Friday, January 2, 2026

#2 / A Mutual Pledge

 


A few days ago, I made comments on a new book, The Greatest Sentence Ever Written. For those who might have missed my earlier blog posting, this new book is focused on what is, essentially, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence

Today, let me draw attention to the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence. It reads as follows: 

For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor (emphasis added).

Yesterday, I implicitly suggested that we need, now, in the United States of America, to be considering how to carry out a new kind of "revolution" - consisting of genuine, fundamental, and "real" changes to our government and how it is working - and I did so by highlighting Hannah Arendt's wonderful book, On Revolution. Arendt celebrates our revolution, but is not uncritical, and I think that is the correct way to consider the genesis and the current status of "Democracy in America" (to appropriate the title of an important book by Alexis de Tocqueville). 

In short, we need to make some changes around here, and it's our obligation to do so, starting now, should we wish to continue to exercise the important obligations of "self-government," which was the aim and ambition of the American Revolution, now 250 years old. 

Should we wish to take back effective responsibility for "running the place," as I like to put it, we need to change what we are doing in our "normal lives." At least some of us need to do that. Small groups of "friends," who are "pledged" to enter into politics, to make needed changes, is how truly revolutionary changes can be achieved. There is no better way to understand what is required than to see what those who signed the Declaration of Independence claimed was necessary. To effect the kind of changes needed (and explicitly disavowing every and any thought that "violence" is to be used), we need to mobilize both "our lives" and "our fortunes." 

We need, in other words, to reallocate our time (our lives) and to invest our reallocated time into activities that can shift political power from the elite and entitled to all of us "ordinary people." That means, just to be clear, that group of ordinary women and men who have been designated, from the inception, as "we, the people." That is the group that Abraham Lincoln reminded us is who we really are, as citizens of the United States of America. 

How we spend our individual time, what we do with it, and how we mobilize our financial capabilities, as great or small as they may be, will be determinative of the outcomes that can transmute our "possibilities" into "realities."

For those who understand that it is, in fact, a "sacred honor" to be called to "self-government," and to achieve in reality what that phrase demands of us, there is much work ahead. 

And a whole New Year, just beginning, to address the tasks before us!
 

Thursday, January 1, 2026

#1 / A New Year's Message - 2026

 

 
If you are reading this, you will be doing so on or after January 1, 2026 - and if you are reading this blog posting (or any part of it) on that day itself, please accept my personal good wishes for a Happy New Year!

Today's blog posting outlines some of my (mostly general) thoughts about what we need to be working on, and working for, during this year upcoming, a year that is exactly 250 years after 1776, which is generally accepted as the year in which the American Revolution was initiated. This New Year would be a good time to start working on some genuinely "revolutionary" ideas for the years ahead. 

In fact, of course, for those who remember a bit of American history, the "shot heard 'round the world," and the armed confrontation that began overt hostilities with Great Britain, came in 1775. The Declaration of Independence, though, outlining the reasons for, and the purpose of our revolution, was signed on July 4th, 1776, and that means that the official anniversary of our 250th year as a nation is coming up soon. 

Our "national purpose," and the purpose of our national government, as established by the American Revolution (an event which is well described and well discussed in On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt), is best presented - in my view - by three different documents:

(2) The Constitution, and 

Today's blog posting (it's pretty long, so be warned) presents some of my thoughts about how we can (and actually must) carry forward our national purpose, as defined in those three documents. 

"Revolution" is not a bad topic as we enter a New Year. Here we are, on January 1st! Our Earth revolves, and the seasons change, and now, today, on January 1st, we face - as we do again and again, and as we always will - the question of what we should do!

oooOOOooo

What We Should Do (Introduction)

This lengthy blog posting (you have been warned) addresses a key topic, "what we should do." When I say, "we," I mean to reference our collective opportunity to act, together, as citizens of The United States of America, and this "What We Should Do" listing should definitely be recognized as "a partial list." We are able to do (or at least we are able to attempt to do) what we decide we want to do. This truth is axiomatic for those of us - and I hope that includes virtually all of us - who believe in the dignity and power of "self-government." 

"Possibility" is what I like to call "my category." In my view, virtually all things are possible in the "political world," the world that we most immediately inhabit. But we do live in two worlds, the way I see it. The "World of Nature," that I sometimes refer to as "The World That God Created," can be described by the "laws" of physics, and the "laws" of the other natural sciences. These "laws" describe "necessities." We can't countermand the law of gravity here on Planet Earth. But the "Political World" that is defined by the "laws" that we promulgate ourselves is different. Our human-created laws tell us what we want to happen, not what has to happen. 

Those of us who grew up during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, and during public opposition to the War in Vietnam, well remember that we (or many of us, anyway) defied the human laws that told us that we were supposed to do things we thought were wrong. We didn't follow those human laws that told those of us who were Black that we couldn't sit in the front of the bus, or sit at the dime store lunch counter. We didn't follow those human laws that told those of us who had reached our eighteenth birthday that we had to register for the draft, and then, if called, go off to kill other people we didn't even know. 

In our "Political World," what actually happens will be determined by what we actually do, ourselves, as we mobilize our individual and collective energies and assets to create a reality that we wish to establish and inhabit. In this blog posting, I try to provide at least a little bit of an idea of what I think are some projects worth undertaking, some ambitions worth accomplishing, but what I really think we should do is not only to pursue my own listing of possible projects, but that we should augment the suggestions I advance with those that will be put forward by others. 

Put forward by YOU, for instance!

What YOU should do - your own personal assignment, in other words - is what you think is right, and what you decide just might be "possible" if you devote your life to it. It should be YOUR dream. My father told me, on my eighteenth birthday, that "if you don't have a dream, Gary, you will never have a dream come true." My gloss on my father's excellent advice is that we need to be sure that we're thinking not only individually, but in terms of our collective lives together, too, as we do our dreaming. We need, in other words, to incorporate the wisdom of Bob Dylan as we dream, and then we need to act, to bring our envisioned future into reality. 

Dylan told us, as he sang about the possible loss of everything, in a song that focused on the yet to be experienced World War III, that "I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours.”

Bob Dylan "said that." 

I say that, too. 

I also say this: We are "all in this together." 

oooOOOooo

What Do I Know?

I am here confessing to being an "old guy." I was born on the Day After Christmas in 1943. That means that I am 82 years old, today, as I post this entry into my blog. The kind of "revolutionary" changes that I am advocating in this blog posting are generally brought into being by the young. Just to be clear, though, while I am admitting to being an "old guy," and am doing so right up front, I am still feeling like that "young man" who did a whole lot of things during the time I qualified as "young," and who still thinks that everyone - including me, and including all those "old folks" who are still upright and ambulatory - is capable of doing something to "change the world." 

"Changing the world" is the project I am proposing for this brand New Year. And don't worry if that seems too grand an undertaking for you to want to become involved. The world is going to be changed - for better or worse - no matter what you do. Both possibilities, by the way, must be acknowledged, and this, I think, should be a major motivation for you to decide to be involved yourself. You don't actually have to do anything specifically intended to change the world, but I, personally, strongly advise trying to have some specific objectives in mind, and trying to make things happen, instead of letting them just happen to you. In my experience, a "coalition" of the old and the young is what is really called for. That, in fact, was the kind of coalition that transformed realities when I was in the "young guy" category. 

During my life, I have had extremely good luck. Both my Mother and Father were wonderful. I had two sisters and a brother. All equally wonderful! Today, while my parents are gone, my siblings and their children are alive and still present in my life, and I also have a wife, and both a son and a daughter and three grandchildren. All wonderful! And so many wonderful friends!

I can testify, personally, that I have been involved not only in the individual, world-changing relationships just listed, but that I have also been engaged with those friends I mentioned in making significant changes in the world I most immediately inhabit, here in Santa Cruz County, California. In 1999, I was named by my hometown newspaper as one of two people who had the most impact on Santa Cruz County during the 20th Century. Comparisons are "odious," to quote my mother, but eliminating the comparison inherent in what the Santa Cruz Sentinel said about me, it really is true that I have been involved in helping to make major changes in our local community - and that such actions have had some statewide, and even national impacts, too. 

In other words, when I ask myself the question, "What Do I Know," I really do know that it is possible to "change the world." It's done by individual action - but mostly by action with others. The world is changed, in other words, by "politics," so often discounted as somehow suspect or dishonorable. What should we do? We should act together (that means "politically") to make progress on the challenges and opportunities we know we have before us. 

BOTH "challenges" and "opportunities." 

Dealing with them both, not only "individually" but "together." 

That is what we should do, as we unroll this New Year we now confront. 

oooOOOooo

What We Might Do
(A Very Partial List)

In order to achieve significant changes, we need to act together, and we need to take the actions, together, that are necessary to accumulate, and then employ, political power. I begin with this because I believe that many of us have not achieved a right relationship with political power. To many, "power" is something that someone else has, and to which we are subjected - often unwillingly. In fact, though, we do not live in a "dictatorship," as a few of my friends seem to enjoy proclaiming. 

In the United States of America, we have a political system that is outlined in the Constitution, and that was inspired by the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln summed it up, so wonderfully, and so briefly, in his Gettysburg Address. Lest we forget, that political system is best understood as "self-government," a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." 

BY the people! That's the most important part of Lincoln's summation of what our politics and government are all about, here in the United States of America. That is STILL what our politics and government are all about, even after 250 years, and it is STILL what it's all about even as we have, collectively, elected a president who really does believe that HE is the government. 

WE are the government - that is the foundation premise of what we call our "democracy." Because we ARE the government, we need to take responsibility for the government, which means that we need to go beyond "protests" and "resistance." Protests and resistance are absolutely necessary, particularly in our current political circumstances. However, if we are, truly, THE government, we need to be, effectively, "running the place," as I like to put it. 

Are we? Most people would say, "No," we're not. If that is your own diagnosis, an important part of your personal assignment, starting now, is to figure out how you, personally, can start exerting political power, and can start changing the things that you object to, and realizing the things you want to see happen, using your personal time, money, and commitment. Today is a good day to think about this. Today is, after all, the day which is recognized as a proper time to make New Year's Resolutions.

I have been suggesting, and reiterate my suggestion, that we each need to "find some friends." I am talking about joining, or forming, a relatively small group of other people who all agree on what they should be trying to do, politically. Such a group needs to get together, in person, on a frequent, and regular, basis, to discuss where they are in their efforts. The purpose of such a group is to amalgamate political power, so as to achieve some specific changes that will demonstrate that "we, the people," are, in fact, actually governing ourselves.

Tip O'Neill had a way of explaining politics that goes as follows: "All politics is local." A small group, in any community, can amalgamate political power sufficient to cause the government (of which we are in charge) to do something that the government is not now doing, or to stop the government from doing something that it shouldn't be doing. Suppose your "small group of friends" has an idea that others think is the "wrong idea." Well, then your small group may not be successful, if the others are more effective than you and your group is, but you should be trying, with that small group of friends of which you are a member, to get our political system (at every level) to start doing what you think is the right thing to do - or what is necessary to do. 

Right here, I expect that many who are reading this will say that this assignment is "impossible," or that trying to do something like this is simply "not going to work." If that is your reaction, you are, essentially, saying that you do not have any belief that a system of "self-government" can succeed. Maybe, you might tell yourself, that could have happened back 250 years ago. Or, maybe, even fifty years ago, which is when I got involved with local politics in my local community, in Santa Cruz, California. 

If that is your reaction, let me tell you that this reaction is reasonable. But here is what we all have to remember. Making self-government actually work, in the way I am urging, is definitely not possible if you, personally, and others who are those "friends" I am asking you to seek out, are not willing to change their own individual lives as a first step, and to "reallocate their time." 

Most of us allocate our time to surviving economically and then entertaining and enjoying ourselves. Most of us are not focused on "politics," and the task of building and then using political power. But if "self-government" is to become a "real thing," we must, individually (and together) change how we deploy the time we have available to us. When people joined themselves in the struggles of the Civil Rights era, they set aside other plans. Similarly for those who became active in the anti-war movement. Not everyone is going to be willing to change their live, and to reallocate their time (which is the same thing). But, actually, not everyone has to. Just some. For any one of us, individually, it's a personal question: "Am I willing to change my personal life, so as to help accumulate and deploy collective political power to seek to achieve something worth giving my life to?" 

If your personal answer is "yes," you're on your way! 

Here are some ideas that might be motivating. It's a "partial list," and I have tried to provide a few examples of "political projects" that make sense to me, on the local, state, and national levels. Like I say, I think it always makes sense to remember Tip O'Neill's call for a focus on politics at the local level, but when people start being willing to give up more of their life and time, their entire lives, in fact, one person - YOU, or ME - can have a significant and world-changing impact on something that needs changing at the state, or national, or even global level. 

Here are a few ideas to think about, as possible political projects. This is, definitely, only a "partial list," and these thoughts are presented at a very high level of generality:

  • Elect city officials in the City of Santa Cruz (including a new Mayor) who will not defer to "the staff," but who will work to get the votes on the Council necessary to tell the city staff what they are going to do, and what they are going to work for during the year(s) ahead. Then, pick your issue for the City to address - there are lots of them. For instance: (1) Giving power back to local neighborhoods, with respect to proposed new developments; (2) Using funding available for affordable housing for local workers, not just people who make the "median income," given that this "median" now reflects those who are now earning way more than local workers get paid; (3) Establishing a set of affordable housing policies that require that new residential units be price restricted on resale, so they will always be affordable to what local workers can afford; (4) Achieveing a reduction in the city bureaucracy, using the money saved by doing that for projects and expenditures that are more directly and demonstrably beneficial to the community; (5) Establishing city-sponsored participation opportunities in each of the new "districts" set up by recent Charter changes, so that local neighborhood areas begin to realize their actual political power. 
  • Take similar action at the County level of government.
  • At the state level, how about enacting a workable system of taxation that will require those who have great wealth to contribute more to collective efforts to deal with the housing, health care, and educational crises that are so clearly being ignored by our current state policies? And what about making sure that local governments are are given real power to impact every one of the state programs and operations that impact  local communities, from wildfire protection to assistance to the homeless?
  • At the national level, "taxing the rich," can empower and fund state and local efforts to solve our affordable housing crisis, and can make available meaningful work opportunities to everyone, and provide reliable and affordable health care and education for everyone, too. Plus, our national policies can be reconfigured to make environmental restoration and effective efforts to combat global warming a top priority (more important than building new battleships, for instance), giving the world, and our own nation, a chance to survive the runaway global warming that is putting human civilization in danger.

In sum, this is a New Year in which we can, and must, decide that we will stop subordinating ourselves to to "what's happening to us," most of which is "bad," and will start working, both individually and collectively, to realize our more "utopian" dreams of how to change the world for the better. That should always be our assignment, right? Changing the world for the better? What could be more important - and satisfying? What could be more necerssary? 

Since it is true that we do "live in a political world," we need to do a better job of mobilizing our personal and collective political power to make the changes we know need to be made - and we can't expect someone else to do it. We need to get on it, and stop acting like it's someone else's job, or that we can't do it. 

Because we can.

https://contemporarythinkers.org/hannah-arendt/book/revolution/

Wednesday, December 31, 2025

#365 / We May Be Getting Near The End

 

Yascha Mounk, pictured above, is a lecturer at Harvard University and is a fellow at New America. He is the author of “Stranger in My Own Country: A Jewish Family in Modern Germany.” Mounk has written for CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, and The Nation

New America, by the way, advertises itself as an organization that is "continuing the quest to realize our nation's highest ideals [by] honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change...." In a Substack posting dated in late November, Mounk discusses, with Nate Soares, "Why AI Could Kill Us All." This Mounk-Soares discussion counts as an example of "honestly confronting the challenges caused by rapid technological and social change." 

I will give you a couple of quotes from the Mounk-Soares discussion, but before I do, let me give you the title of a recent book by Soares, referring to "artificial superintelligence." Here's that title: 


Soares is not kidding. His title is dramatic, but the way he tells it, he is just being realistic. We may be getting near the end. Here are those quotes:

Soares: AI is not like traditional software. In traditional software, when the software behaves in a way the creators didn’t intend, they can debug it and track it down to some line of code or some interaction or some piece of the software that they wrote that was having some interaction they didn’t understand. Then they can say, oh, whoops, I understand it now. They can usually fix it and get the software to behave how they want. Modern AI is nothing like that.... 
A lot of people think AI is going to work like this. They think AI does exactly what the creators instruct and that if it’s misbehaving, then, oh well, we’ll go instruct it to do something else. But AI is nothing like this. It’s not like old-school computer programs. The thing we’re instructing is the thing running around tuning the numbers. The AI is the tuned numbers. These commonly act in ways nobody asked for. We’ve seen cases where the AIs will cheat on a problem. A human programmer will give the AI a task, like solve this programming problem, and the AI, instead of solving the problem, will change the tests that check whether the problem was solved to make the tests easier to pass. It’s like if you tell the AI to multiply big numbers, and it says, that’s too hard. I’m going to change the multiplication problem to ask me to multiply two times two and then write four. 
There are user reports of them saying, stop doing that. Solve the problem rather than changing the checker to make it look like an easier problem. There are user reports of the AI saying, that’s my mistake, and then doing it again—changing the tests again but hiding its tracks this time. That indicates that this AI in some sense knows what its users want it to do and is doing something else anyway. That’s the result of us just growing these AIs. We should maybe think of them more like a strange alien organism than like a traditional computer program (emphasis added).

The Soares-Mounk discussion is long, and the "conclusion" is not available unless you pay for it, by subscribing to Mounk's Substack bulletins. Still, what is available does lend credence to Soares' claim that if we ever produce a truly "superintelligent" AI then "everyone dies."

Could it be that we are, truly, getting "near the end?" Well, this blog posting #365 marks the end of this calendar year, at any rate. And as for the topic addressed in this blog posting, Nate Soares is handing us a warning. We also know that the current preoccupation with building bigger and better AIs is undermining the natural environment, with the endangerment of our water supplies being pretty clear, and with the energy requirements demanded also of extremely significant concern. 

Are we getting "near the end"? Maybe. Maybe not. But living within the constraints of the "World of Nature" might be a pretty good strategy! At least, that's what I think!! There's a New Year coming, and I'm suggesting that we give that "living within the constraints of the World of Nature" a real try in 2026.

 
Image Credit:
https://www.cnn.com/profiles/yascha-mounk

Tuesday, December 30, 2025

#364 / Welcome To The New Farm Bureau President

 


John Pisturino, pictured, has recently been named as the President of the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau. I got that news from the November 2025 edition of Between The Furrows, the Farm Bureau's monthly newsletter. Welcome and congratulations to Mr. Pisturino!

It might be news to some of those who know me, but I am a Lifetime Member of the Farm Bureau, and I am extremely proud of my Farm Bureau Membership, which was a gift to me from the Farm Bureau when I retired from twenty years on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. You can click this link to find out more about the Farm Bureau, and especially about Measure J, an initiative measure that I wrote, that the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors placed on the ballot, and that was adopted by the voters of Santa Cruz County in June 1978. 

Here is a picture of some of the farmland surrounding the City of Watsonville. That farmland is still here because of Measure J:


As I read the November edition of the Farm Bureau newsletter, I really appreciated how Mr. Pisturino introduced himself to Farm Bureau Members (emphasis added):

I was born in 1952 and raised on a prune orchard in Cupertino. My dad worked for Frank DiNapoli and ran all his orchards in Santa Clara Valley. They grew prunes, cherries, apricots, pears and walnuts. The DiNapoli's also owned Sun Garden Packing Co. in San Jose. This was when Santa Clara Valley was known as the "Valley of Heart's Delight." People have no idea what they lost when they built up that valley. It had the best climate, soil and an abundance of water for growing crops. They started building in Santa Clara Valley in 1955, and by 1970 [in just fifteen years, in other words] it was almost all gone.... We started working in Watsonville in April 1970.

If you read my blog posting from 2024 - previously linked in my second paragraph, and now linked again, one more time - you will see that Santa Cruz County avoided what happened in Santa Clara County, in what is no longer called the "Valley of Heart's Delight." Santa Cruz County did not become another, smaller-scale version of the so-called "Silicon Valley" because the voters of Santa Cruz County have made it a rule that "prime agricultural lands, and lands which are economically productive when used for agriculture, shall be preserved for agricultural use."

Agricultural land is usually flat, and it usually has access to water. It's "developable," in other words. Farmland can be developed for almost anything - for housing, for factories, for used car lots, for new car lots, for shopping centers .... for anything. In other places, as in Santa Clara County, that is exactly what happens, as the owners of farmland sell off their landss at the highest price they can get - at "development" prices. That's how those richly productive farmlands disappear. 

Not here! Here, lands that are economically productive when used for agriculture must be preserved for farming, for agricultural use.

I think you can see, as I do, from President Pisturino's statement, that the new Farm Bureau President knows how precious our farmland is, and how quickly it could be lost, if we were to allow our productive farmlands to be used for anything but agriculture. Thanks to Measure J, and to the vigilance and ongoing commitment of the Farm Bureau (and the voters) that's not going to happen here!

So, I want to give congratulations and a warm welcome to the new Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau President, with a shout out to the voters of Santa Cruz County, too, whose enactment of Measure J has made sure that we don't make decisions that will add up, all too quickly, to the loss of our precious farmlands. 


Image Credits:
(1) - http://www.sccfb.com/about-us/
(2) - https://www.gapatton.net/2024/03/62-celebrating-protection-of-farmland.html

Monday, December 29, 2025

#363 / The Greatest Sentence Ever Written

   


That is Walter Isaacson, pictured above, signing copies of his most recent book, The Greatest Sentence Ever Written.

When I unwrapped a copy of that book, which I received as a Christmas gift, and when I then read the title, having never heard of it before, I knew immediately what sentence Isaacson meant - what sentence he was talking about. Can you guess, too?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The sentence that Isaacson has identified as "the greatest sentence ever written," is presented above. It is the second introductory sentence to our Declaration of Independence

Both the origins and implications of that sentence - what it meant to those who fought a Revolutionary War, based on the claims made in that sentence, and what that sentence means for us, today, are not, I think, themselves "self-evident." Fully to understand that sentence and the demands it makes upon us requires us to ponder its implications, and to examine the origins of almost every word employed in it, so we can come to realize the meaning of that sentence to us, today, the meaning of our revolution, and what it is necessary that we do to achieve its unfulfilled objectives. This is what Isaacson wants his book to do.

I invite anyone reading this blog posting to track down a copy of Isaacson's book, and to read it. It is only sixty-seven pages long. Most of all, I am hopeful that this brand-new book will reinvigorate our commitment to the American Revolution, because the revolution that this sentence announced is a revolution still far from finished - even after 250 years. That sentence assigns us to a task which is a life's work for all who understand what the sentence requires. We are, all of those who are citizens of the United States of America, and those who are here intending to become citizens, the inheritors of both benefits and obligations. 

Some question the benefits - understandably so. Many forget the obligations - unfortunately. 

Read the book, and it will help you avoid either one of those two mistakes.


Sunday, December 28, 2025

#362 / Adumbrations Of Mortality

 


"Adumbration" is not a word that is very frequently used in our normal conversations. At least, that's my bet! I actually don't have any genuine evidence to back up that assertion; however, I do remember using "adumbration" in an email, recently, and as I reviewed my email, before I pushed the "send" button, I decided that I had better include the definition of the word in the email itself, just so what I was talking about would be understood.

And what was I talking about? I was talking about "adumbrations of mortality," a phenomenon that is, I think, increasingly experienced by those of us who are "old." Just a few days ago, I wrote out a blog posting announcing that I am now 82 years old, so "adumbrations of mortality" are ever more present in my life and experience. 

To get to the definition, "Adumbration" is perhaps best defined this way: "vague advance indications." 

So, "adumbrations of mortality" are vague advance indications that one is going to die. You know, if you are 82 years old, and fall down, that could be a real signal. I have had such a fall, pretty recently - maybe a brief repeat of that "syncope" that I experienced a year or so ago - and here's the general rule, for those in my age bracket: "First you fall. Then you die." Luckily for me, in this recent fall, nothing appears to have been broken, and believe me, I spent many hours getting assessed, and X-rayed, in order to be sure that this was true. 

When someone starts having adumbrations of mortality, brought on by a fall, or just arising spontaneously, the reality of our human situation comes ever more clearly into focus, and that "general rule" I just announced - first you fall down, and then you die - seems, rather suddenly, to be more "relevant" than previously. 

"Fear" would seem to be the natural and normal reaction. Fear of the unknown is well understood to be associated with anxiety and distress. If you click that link, you will find that the phenomenon is described at some length, and some "treatment options" are provided. 

This is a Sunday, and most recently, I have been trying to utilize my blog postings on Sundays to publish my thoughts about topics related to the "religious" or the "spiritual." Thus, today seems like a convenient day to mention my thoughts about dying, and my adumbrations of mortality. 

"Memento Mori" has been my advice of longstanding, as any who regularly read these blog postings will remember. The idea of that ancient advice is to get ahead of the curve, and to try to deal with the unknown territory of your own death before you actually experience it, personally, since if you wait until you are truly dying or dead, it is then too late to do much thinking of any value. What Sister Theresa Aletheia Noble advised, in that "Memento Mori" blog posting I have cited to, above, is that understanding that you are going to die should bring "comfort," not "fear." I am finding out that this is actually true, as my own adumbrations of mortality arise, and as I confront and consider them. This gift of life that we have each been given can be the occasion for celebration. Bewailing the fact that this gift is only a "limited time offer," and provides us only a finite time on Earth, is not only unavailing and ungenerous, it is a waste of the opportunity for joy that our lives provide. 

The King James Version of Matthew 7:7-8 advises that we should "ask, and it shall be given to you; seek, and ye shall find; knock and it shall  be opened unto you." I have found this to be true so often that I think it's worth a try as a general operating principle. That's what I advise. Try believing that whatever you can envision is "possible," and you may find out that's true. 

That has been my genuine personal experience (in politics and in other ventures), and as I have mentioned many times before in these blog postings, "possibility" is my category. My Dad told me first, and then he proved it to me, in an amazing and astonishing way. How that happened is perhaps my favorite story about my father. Use that link and you can read all about it.

Now, as the end of this year draws near, I am thinking of writing a long letter to those who are "young,"  a letter from this "old guy," as I confront those adumbrations of mortality that I am now experiencing quite frequently. If I do, actually, write such a letter, I will be able to report that I am confronting my mortality with the antidote not of any medically-advised "treatment," but with gratitude, first, and my belief in "possibility" not far behind. 

I write about "politics," mostly, because that is how we, together, can create the world we hope for. And I have found that the advice that I have quoted from the Book of Matthew is very good advice, indeed - and not only in one's personal life. It's a political principle, too! Seek and you shall find. Knock and it shall be opened. 

I have found that to be true!


Image Credit:
https://www.theactuary.com/2023/01/17/mortality-rise-impact-pensions

Saturday, December 27, 2025

#361 / Right, Left, Right, Left

 


Writing in The Nation, Rebecca Solnit says that "The Right Is Lying About Left-Wing Violence." I think if you click that link to the title of her article you'll be able to read it, but I can't guarantee that a paywall won't prevent that. If a paywall does block you out, my apologies.

I am mentioning Solnit's article in The Nation because I have a brief comment. I think that Solnit is correct in denouncing the false story that "The Left" is the party of "violence," but I also think that the use of that "Left/Right" dichotomy, as a way to understand politics, is a fundamental error. That's my comment. 

We are becoming habituated to thinking that "Right" and "Left" (or "Red" and "Blue") are the way we should understand politics. We are increasingly buying into the argument that choosing between our two major political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats, is the way we should be making decisions about our future. In this way of understanding politics, our choices are pretty simple. We get to pick a "party," and there are only two options out there, as a practical matter. Or, we get to pick a "direction" - you know, "Left" or "Right." However, choosing between "Left" and "Right," and "Republican" and "Democrat," is not the way to forge the kind of future that we need - and want. 

In fact, our "possibilities" are manifold, and we need to start focusing on those possibilities for change, and understand that "reality" is not a permanent press straitjacket. Our options - our "possibilities" - go way beyond those "Left/Right," "Democrat/Republican" choices with which we are so preoccupied.


Image Credit:
https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/left-wing-violence-myths-protest/

Friday, December 26, 2025

#360 / Eighty-Two




The headline on the story from which I appropriated the above image reads: "My Birthday Cake Candles Almost Started A Forest Fire." That headline seems kind of applicable, to me, today. I am happy to report, though, that my birthday celebration, to be held this evening, will not be taking place in a forested environment, and that a fire department substation is only a couple of blocks away from my home! Thank goodness for that!

I was born on December 26, 1943, so that makes me eighty-two years old, today. There are too many candles to count on that birthday cake I have pictured, and I am hoping that any festivities held on my behalf, this evening, will not involve an effort to deliver me a cake with one candle for every year I have already burned. Were that to occur, the result would almost certainly be an unintended test of our home smoke alarm system. Eighty-two candles just might, indeed, set that smoke alarm off. 

I am not feeling too bad about getting so "old," since I have, for a number of years, been engaging in that "Memento Mori" discipline that I am advocating for us all. I have long ago discarded the thought that I am, in any way, entitled to be alive - and particularly to be alive forever; therefore, I am able to feel celebratory about every day that I do continue to be able to walk around the town, meet and greet friends and others, glory in the ocean, and the forests, and in the city streets, and read about what's going on. Since January 1, 2010, I have been writing out a daily blog posting (this one is an example), "thinking" about what I am seeing and experiencing myself, and reflecting on what is happening, as revealed in the daily newspapers and in the other sources of information that provide me with access to "the latest." 

I usually quote Bob Dylan, when a musical reference appears in my brain, but when I think about what the newspapers tell me - what they are telling me about "the latest" - I must confess that it's a Beatles' song that springs first to my mind. Here's the lyric to which I am alluding:  


If you click that link above, you can read the lyrics to "A Day In The Life," while being assaulted by a video that could well be intended to replicate some kind of drug-induced vision of our contemporary reality. The "drug induced" part is outside of any personal experience of my own, and I may be wrong about that, but the video does illuminate the chaotic nature of the realities that accost us from outside. 

For myself, I am less concerned about what is already out there, trying to bewilder and discourage me (Oh, boy!). What I am most focused on is what I (what "we") can do to change that world which we inhabit together, particularly when the world starts looking like something that would find a proper place in the video I have just linked. 

I do want to claim some experience with "changing the world" during my eighty-two years - admittedly in the rather "small space" that is known as Santa Cruz County, California. Small or not, I am personally convinced that the exciting life I have experienced has come from working together with small groups of people to transform reality into something that we have thought would be better - and that I truly believe has been better. What I have been able to participate in, here in Santa Cruz County, can be achieved anywhere in the United States. I believe that, too!

We (all of us, together, those who became personally engaged in "politics" in Santa Cruz County, way back in that 20th Century time when I served on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors) were able to "Save" Lighthouse Field; we were able to change our county's budget priorities and fund scores of community-based nonprofit organizations that have dealt directly with some of the nation's most pressing social and economic problems. We were also able to provide enduring protection to our farmlands, and to contain the kind of urban sprawl that has consumed our neighboring county across the hill. We mandated that new developments provide truly affordable housing, and housing that would remain affordable in perpetuity. Our local efforts impacted national policy, too, probably most notably by stopping offshore oil drilling along the entire California coast, and achieving a 20-year offshore oil moratorium that has preserved the coastline and ocean waters of every coastal area in the nation which was not already committed to offshore oil drilling. This is definitely only a partial list of our local political accomplishments!

What we have done, politically, in this small county (the smallest county in the state of California, when that different governmental animal, the "City and County" of San Francisco is properly excluded) has been truly inspiring. And it should inspire us to do even more, because ("Oh, boy!") there is a lot more to do!

I am not dead yet, and so I plan to continue to do what I can to participate in and to stimulate effective political action - action that makes the promise of American self-government into a reality. I hope you, whoever might be reading this, and wherever and whenever that is, will be doing the same.

The news today? "Oh, boy!" is exactly the response I feel. What a tumult of catastrophe, and self-caused horror, here in the United States of America! We seem to be - we could be - right on the point of losing the system of self-government that has been so impressive in achieving some wonderful things (while, of course, not doing some other things that absolutely need to be done). Human beings are becoming an endangered species, too; we shouldn't forget that, and we need to remember that we are the cause of our own problems - problems that impact others, and the Earth itself, visible right in our own bathroom mirrors (to reference another non-Bob Dylan song).

Read the lyrics of that Michael Jackson musical prayer that you can listen to by clicking on that last link. What do those lyrics say? Read the lyrics! Make a change! That's what they say. 

Our "Oh, Boy!" political realities aren't going to change until we change them. And we can. But that does require us to change our own lives, first and foremost. It requires us to change how we allocate our time, and to decide that working "together," as opposed to acting "individually," for self-advancement, is our main task in life.

We have now arrived at the end of my birthday message. And I hope, when your own "special day" comes along, that you'll have thought about how your life - the time you have left - can be deployed to change the world for the better. To change "the news." Oh, boy!

Oh, boy, do we need to change the world!


Image Credit:
https://smdp.com/opinion/my-birthday-cake-candles-almost-started-a-forest-fire/

Thursday, December 25, 2025

#359 / Christmas Greetings And Good Wishes To All

 


I send Christmas greetings and good wishes to all and to anyone who may be reading these words - truly heartfelt hopes for joy in this day for you, and for your family and friends. Let me also send additional hopes for the year upcoming. I have a feeling that the "year upcoming" is actually coming all too soon, though let me state that something new and different from the current year would be a very welcome change (and I am willing to say that a change is already overdue).

I am putting down these words before the events of Christmas Day transpire, and I am trusting that my family and I will be celebrating together, exchanging gifts (too many, I predict), eating well, and hiking in our hills, and on the coast (weather permitting). It is just possible that I (or someone) will be heard on Christmas Eve reading "A Child's Christmas in Wales," which would hark back to the former practices of the Patton family. Click that link, above, to hear Dylan Thomas read his own poem, if you are looking for a non-consumer-oriented activity for your own Christmas.

A far-off friend, Trudy Wischemann, who writes newspaper columns from Tulare County, on the Eastern borders of California's Central Valley, is telling her readers that "the true message of Christmas" is that "things could be different, better." 

I'm with Trudy on that! Things could be different. And better. Jesus' birth does promise that, too. However, I don't think anyone is going to give us that gift without us choosing to change our own lives, first, and take action ourselves. I only went to theological seminary for one year (not the three years needed to complete the course, and to get the degree), but the wonderful adventure begun on Christmas, with its associated gifts, is clearly (if you read the Bible) dependent on us laying down our lives, as the way to find and hold on to that life in which things are, truly, different. 

And better!

Christmas Greetings And Good Wishes To All

oooOOOooo


Image Credit:

Wednesday, December 24, 2025

#358 / From Fleeting Virality To Fame And Cash

 

All those people pictured above are actors in a Netflix series, and are portraying a group of fame-following roommates. I, personally, think that the pink outfit, with the matching hair and heels, says an awful lot! That is definitely a vivid depiction of "fleeting virality" in its most brazen form.

Here is a link to the article, in Quartz, from which I have taken the image - and below I am providing an excerpt from that article (with emphasis added): 

The Hype Machine

Could famous people help each other become more famous? Worth a shot! Step inside the creator economy’s version of the Hollywood studio system: the hype house, in which a group of creators moves into a sprawling mansion, churns out content, and hopes to turn fleeting virality into less-fleeting fame and cash. Made famous by TikTok, the concept has also cropped up on Instagram and YouTube. But whatever platform it perches on, the hype house model always walks a tightrope: ambition vs. flameout, glamour vs. desperation. 
The history dates back to 2019, when TikTokers Chase Hudson and Thomas Petrou launched the original Hype House near Los Angeles. They borrowed the idea from earlier YouTube “collab houses” like Team 10. But TikTok’s short, addictive clips accelerated the cycle: More videos meant more chances to go viral. The mansions themselves became co-stars, their marble kitchens, walk-in closets, and backyard pools becoming instantly recognizable backdrops. And now, because everything old is new again, the hype house is finding its way into more traditional media, from TV to novels. 
The hype house formula is being canonized — and parodied — by mainstream culture. Netflix’s short-lived reality series Hype House followed a cast of young influencers as they navigated friendship, business, and burnout inside the original LA mansion. The show was supposed to cement the group’s crossover into mainstream celebrity. Instead, it underscored how quickly hype houses generate melodrama. Perhaps unsurprisingly, constant filming and the pressure to monetize every moment make for combustible living conditions. 
Even as the first wave burned out, the model proliferated. Collab mansions have sprung up across Los Angeles, Miami, and Atlanta, and internationally. Landlords now advertise properties as “ideal for content houses.” For investors, a hype house is an asset class — a bet that one viral clip could pay off a six-figure lease. For neighbors, meanwhile, they’re often a nuisance, bringing noise and traffic. 
The content mansion has now become a metaphor for both limitless aspiration and its lurking costs. “We used to hear stories of young models and actresses being stopped by talent scouts at the mall; now creators like Addison Rae or Alex Warren use TikTok to build fandoms that they can leverage into lucrative careers as entertainers,” says the novelist Leigh Stein, whose new book is a gothic mystery set in a haunted hype house — the first such novel of its kind. In the end, Stein says, hype houses are really “unregulated factories,” meaning the haunting is literal as it is figurative.

I came across the Quartz article discussing "hype houses," and "content mansions" shortly after reading an online article that told me that "more than half of those born from 1997 - 2012 [our so-called "Gen Z"] say a career as a full-time influencer or content creator is their ideal career."

I note that the kind of communal housing arrangement being discussed in the article is not, apparently, an evidence that those inhabiting the "content house" have "found some friends," at least not in the way I am always advising is desirable. 

Every person in the "content house" is operating individually, each of them seeking individual fame and fortune. Please do note, also, how that word "content" is being pronounced in the excerpt furnished above. We are not speaking here of a house of "content," or "contentment," when that spelling and pronunciation indicates a different idea entirely, the idea that one is happy and satisfied with one's situation.

I continue to advise that we should all be on the lookout, and should be trying, to "find some friends." I am making that recommendation, though, because I am suggesting that  our "salvation," and I use the word intentionally, will be the product of our common and collective efforts, and will not derive from individualistic efforts to chase fame, fortune, and "influence." 

 
Image Credit:
https://editor.ne16.com/vo/?FileID=34e5b717-1099-47d2-b4ba-c6e2d7713ea1&m=3734bf1f-433b-4137-878f-28c6aeeeb135&MailID=9435447&listid=1009235&RecipientID=12820411510

Tuesday, December 23, 2025

#357 / There Will Be Another Pandemic

 

The prediction I have commandeered as my title, today, comes from a New York Times' Opinion column by David Wallace-Wells. The column, published on November 26, 2025, was titled this way, in the hard copy edition of the paper: "There Will Be Another Pandemic. How Will We Respond?" The title online is significantly different. I'll reveal that later.

My comment on the Wallace-Wells' column is, actually, a comment on a specific statement made in that column, but before I cite to that statement, and then outline my reaction to it, let me give you an overview of Wallace-Wells' opinion piece. Basically, Wallace-Wells is taking exception to something that the current director of the National Institutes of Health said, when the director (Jay Bhattacharya) was asked what we should do, in the event of another sudden pandemic. 

Well, what should we do, according to Jay Bhattacharya? The answer: "Nothing." 

"Nothing" is the "blunt answer" that Wallace-Wells' gives us as his summary of the advice being dished out by the current director of our National Institutes of Health. Please allow me to associate myself with Wallace-Wells' reaction to this "do nothing" pronouncement. Wallace-Wells disagrees with that "do nothing" prescription, but in fairness to Bhattacharya, it appears that his actual advice is not, exactly, to "do nothing." What Bhattacharya actually thinks is revealed in the title used in the online edition of Wallace-Wells' column: "We Can’t Diet and Exercise Our Way Out of the Next Pandemic." 

Bhattacharya doesn't actually recommend "nothing." He recommends individual diet and exercise as the way to prepare for the possibility of another sudden pandemic - and apparently thinks that such individual action is also the right way to react to the reality of such a pandemic, if or when one appears. Other healthy habits are also endorsed. 

Here's from the column, with Wallace-Wells' reaction: 

Perhaps this sounds half reasonable since, theoretically, a healthier population should fare better facing any health threat. Or perhaps it sounds like eugenics, since it suggests that we should think of infectious disease as a kind of fitness test for the country — and should worry more about getting Americans to pass that test than about protecting those who can’t. How exactly might we go about doing that? “By stopping smoking, controlling hypertension or diabetes, or getting up and walking more,” Bhattacharya and Memoli write.

This is all fine as generic health advice, of course. But 38 million Americans have diabetes. More than 100 million have heart disease. More than 100 million are obese. Massively improve those numbers and there will still be tens of millions staring down a novel pathogen in ill health. And as a program of pandemic response? Like much of MAHA, it is magical thinking that has the secondary effect of laying responsibility for public health outcomes at the feet of the individual (emphasis added).

Bhattacharya, in other words, believes that individual action is the correct preparation for and response to a pandemic, which, as the definition of "pandemic" makes clear, means that the same disease is being experienced by (almost) everyone, and is, typically, worldwide in extent. 

Are we "in this together," or not? A "pandemic" is one very clear indication that we are, ultimately, not just individuals, but that we are, beyond that, part of the whole. [Cite here to John Donne].

If Donne (and Wallace-Wells) are right (and I'm associating myself with them; I think they're right), then WE need to prepare for a pandemic. I am using the plural: "we." Action is needed, and it needs to be "collective" action not "individual" action.

That is true of virtually every important issue confronting us now: the economy; the housing crisis; the growing threat posed by nuclear weapons; and... let's not forget it: Global Warming. 

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls, individual. It tolls for thee. John Donne is reminding us - and I am passing on this reminder - we are "in this together."


Image Credit:

Monday, December 22, 2025

#356 / Wrong, Wrong, Wrong

 


Let me alert you to three letters that appeared in the Saturday, December 19, 2025, edition of The New York Times. I read these letters in the hardcopy version of the paper that is delivered to my home each morning. Online, the letters are gathered together under this title: "Trump’s Drone Strikes Are Wrong. Obama’s Were, Too."

It is worth noting, I believe, as we consider the state of our national government, that we have a "systemic" problem, as well as having a "personnel" problem of which many of us are all too aware. Our current president exemplifies that "personnel" problem, since he obviously thinks that he can, and should, act unilaterally in matters of great national importance - basing his idea of his own powers on the fact that he is, after all, our duly-elected chief executive. 

In fact, unilateral decision-making by the president is not how our system is supposed to operate. Most consequential decisions about what our nation should do are really supposed to be made by the Congress, by its enactment of "laws" that say both what should be done, and what should not be done, and who should be doing it. The president's basic assignment is to "see that the laws are faithfully executed," which means that he should not be acting unilaterally, but should act only to execute the directions outlined in legislation. There are, granted, a few exceptions to this general rule, but what I have just stated is basically how things are supposed to work, if we look at what the Constitution says. Killing people is always "consequential," of course, and when it's done in our name, it should really be done according to some law that makes clear when, how, and why such killing has been officially directed.

Our current president doesn't act according to the Constitution. He often acts unilaterally - by so-called "Executive Orders" - and he is properly criticized for doing so. Sometimes, our current president doesn't even write down his unilateral orders. He just tells subordinates what to do (which then may allow him to deny he was even involved). The recent killings of people in small boats by the United States military (people who are allegedly drug smugglers) is a prime example of how our current president operates. I have been personally critical of our current president's unilateral decisionmaking, as can be seen from many of my blog postings. My friends and associates frequently make the same point. So do people who write letters to the editor in my hometown newspaper. 

This brings me to those three letters in The Times. Below, I am providing a brief summary of each one of them. If The Times paywall policies allow, you can click that link in the first paragraph and then read these letters in their entirety.
#1

The recent lethal American strikes on boats in the Caribbean, which are not part of an armed conflict, are illegal. They are murders. But when Mr. Johnson, a former Obama administration official, insists that there is “a world of legal and moral differences” that separate these attacks from the targeted killings that the Obama administration regularly engaged in, he’s not telling the complete story. 
First, Mr. Johnson’s defense of President Barack Obama’s strikes — well more than 500 of them, which killed nearly 4,000 people, including as many as 800 civilians — boils down to his claims that officials in that administration took the law seriously, and engaged in remote-control killings only after soberly determining that they were “necessary to protect American lives.” 
Brett Max Kaufman, New York 
The writer is a senior staff attorney in the American Civil Liberties Union’s Center for Democracy.

#2 

Jeh C. Johnson’s condemnation of the Trump administration’s recent strikes on boats in the Caribbean appears to be either ironic or lacking in self-awareness.

While Mr. Johnson argues that Congress gave “implicit” authorization for the Obama administration’s targeted killings in Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia — a claim many national security lawyers like me strongly disagree with — it is undeniable that this policy opened the door to what is playing out now off the coast of Latin America.

J. Wells Dixon, New York 
The writer is a senior staff attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights.

 #3

During my time as a law enforcement officer, I was forbidden to use deadly force against fleeing felons and justified to use it only when someone posed a grave and imminent threat to my life or another person’s life. Otherwise, the use of such force would be an extrajudicial killing — essentially, carrying out a death penalty without a trial.

Tobias Winright, Maynooth, Ireland

The writer is a professor of moral theology at St. Patrick’s Pontifical University who specializes in the ethics of war and peace.

As we consider what is being done in our name, today, with the U.S. military blasting small boats out of the water, killing everyone on the boats, let's recognize the problem as "systemic." If we care about the "Moral," and "Political," and "Practical" aspects of what is being done in our name, we have to insist that those representing us address just when, where, and why our armed forces will be sent out to kill people. 

As the three letters I have excerpted above point out, what has been happening is (1) Wrong, (2) Wrong, (3) Wrong - and it is not just our current president who is responsible for wrong actions taken in our name.

Today, we need to make sure that our elected representatives don't shrug and move on - as has happened in the past. A president who is probably pretty popular with many of those who do not have a high regard for our current chief executive - I am referring to former president Obama - killed many more, in our name. So, "systemic" is the proper way to categorize our problem.

Today, and in the past, what our presidents have done in our name has been Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!