Those who have read many of my blog postings will know why I am impelled to give some kudos to Deluzio, too. 

Practicing politics "face-to-face" is not taking the "easy road." We tend to live, nowadays, "online," and it's a lot easier to do that than to find ways to connect up with people in the "real world." But let's be honest, a politics that is founded on "online" connections is almost certainly going to be a politics that is distorted by the power of the hidden algorithms that make decisions for us - decisions about whom we will learn about, whom we will see, what we will know about, and what we will see. 

With face to face to face encounters, "respect" is possible, and our ability to make good political decisions is enhanced. That Trump voter's support for Deluzio is a good example of how real world contact can change perspectives.

So, here's a salute to Chris Deluzio - and a lesson for us all!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.unionprogress.com/2024/06/05/deluzio-appointed-to-house-committee-on-transportation-and-infrastructure/

#43 / A Solution For Schumer

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Chuck Schumer, pictured above, has led the Senate Democratic Caucus since 2017. He served as Senate majority leader from 2021 to 2025. According to William McGurn, one of the columnists who regularly appears on the Opinion page of The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Schumer has a problem, since Schumer is, purportedly, "lacking a postelection Democratic agenda." 

Absent any idea about a "positive" program for the Democrats, says McGurn, Schumer has decided that the Democrats' best hope is simply to oppose Elon Musk. Here's how McGurn puts it:

Mr. Musk is having a blast. On his social media site X, he regularly trolls critics. Earlier this month, for example, he asked a simple question: “Would you like @DOGE to audit the IRS?” Chuck Schumer is not amused. Lacking a postelection Democratic agenda, the Senate minority leader sees opposition to Mr. Musk as the best hope for unifying his party (emphasis added). 

Given that Musk is, apparently, trying to "dismantle the federal government," as USA Today describes Musk's efforts, this doesn't seem like such a bad position to take. However, it is true that fighting against Elon Musk (and Donald Trump) is inherently "negative." Opposing efforts to "dismantle" our government is not a "positive" program of its own. 

So, here's a solution for Schumer, a "positive" program to bring to the people of the United States, to help make America great again. Suppose the Democratic Party campaigned on the following program: 

• RAISE taxes on persons whose personal wealth exceeds $100,000,000. 
• Set tax rates to balance the federal budget.
• Include in the federal budget money to provide "free" health care for all.
• Include in the federal budget money to provide free college education.
• Include new home construction with resale restrictions.
• Include job opportunities for all (like in the WPA).
• Include other similar and "positive" programs. 

 

This would be a contemporary version of the "New Deal," and would be explicitly based on the idea that the wealthiest country in the history of the world can, and should, be sure that those with the wherewithal to contribute, will do so. Elon Musk, as the wealthiest person in the world, would definitely be included in those from whom much would be asked. Note: Musk is, quite obviously, someone to whom much as been given.

If we are "in this together," and we are, it is important that we ask those who can help make America great again to step up and assist.  

Is this proposed program some kind of political gimmick? Not the way I see it! 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/07/10/chuck-schumer-positive-covid-19-00045019

#42 / Get Engaged Locally!

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

"Get Engaged Locally"? To be clear, I am not talking about the wisdom of focusing your romantic endeavors, leading to marriage, to people who live in the same Zip Code. I am talking about "politics."

Pictured is Joyce Vance. As Wikipedia tells us, Vance "is an American lawyer who served as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. She was one of the first five U.S. Attorneys, and the first female U.S. Attorney, nominated by President Barack Obama." 

Most important, I think, is the fact that Vance now writes a daily blog on Substack, called Civil Discourse. I subscribe to her blog, and I encourage you to do so, too. There is a "no charge" option. 

Vance's daily postings in Civil Discourse are invaluable in helping people to understand the "legal side of politics and government." This is increasingly important with Donald J. Trump now serving as President of the United States. The president works for us, of course, not the opposite, but given Mr. Trump's impression that we are all supposed to take orders from him, it's important for us to know our rights and powers, and the president's obligations, and the limitations on what the president is authorized to do, or command.

Vance's posting on November 29, 2024, was titled, "Wild Accusations," and commented on a claim made by the president's friend Elon Musk. Musk claimed that Alexander Vindman, former Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council, was guilty of "treason," and not only "should" but "would" be punished - presumably by imposition of the death penalty. Musk, like Trump, has an elevated sense of his own greatness, and of his own importance, and of his own power. The following statement is an excellent example of claims that are totally unjustified, legally and otherwise. 

In her Substack blog posting, Vance quoted from an earlier interview she did with Vindman, and reported on that interview as follows (emphasis added): 

In November of 2023, Alex was our guest for Five Questions. His answer to my final question for him is just as important today as it was then:

Joyce: So many people are engaged and want to do whatever they can to ensure democracy survives the 2024 election and Trump. What do you see as some of the opportunities for each of us to get involved and do our part?

Alex: The most important thing we can all do is read your Substack to stay smart on threats to our democracy! But seriously, one thing we can do is get engaged locally. Once people connect with their communities and stay engaged, they will notice that their communities are good; no one is living in a Trumpian hellscape of American decline, and it’s important to push back against this narrative.

Complacency is not an option. Understand the power of your vote. If your vote wasn’t important, foreign adversaries wouldn’t be working so hard to influence your vote. Republicans wouldn’t be removing large swaths of voters from the rolls. Normalize talking to your friends and acquaintances about voting and educate them on candidates and issues. We have just under a year until the election and it’s going to be a marathon, not a sprint.... 

I endorse Vindman's recommendation (even though - and perhaps especially because - the 2024 election has now come and gone and our former president, Trump, has been returned to the White House). At the "local" level, people can and will learn that they really are in charge of the government (and not the opposite). I was elected to the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors five times, and served on the Board for twenty years. A County Supervisor is one of only five persons who are in charge of County Government, which has the ability to set policy on land use, social and health services, and on virtually every other important area of our community's life. 

My personal experience in local government in Santa Cruz County has absolutely demonstrated to me the truth of what Vindman says. 

Get engaged locally! 

That's the important message that comes from a couple of people who are mainly involved with politics and government at the national level. It's very good advice!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://admin.borderlands.uk.com/linenews4/joyce-vance-thyroid.html

(2) - https://joycevance.substack.com/p/wild-accusations

#41 / Crypto Fraud Victims

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on December 5, 2024, that was titled as follows, "Who Are the Victims of Cyberfraud?" 

The information provided in answer to that question was made available to readers through a "Quiz." In other words, The Journal challenged its readers to guess the right answer to the questions it posed about cyber fraud. It then provided the correct answers. Presumably, The Journal hoped that its readers would pay more attention to the information provided about cyber fraud because readers would have created a personal stake in knowing what was true, and what wasn't - in finding out whether their "guesses" were correct, or not. 

I think there are a few people who read my blog postings on a fairly regular basis. If you happen to be such a person, you will be well aware of my views about "cryptocurrency." Just click here for a past posting that amalgamates a number of my critical commentaries. There are more such postings, but this will give you the idea. I think "cryptocurrency" is, by its very nature, "fraudulent," since it presents itself as an "investment," or as a "store of value," while it is really a "bet," a totally speculative expenditure made in the hopes that future buyers will want to pay more than the current "investor" did.

I am not, by the way, surprised that our president has been personally engaged in both accepting campaign contributions made with crypto, and in offering this own, proprietary crypto options to "investors." I am also not surprised that the president has selected appointees to key government positions based on their support for crypto. This is just one more reason for American citizens, and particularly the Congress, to keep a vigilant watch over possible Trump-connected cyber fraud. 

But... let's look at that Wall Street Journal "Quiz," to see what it has to tell us: 

QUESTIONS:

ANSWERS:

Question #3

Persons 60 and older made 16,806 complaints with a cryptocurrency nexus and accounted for $1.7 billion in losses, according to the FBI's 2023 Cryptocurrency Fraud Report. The next-largest category was 30- to 39-year olds, who made 10,849 complaints with losses of $694 million. Losses across all age groups totaled $5.6 billion. 

 Question #4

Cryptocurrency accounted for 34% of the reportred losses attributed to romance scams, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Bank wire transfer or payment was second-highest, with 27% of losses.

I am an "old guy," definitely over 60, but I am abiding by the advice I provided in my earlier blog posting, as mentioned above. I won't "bite" on cryptocurrency offers - and maybe particularly not if the president is personally involved.

Here's hoping that you won't, either!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1), (2), and (3) - https://www.wsj.com/tech/cybersecurity/cyberfraud-take-our-quiz-91bfd910

#40 / Returning

  

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

"Returning" is the title of an article in the August 2024 edition of The Sun Magazine. The article is an interview with Suzanne Kelly, focusing on green burial and "the embrace of mortality." Here is how the article begins: 

Every year in the US ninety thousand tons of steel, almost two million tons of concrete, and thirty million board feet of hardwoods like walnut, mahogany, and cherry—not to mention eight hundred thousand gallons of embalming fluid—are buried underground. It’s all part of the $20 billion death-care industry, which fills our deceased with chemicals, places them in satin-lined caskets, encases those vessels inside steel vaults, and inters them in cemeteries alongside hundreds, sometimes thousands, of others who are buried the same way. Cremation is always an alternative, but it pollutes the air with mercury and carbon dioxide, and the energy expenditure of cremating one body is roughly equivalent to a drive from Savannah, Georgia, to Washington, DC. In either case, everything is handled by industry professionals. The bereaved might not see the body at all.

It’s a far cry from how we buried our dead as recently as 150 years ago. Scholar, farmer, and cemetery administrator Suzanne Kelly has studied the grassroots movement to reclaim sustainable burial practices and rediscover rites and rituals that once connected us to—and personalized—the process of death. It’s a movement often referred to as green burial, and it encompasses everything from using cloth shrouds instead of caskets to composting human remains. In the 2019 essay “A Way Back to the Wildness of Death” Kelly writes that the simple rituals of accompanying the body to the grave site, lowering it into the ground, and covering it with soil have the power to “yoke us back, not only to the earth and to each other, but to the bare-bones fact that death is an integral—and meaningful—part of life” (emphasis added).

Similar thoughts have made an appearance close to home, by way of a discussion on our local radio station, which was on the air in Santa Cruz, California back in September.

I actually wrote a blog posting about this topic before - quite a long time ago, as a matter of fact, on October 2, 2017. My earlier blog posting was titled, "Surfing The Silver Tsunami." 

The recent article in The Sun, and the KSQD radio program, made me think I should highlight this topic once again. Our "climate crisis" is worse (much worse) than it was in 2017, and I am a lot older. You, too, are older than you were in 2017. Since we should be trying to figure out how to have fewer impacts on the environment, green burials are one suggestion to consider. 

The interview with Suzanne Kelly is worth reading. And she has a book, too, if you'd like to follow up! It's called, Greening Death: Reclaiming Burial Practices and Restoring Our Tie to the Earth. 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.inc.com/will-yakowicz/death-care-gets-eco-friendly-green-burial-services.html

#39 / The Individualist Myth

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Historian Heather Cox Richardson is one of my favorites. I read her Substack postings on a daily basis. 

On June 25, 2024, Richardson commented on "the mythological image of the American cowboy." As is often the case, I fastened my attention on one statement from her rather broad-ranging evaluation of "individualism" as a touchstone for understanding American history: 

Another part of the individualist myth that has met reality is that cutting taxes and slashing business regulation would boost the economy. Yesterday the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget compared the $8.4 trillion debt approved by Trump to the $4.3 trillion approved by Biden. It estimated Trump’s tax cuts for the rich and corporations cost $4.8 trillion, which as Allison Gill of Mueller, She Wrote pointed out, is more than the $4.3 trillion cost of Biden’s “Infrastructure bill, Inflation Reduction Act, American Rescue Plan, CHIPs [and Science Act], PACT [expanding health benefits to veterans exposed to toxic substances and burn pits], student debt forgiveness, and funding the IRS COMBINED.” Under Trump, Congress also passed $3.6 trillion in COVID relief (emphasis added).

While we are all "individuals," and we shouldn't forget it, it is more important to remember that we are "all in this together." 

Thinking we can achieve "social" goals - things important to everyone - by policies that are aimed, primarily, at benefitting individuals - is nothing but a "myth." 

Read the whole column, but don't forget the main point: "We are in this together."

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/cowboy-pictures-horses-horse-pictures--270286415114398151/

#38 / Replay

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I'm that old-time telegraph man
And I came here with a simple job to do
'Cause that news coming down the wire
Says that your world's on fire
And I'm trying to get a message through to you

I was extraordinarily pleased to learn the following from the UCSC News Center: 

UC Santa Cruz alumna Gillian Welch (Porter ’90, fine arts) alongside her musical partner David Rawlings, clinched the Best Folk Album award at the 67th Annual Grammy Awards on Feb. 2 for their album Woodland. The album showcases their signature blend of Appalachian folk, bluegrass, and Americana.

I didn't know Welch when she was at UCSC, and I only found out about her, and Rawlings, when I ran across an NPR "Tiny Desk Concert" some time ago. I have written about their song, "Ruby," in an earlier blog posting. The lyrics are compelling, and meet this moment. Here's a replay. Enjoy!

For an in-person experience, you might want to make arrangements to see Welch and Rawlings when they appear in Montrerey on March 10th!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/the-telegraph-would-not-work-without-telegraph-operators-these-are-people-who-were-trained-in-the-use-of-morse-code-and-and-send-and-r--496944140105808252/

#37 / Is There Any "Truth" In Politics?

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Pontius Pilate made the history books, and scored a big role in the Bible, partly because he asked an always pertinent question, "What Is Truth?"

I happen to believe that there is such a thing as "truth." In other words, I believe that it is possible to discern - and then "believe in" - something that is "real," that is (and that can be "proven" to be) "true." Things like that - "truths" - are what help us to define (and accept) "reality." As an example, a declaration that the Earth is round (spherical, really) is now generally accepted as the truth about Planet Earth. However, even this "truth," or what we sometimes call "the facts," is not something that is universally accepted. There are some people who believe that the Earth is flat.

What "authority" is there that can state "the truth" in a way that "everyone" accepts it? Really, there is no such authority. Again, consider, those people who believe that the Earth is flat. Actual pictures taken from space have not convinced everyone of something that I am personally willing to assert is indisputably "true"!

Acute readers will notice that the example I have just used (that the Earth is spherical) is a "truth" that pertains to the World of Nature. Scientific formulas, scientific experiments, and even mathematics are "authoritative" for almost everyone, and are accepted as "proof" that certain things are "true." 

Of course, I would like anyone reading this to know that the "Natural World" is only one of the "Two Worlds" that I believe we simultaneously inhabit, and the differences between which I believe we should acknowledge and understand. Scientific "laws" demonstrate, pretty authoritatively, what is "true" in the World of Nature. Example: the "Law of Gravity" prevails and defines certain truths about life on this planet. The laws of math and physics are authoritatively able to make statements that are demonstrably and provably "true." Experiments bear out the truths that math and physics claim.

We also have "human" laws, however (as a lawyer, I am familiar with those), and our human laws are the "laws" that define how things work (or are supposed to work) in the "Human World," a "world" that I generally call the "Political World." The "Political World" is created by human activity, and in the "Political World," there are no indubitable "truths." Human-created laws don't state what must and will happen. Human laws are statements about what we "want" to happen, not what will happen, without fail. In the "Human World," there are no absolutely provable "truths." Instead, there are "opinions." 

Is our current president a narcissistic, self-interested, intellectually inferior person; or, quite to the contrary, is he probably the greatest president our nation has ever had, intellectually brilliant, with the kind of personal courage you have to have to face down a government that has run amok, a president who can root out a "Deep State" that is imposing tryrannical and outrageous limitations on the freedoms to which we believe we are entitled and which our Constitution is supposed to guarantee? 

He can't be both, right? But who can "prove" what is right, so that everyone accepts it, as almost everyone accepts that the Earth is spherical? There is no "authority" that can definitively say that one of these things is "true," and the other one is "false." People will differ in what they think, and as we so painfully know, there is a deeply-divided split opinion on what kind of president we have. While those on each side cite to different "authority" to support the claim that their view is "true" and the other "false," it remains obvious that neither "side" is willing to accept the "authority" cited by the other. 

Our Constitution does not establish a methodology that will allow anyone to proclaim that their political views are the "truth." The "truth" is that there are differing "opinions," and that's it. 

The Constitution does, however, establish specific procedures that will allow one "side," or another, to use the powers of the government to implement that side's view of what is "true," and to act upon the basis of that side's "opinions." 

If we want to have a political system that recognizes the fundamental nature of our "Political World," we need - from all "sides" - to adhere to the procedures that the Constitution specifies. In other words, the "procedures" specified in the Constitution generate the "authority" that will be properly used to support one view or another. We have different "opinions." If we follow the "procedures" set out in the Constitution (and in the laws that implement it) the system will determine which opinion will prevail, and which "side" will be given the power to act as if its "opinions" were "the truth."

The procedures specified in the Constitution allow "power" to be given to one side or another, subject to periodic (two-year) reviews, but things can go wrong if those given certain "power" claim that they are entitled to more power than has actually been granted. Congress, basically, makes the "laws," and the president "executes" them. The president is an "executive" officer, and does not, properly, get to say what the laws are. If the president claims that his election as our chief executive entitles him to abolish entire governmental programs or departments that were established by the elected Members of Congress, he is claiming "authority" to which he is not entitled. 

When that happens - and it appears to have happened, already, in the first weeks of the new presidency of Donald J. Trump - the Members of Congress must require that the correct "procedures" be followed. Want to get rid of USAID - the Agency for International Development"? Get the Congress to change the law to do that. If we don't follow the "procedures," then it's pure power, all the way down, and it is "power" not "truth" that will determine which "opinions" will be used to build the "Political World," and to establish the "reality" of our life together. 

Considering what is happening - and there are differing opinions about what is happening - we need to insist that the "procedures" specified in the Constitution be followed. Congress makes the laws, the president "takes care that the laws are faithfully executed." 

That's how we decide what the government will do in our name. That is not what is happening now! 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://medium.com/original-reveries/the-beauty-of-multiple-opinions-29f632640cff