#320 / Federal Control Over Elections

     

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I served as a Santa Cruz County Supervisor for twenty years, from 1975 to 1995, and with my background as a locally-elected official it is obviously no surprise that I have always liked the claim by Tip O'Neill that "all politics is local." I not only like that claim, I actually believe that O'Neill was right, and that a lot of our contemporary anxiety about the state of democracy and self-government in the United States comes from the fact that so many of us are only focusing on politics at the "national" level, where an out of control president and an apparently brain dead Congress draw everyone's attention. 

Considering my commitment to "progressive" politics, it might surprise some to learn that I am a big fan of "states rights," too. Within the context of our national politics, "state" level political power is how that "all politics is local" phrase gets played out in real life, and how autocratic federal overreach is stymied. The Constitution explicitly sets up the states as independent political powers, capable of resisting any incipient autocracy. We're watching that in live action, and so far the independence of our state level governments has been a bulwark against claims of federal autocracy. 

Below, I am providing you with the complete text of an up to the date commentary by David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker. It's pretty short, and I commend it to you. Remnick is alerting readers to the fact that our current president is claiming that the federal government should be in charge of our elections. That is directly contrary to what the Constitution calls for, but no surprise, right? This is the president who has declared that what "he alone" thinks, and wants, is all that matters.

At the local level (and at the state level, with reference to national politics), it is easier for an individual, or a small group, to have an impact, and make difference in what the government decides to do, and then actually does. When individuals and small groups contemplate governmental and political decision-making at the national level, what happens is that citizens most frequently turn into "observers" of what the government is doing to them (or "for them," as those with national power would obviously prefer to say). 

A government "by the people," means that you and I actually decide what the government does. We are "actors," not just "observers." Acting "locally," and at the state level, we the people need to be vigilant, and ensure that our democratic control over the elections that determine what happens, governmentally, is not hijacked by claims that the "national" government should be the government that decides how our elections are run. 

oooOOOooo

David Remnick

Donald Trump has made no secret of his desire to assert federal control over elections. From the beginning of his second term, he has issued executive orders attempting to restrict voter registration, impose new regulations on voting machines, and limit voting by mail. (Most of these have been blocked by the courts.) And attempts to seize power over voting have come from every corner of the executive branch: an F.B.I. raid of election offices in Georgia in January, mounting lawsuits against states by the Justice Department, and warnings that armed ICE agents may be sent to the polls this fall.

How big a threat is Trump to the midterms? In this week’s issue, Barton Gellman, whose writing ahead of the 2020 election anticipated key maneuvers that Trump and his allies would pursue to try to overturn that result, reports on what might happen this year. First, the good news: there is little evidence of a master plan. As a former senior trial attorney in the D.O.J.’s voting section tells Gellman, there has been “no coherent strategy” from the Administration to upend the midterms. “There’s malevolence, but there’s a lot of incompetence,” he added, noting the near legal wipeout that Trump’s lawyers have experienced in courtrooms across the country. “They don’t have a single success.

Gellman writes that even Trump’s marginal influence on voting could have an impact on close races this year. And he reports on the scenarios that some local election officials have been preparing for—all centered on the fear “that the President could do something new and outlandishly lawless on or close to Election Day.” Here’s just one nightmarish, if unlikely, hypothetical: suppose that the F.B.I. shows up at a polling place and seizes ballots or voting machines, citing some suspected irregularity, and breaks the chain of custody and leaves actual results in doubt. But that would take getting a warrant from a judge—as one expert puts it, “extremely unlikely yet disastrous if it happens.”

Much of the hope for the nation’s election integrity this cycle rests on local officials, including Republicans, who have stood up to immense pressure from Trump, and even faced death threats from strangers. Gellman profiles the lieutenant governor of Utah, Deidre Henderson, who is tasked with running the state’s elections, and has fought a lonely, and boldly public, battle for the rule of law. “It sure looks like they’re trying to take over control of elections to make sure only people they want to vote are voting,” Henderson tells Gellman, about the Administration’s actions. “To me, as an American and a Republican, it’s offensive" (emphasis added).

Image Credit:

https://links.newyorker.com/e/evib?_t=9a84f632c984499f97f4fb666cbf1db1&_m=638fa25436b74b94b2879a52d21749a0&_e=eYPQwn-SriV4PtJjJouCGyzSOxrSRXsfCeSqDpJ91ZFM5lOua0I8f2nsuIaVSLVRHNofrYU86Z8UVsTF0VELVQ%3D%3D

#305 / The Christian Moral High Ground

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That's James Talarico, pictured above at the upper right. Talarico is a Democrat, and is running for a seat in the United States Senate. In Texas! In a couple of days, we're going to find out whether or not Talarico was able to win that Senate seat. Ordinarily, he would not be given any chance to win, at all. Texas is nothing if not "Republican." However, things are actually looking pretty good for Talarico. It will be interesting to see if he pulls off the upset that increasingly seems possible. 

Today, I am responding to an article that appeared in The New York Times Magazine on Sunday, September 27, 2026. The article, by Jia Lynn Yang, is titled as follows: "Can Democrats Reclaim The Christian Moral High Ground?" Here's how that article begins, and it does seem that Talarico is placing a lot of emphasis on his Christian faith: 

When James Talarico, the Texas Democrat running for the Senate, appeared on Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show this month, he put forward a question that many American millennials may recall from the cloth bracelets that were de rigueur among Christian youth groups in the 1990s. 

“I often wonder,” Talarico said, “What would Jesus do if he visited the U.S. Senate?” 

“I think he would tell the senators on the floor, ‘Depart from me,’” Talarico said, quoting Jesus Christ when he describes in the Sermon on the Mount how he will cast out false prophets from his heavenly kingdom. 

Then Talarico gained more steam. “For I was hungry and you cut my food assistance. I was sick and you kicked me off Medicaid. I was a stranger and you deported me and my family. And then I think he would flip over those fancy desks on the floor of the U.S. Senate and demand that we take care of all of our neighbors, especially the least of these.” 

The audience broke into cheers before he had even finished. 

The interview has been viewed more than 11 million times (emphasis added).

I am more of a "reader" than a "viewer," which means that while I had read a lot about Talarico, I had never actually seen him - not until I stopped reading Yang's article and clicked that link she provided. I have to say, I was impressed!

I was also impressed with Yang's discussion about how the relationship of Christianity to our politics may actually be changing (emphasis added):

According to the historian Matthew Avery Sutton, in the second half of the 20th century, the United Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians lost more than half of their members. During the same period, Southern Baptists grew by 37 percent, as they unabashedly proclaimed a Christian vision for the whole nation. 

These conservatives found a political home in the Republican Party. The historian Randall Balmer traces the beginning of the alliance to a fight in the 1970s over the tax-exempt status of racially segregated private schools.... A few years later, activists like Paul Weyrich engineered abortion as an important evangelical cause by hitching it to concerns over the changing role of women in society. 

These conservatives laid claim to Christianity as a political ethos. “When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to recreate this great nation,” wrote Weyrich, who was also a co-founder of the Heritage Foundation. 

The claim to a “moral majority,” though, was always dubious. Millions of Black churchgoers never acceded to the political program of the white evangelicals. Nor did many who remained in the mainline churches. Instead, evangelical conservatives took on the identity of a persecuted minority as the country embraced divorce and gay marriage. Punching back from their enviable perch in the Republican Party, they saw the achievement of once-unthinkable goals, like overturning the right to an abortion in 2022. The alliance persists today. White evangelicals remain Trump’s most loyal backers. 

But its control over the G.O.P. may be weakening. “The religious right had its moment, and the coalition can’t last forever,” says Ryan Burge, a political scientist focused on American religious demographics at Washington University in St. Louis.... Candidates like Talarico are unsettling the public vocabulary of Christianity, which remains America’s moral lingua franca, no matter how many pews are empty on Sunday. The Republican base, meanwhile, is itself becoming steadily less devout. In 2007, nearly half of all Republican voters attended a religious service at least once a week. By 2023-24, that figure had dropped to one-third, according to Pew.... 

That same study found that half of Democrats still identify as Christian, making them the largest group in the party. (Among these, about a third are Catholic, a population that doesn’t lean hard to one party or the other.) Some 40 percent of Democrats say they have no religious affiliation, but even many of these say they believe in God or have a Christian background. 

But for now, the conservatives are jealously guarding their position. In Texas this month, at the Republican National Committee’s midterm convention, the evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Dallas called Talarico’s views “blasphemous.” 

“James Talarico believes that all religions are equally valid and are simply different truths or different paths up the same mountain of truth,” he said. “But Jesus Christ disagrees with James Talarico. In John 14:6, Jesus said: ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but by me.’”

I don't know what Talarico has, specifically, said about "salvation," but I would like to suggest to Pastor Jeffress that he spend a little time reading up on what a good many theologians think about John 14:6. My understanding, from my one year at Union Theological Seminary as a Rockefeller Brothers' Fellow, is that what Jesus said in that Bible verse does not, in fact, have Jesus claiming that only those who specifically identify as "Christians" will be "saved" (to use that terminology). 

That verse from John can (and I think should) be read as Jesus saying, in fact, the exact opposite of what Pastor Jeffress is claiming. Jesus was telling his disciples that anyone who "comes to the Father," however she or he gets there, and whatever words that person may use, is in fact going to be received and welcomed, just as those who profess the name of Jesus will be received, because Jesus is "the way, the truth, and the life." Anyone who "comes to the Father," however they get there, will be getting there by way of Jesus, by God's grace. 

Finding ways to divide, deny, and discriminate against those searching for God, who don't use the specific words that Pastor Jeffress elevates as the linguistic formula for salvation, is the very opposite of what Jesus has told those who have "ears to hear." 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/21/magazine/talarico-christian-pastors-democrats.html

#304 / Democratic Socialism

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Kimberley Strassel is a columnist and a member of the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal, where she has worked since 1994. That is her picture, above. By clicking this link, you can read what Strassel has to say about the dangers of "Democratic Socialism." The link will take you to an excerpt from the text of a talk Strassel gave, as printed in "Imprimis." "Imprimis" is a free monthly speech digest published by Hillsdale College, which is where Strassel gave her speech. You can see a video of Strassel's presentation by clicking here. 

The video, in particular, shows Strassel demeaning and denigrating the Democratic Party, and "Socialism." In the written text, a number of her most snarky comments are omitted, but make no mistake, Strassel identifies "Socialism" as a clear and present danger to our democratic way of life. I don't think Strassel uses the term "imminent threat," but that is the sense of what she's saying. 

I, personally, think that "-isms" are almost always unhelpful in understanding both what exists already, and what may be "possible." Strassel's speech is "name-calling," pure and simple, and she implies that if anyone mentions the word "socialism" (as, for instance, by someone who says that he or she is a "democratic" socialist) what is really being suggested is the confiscation of all private property, and the institution of a totalitarian state. I don't say that Strassel's speech exactly equates "democratic socialism" with the confiscation of all private property and the institution of a totalitarian regime, but that is the basic idea she is presenting. She is warning young students at Hillsdale College to stay away from people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Strassel makes no comment noting the deficiencies of our current political situation, in which our Constitution is being bypassed by an autocratic president, unchecked by our elected officials in Congress.

I am not a big fan of "-isms," as I just said - and that includes "Democratic Socialism." What I am in favor of is a government of, by, and for the people. Do I think it would be good for us to decide to increase taxes on those who have plenty ("trillionaires," for instance), and then use those tax proceeds to benefit everyone, and improve housing, healthcare, and educational opportunities for those who don't currently have access to housing, healthcare, and education? 

Yes. I do think that would be a good thing. But how to get there? That's what "politics" is supposed to be all about. I don't care about the "label." I'm interested in the substantive proposals - and the practicality and desirability of those proposals. Confiscating all private property? Nope! I'm not for that. I'm no "Democratic Socialist," if that is what that label is supposed to mean. 

"Self-government," though? I am in favor of that, and that means that "we, the people" need to understand, and then exercise, our political power, by winning elections and then insisting and insuring that our elected officials are governing as promised to those who cast their votes for those candidates who won. The upcoming election may, or may not, change the current composition of Congress, in terms of "party" alignment. Whatever those newly-elected officials choose to call themselves, the important thing is what they will work to accomplish. 

Compromise will be required!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0IaOh35N10

#303 / Am I (Are We) Superfluous?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Meriam Webster

superfluous (adjective)

b: not needed : unnecessary

To be honest, I haven't been feeling "unnecessary" lately. On the other hand, though, I have never used one of the abundant Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) tools that are ever more attractive (or so it would seem) to so many in our society, including some of my own family and friends. 

To be really clear about things, I have NEVER used A.I., and I don't intend to, EVER! 

A recent article in The New York Times, though, makes me wonder just how common it is for people to refuse to make use of the "help" that A.I. can provide. The article I am referencing was titled, "A.I. Detection Helps Ensnare Professors, Too." The article appeared on the front page of the October 1, 2026 hardcopy edition of The Times that I picked up early on that Thursday morning. Online, the title is different, but you should be able to read the article in its entirety by clicking the link that I have provided. 

Students at Dartmouth College have apparently "outed" Professor Santiago Schnell, after the student-run college newspaper found that some of Dr. Schnell's published writings appeared to have been written by A.I.. Dr. Schnell is a "mathematical biologist," and he has, I gather, apologized for his use of A.I.. Nonetheless, so The Times reports, Dartmouth College is now officially "investigating" Dr. Schnell.

I think the article I am highlighting is worth reading, in its entirety. The main message it sent to me is that many "academics" are now utilizing A.I. to do their writing for them, which, after all, is somewhat understandable, given that A.I. tools are based on computer programs that call upon almost the entirety of published human thought. Given that, why wouldn't someone utilize A.I. to do his or her writing, and by doing so have the benefit of all that accumulated wisdom?

Well, here's the reason that I am abjuring any use of A.I., ever. I do not want to become "superfluous." If we believe that pretty much any thought worth thinking has already been thought, and expressed, somewhere, why should I spend days, weeks, months, or years writing about some topic that A.I. already "knows about?"

Well, grandiose guy that I am, I do NOT believe that prior thoughts and ideas are necessarily going to turn out to be better than my own. Who said, "I think, therefore I am?" This phrase reads as follows in the Latin, for those aspiring to be a little bit grandiose themselves: "Cogito Ergo Sum." This observation is credited to René Descartes, and its powerful implications are best appreciated when one grapples with the idea that one's own existence depends upon his or her personal "thoughts." In other words, if I am not "thinking for myself," I might as well not even exist, at all. I would properly be considered "superfluous." 

I have never, ever met another person whom I believe is "superfluous." We are, each one of us, amazing and wonderful creatures, with the potential to "change the world," and to accomplish something never ever thought about or even imagined before.

Let's not forget that! And if we don't want to forget that, relying on A.I. to substitute in for our own thinking and work is contraindicated.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.rd.com/article/how-words-get-added-to-the-dictionary/

#302 / Self-Help?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I was immediately impressed by an opinion piece I read in The New York Times, way back at the end of August. Here's the online title: "I Study Successful People. They Have One Habit in Common." If you click that link, you should be able to read the entirety of what Angela Duckworth has to say, even if you are not, yourself, a subscriber to The Times. Duckworth is, among other things, the author of the forthcoming book, “Situated: Find the People and Places That Bring Out Your Best.”

So, what is that "one habit" that can help you become a "successful person." It's simple!

ASK FOR HELP!

Duckworth's prescription for prime performance goes right along with what I always say about politics, and about how to build and sustain our "Political World." 

We're In This Together!

Since we are in this together, we need to help each other out. Find some friends. Join a club. 

ASK FOR HELP!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/28/opinion/successful-people-help.html

#301 / Can We Save Democracy?

    

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The October 2026 edition of The Nation magazine has an article by Osita Nwanevu that asks a pertinent question: "Can We Save Democracy?" The article is mainly focused on a book by Hélène Landemore, a professor of political science at Yale University. According to Nwanevu, Landemore does not believe that democracy can be saved. Landemore's thesis rests on the idea that what we really need is a "Politics Without Politicians." That is, by the way, the title of Landemore's book. 

That same edition of The Nation also had an article by Ben Winkler, "The Plan To Supercharge American Democracy." Winkler's article says that democracy is in danger, but can be saved. He warns readers, however, that three fundamental principles must be kept in mind (emphasis added): 

First: Your superpower is not just your vote, but your power to organize, to persuade, and above all to join or bring together a group of like-minded people to make grassroots engagement a part of your lives, week after week, year after year, election after election.

Second: Your modus operandi should be to organize and advocate where you are, affecting elections in which you’re a constituent and seeking to affect the decisions of your own elected officials— and, at the same time, lend a long-distance hand to those on the front lines of the fight, in the tipping-point states, districts, and battles across the country where a little change can make a huge difference. 

And third: remember that the potential voters whose votes are most pivotal—those who rarely vote, or who switch parties—are often the people who are thinking about politics the least. If you want to persuade them, don’t lecture. Listen to them about what they care about, find out where it intersects with what you care about, and then find a basis for common action.

Anyone who has been reading my daily blog postings will know that I endorse the prescription advocated by Winkler, with the first priority being to "join or bring together a group of like-minded people [and] to make grassroots engagement a part of our lives...."

Santa Cruz "locals" have been known to do just that, and with important impacts on what actually happens. 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.thenation.com/article/society/helene-landemore-democracy-popular-government/

(2) - Gary Patton personal phto

#300 / Is Depravity Disqualifying?

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Click right here to read an opinion column by Michelle Goldberg, published in The New York Times on Saturday, October 24th. Goldberg's column is titled (hard copy version) "The Republican War Over Ramaswamy's Vile Ad." Goldberg says it may be "the most disgusting ad in American political history." You probably know all about it, and this blog posting isn't where you are finding out about the ad - a political advertisement fully supported by our current president, who is shown with a typical expression on his face in the image above. 

Goldberg's column is intended to make people think about the Trump presidency. Here's how Goldberg puts it: "If conservatives were to suddenly decide that moral depravity is disqualifying, it would be bad news for Trump and those closest to him." A "pull quote," in bold type (hard copy version), says this: "The G.O.P. is finally reckoning with Trump's depravity." 

According to Merriam Webster, "depravity" is "a corrupt act or practice." 

The "depravity" displayed by our current president goes far beyond "moral depravity." Let's see what happens on November 3rd. 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/23/opinion/acton-ramaswamy-ad-trump-ohio.html

#299 / Those Iron Laws That Rule The World

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Stephen Miller, pictured above, is White House Deputy Chief of Staff For Policy. Here is Miller's statement about how the world works (as gleaned from an editorial statement in the Fall 2026 edition of Sierra Magazine, on pages 2-3): 

While speaking about the abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, Miller offered a philosophical premise to justify it: "We live in a world - in the real world - that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. Those are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time."

The Sierra Magazine editorial statement from which I have pulled this quotation is titled, "When We Were Partners." I believe, if you click the link in my first paragraph, that you'll be able to read the whole statement. "Partners" sounds a lot better to me than those so-called "iron laws" that Miller postulates are what rule the world. 

I don't buy Miller's claim. In fact, the real "laws" that govern the World of Nature, and that govern our own world, when it's running right, are not those identified by Miller, but those that carry forward the following insight into how "reality" is structured: We are "in this together." I was moved by a recent account, drawn to my attention in a Facebook posting, of how this care and concern for one another is evident even across the most improbable boundaries. Our "neighbors" are everywhere, in the deepest oceans, and on land and in the air. 

"Partners" is how "politics" works, too - when "politics" is working. We all know it, and what Stephen Miller has to say, along with his boss, our current president, is just simply wrong!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/stephen-miller-racist-emails-immigrants/

#298 / Water Mining

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Trudy Wischemann writes a weekly column for a couple of Central Valley newspapers, and I religiously read those columns. One of her recent columns is titled, "Without Shelter," and it actually begins with a "religious" reference. Clicking the link just provided should get you there. Here's how her column opens:

Every man will sit under his own vine
and under his own fig tree,
and no one will make them afraid.

Micah 4:4

As you might guess from that quotation from the Bible, Wischemann's recent column speaks to the issue of homelessness, and denounces the activities of ICE, which has been "capturing people in Mendota, [and] stripping them from whatever place they’ve found or made in that small town." Wischemann's column also speaks to another issue, "water mining." 

I am betting that many of those who might read this blog posting will not, at least immediately, understand the term "water mining," and understand what "water mining" is all about. Wischemann's column and the image below should help make it all clear. It's almost unbelievable to find out that past pumping of groundwater in the Central Valley caused the kind of land subsidence that this picture demonstrates has occurred: 

In case the picture isn't completely self-explanatory, let me indicate that the level of the ground, in 1925, was at the place indicated on that very tall power pole. In 1977, the man standing at the base of the pole shows its then-current level. That much subsidence, from 1925 to 1977, was caused by removing groundwater. It's still happening. 

Now, however, and this is the point made by Wischemann, the water being pumped out of the ground may well, as in the example she cites, not be used to grow crops on land from under which the water comes. Instead, wealthy landowners are selling water to those not located in the places from which the water is being pumped. Instead, the water is being "exported" and "sold" to those located elsewhere. Water is being treated as a "commodity," and is being exported to those who can pay more than those who would otherwise be able to use the water to grow crops and to support their families. 

Wischemann doesn't spend a lot of time elaborating on the philosophical or "theological" implications of what is happening, so let me make an observation that tries to raise such issues.

We, human beings, depend on  the "World of Nature," the "World That God Created." When we act as if we can do anything we want, with respect to the natural environment, we undermine the continued existence of our human civilization, and of the "Political World" in which we most immediately live. I have written out an extensive discussion of this fundamental reality in a recent blog posting titled, "Letter To A (Potential) Law Student." My blog posting was published on October 20th. Wischemann's column was published a day later, on October 21st. 

We are both on to something! Something important!!

If we want to be "environmentalists" (and don't we all?), we had better start being more effective political actors, or our homes will dry up and blow away, as the power of money, and human greed, displace Central Valley residents, and all of us, and undermine the wonderful world that provides us with plenty. 

Make no mistake, our fate is sealed if we are so greedy and blind as to think that we don't have to live within the natural limits of that "World That God Created."

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://thesungazette.com/article/opinion/2026/10/21/without-shelter/

)2) - https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/location-maximum-land-subsidence-us-levels-1925-and-1977

#297 / While Money Doesn't Talk, It Swears

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

Those reading this blog posting may, or may not, recognize the "Money doesn't talk, it swears" reference. It comes from Bob Dylan's 1965 song, "It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)." If you click that link you'll be taken to the official lyrics, on the Bob Dylan website. Clicking here, on the other hand, will take you to a YouTube rendition, played by Bob Dylan himself. 

As another alternative, you can try this third link. That link should get you to an article published in the Saturday-Sunday, August 1-2, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal. Online, the article has the following title: "'The Boss Wants This Money’: Inside Trump’s Unprecedented Fundraising Operation." That link will get you to the article, too, and even non-subscribers should be able to read the entire story. 

The Wall Street Journal article outlines the work undertaken by Meredith O'Rourke, who is described as our current president's "fundraiser." She is, in other words, the Natalie Harp for money. On virtually every evening, it appears, our current president calls up Ms. O'Rourke to go over a list of people to call on his behalf, along with the sums that Ms. O'Rourke is supposed to demand that they pay into our current president's campaign coffers:

Trump asks O’Rourke which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much. He often asks her to make much larger financial requests than she was planning—for some donors the ask is $5 million, for others it is $50 million. And the president gives her names to call, often including people who have recently met with him, according to people with knowledge of the calls. 

“This is very important to the president. He’s asked me to call you and ask you for this donation,” O’Rourke has relayed on phone calls with companies, persistently following up with them. In some calls, she has referred to Trump as the boss, saying “the boss wants this money.” In turn, Trump has called her the “princess of darkness” because she is such a “killer” with donors, according to people who have heard his comments.... 

Trump stands out for taking personal control of the fundraising, and no sitting American president has ever raised these amounts for his pet projects. At the same time, companies have paid new attention to the White House as Trump has gotten involved in regulatory decisions that once were made by independent agencies, dramatically shifting the balance of power across Washington. 

No laws prohibit presidents from raising unlimited sums of money for nonprofits, like the ones used for the ballroom and his presidential library, his super PAC or political issue committees. For most of these types of transactions, public disclosure of donors isn’t required and reporting on spending is infrequent. 

All told, the second-term president has raised more than $800 million since returning to office, according to an updated Wall Street Journal analysis.

The story continues. I encourage you to read the whole thing. If you do, I am betting that you will be as offended as I was at what our current president is doing, essentially selling governmental decisions for money paid to him, to use as he wants. 

Bob Dylan's lyrics are right on target, and I believe that we all understand that the problem doesn't disappear when our current president does. 

That would help, of course, but I hope it's pretty clear that "we, the people," are going to have to insist that fundamental changes be made. Won't be easy. But I am here to tell you that it can be done. 

Has to be done, if we ever want to regain a working system of self-government in these United States of America - and if we ever want to have a government that isn't "phony."

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://josephhollander.com/news-blog/illegal-large-amounts-cash/

#296 / Not "Red," Not "Blue," But Something New

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The most current edition of Mother Jones is focused on the following question: "Is MAHA Breaking Up?" A worried-looking RFK is pictured on the cover of the November-December issue of the magazine, with that question prominently featured along with the picture of RFK.

Frankly, I was not all that interested in RFK, and was most interested in a stand alone article by Tim Murphy, reporting on the Governor's race in Iowa. That guy standing up in the middle of the picture above is Rob Sand. He is running for Governor in Iowa, and he is running as a Democrat. The last time a Democrat was elected Governor of Iowa was in 2006 - twenty years ago.

I am not positive that non-subscribers to Mother Jones will be able to read the article, but I hope they can. The title is, "Won't You Be My Neighbor?" Sand does seem to project the same kind of vibe as "Mister Rogers," who made that phrase famous!

Here's the part of the article in Mother Jones that captured my attention: 

Temperamentally evenhanded, [Sand] is a zealot about polarization. Sand does not want to turn a red state blue.... He wants to be the candidate who gets you to stop thinking like that altogether. 

This sounds very much like what I have been urging in a number of my blog postings. Polarization, I'm convinced, is not the friend of those who are longing for an effective politics. Does Sand have a chance? Well, I'm going to be tuning in for the results in Iowa, when I wake up in the morning on November 4th!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/09/rob-sand-says-he-isnt-trying-to-turn-iowa-blue-it-just-might-happen-anyway/

#295 / Trifecta Of Evil

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The July/August 2026, edition of The Nation Magazine explores "250 Years In Search Of A More Perfect Union." I recommend this edition of the magazine to you, and I hope that clicking the link above will let even non-subscribers review all of the various perspectives that the magazine has provided, as it considers the 250th Anniversary of the American Revolution. 

Let me, here, draw special attention to a commentary by Elie Mystal. "Re-Righting The Constitution" is the "hardcopy" version of the headline to his commentary. Online, Mystal's commentary is titled, "Will America Ever Give White-Man Rights To Everyone Else?" Here's a portion of Mystal's commentary that I particularly want to highlight (emphasis added): 

You don’t need to be a Puritan to recognize that this country was born in sin. The early generations of Americans stole land, murdered the people living on that land, and then forced enslaved people to work the land they’d stolen. That’s a trifecta of evil so twisted that nobody would believe it if you wrote it as the backstory for a dystopian empire that rebels had to take down with laser swords. 

For all the founding documents’ grandiose talk about self-evident truths and inalienable rights, neither the white man’s Declaration of Independence nor his Constitution conferred any rights or liberties on Indigenous peoples, enslaved Africans, women, children, or poor people. These documents—and the political philosophy around which they were organized—were written by rich white men for the benefit of rich white men, and this country has never for a day recovered from their failure. 

We’ve tried to fix this thing. At every point in US history, people have worked desperately to perfect our Constitution and make it applicable to all of the people living under its principles. But we’ve never addressed the structural failures of our Constitution, and so we’ve really only ever addressed the symptoms of our dysfunction, not root causes. 

The core failure of our Constitution is that it is based on individual political and civil rights, with no mention of economic or social rights. It’s based on what we call “negative rights”: things that the government cannot do to its citizens. What’s missing is a robust conception of “positive rights”: the things that the government must do for its citizens. Indeed, there have been efforts, led by the Supreme Court, to “calcify” the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties” and nothing more. It’s a mistake that we keep making.

I can't really deny Mystal's argument that the "trifecta of evil" that he describes is, in fact, a fair way to characterize much of our nation's "origin story." I do think, though, that Mystal's "trifecta" is only a "part," not the entirety, of the foundation upon which our national history has been built. I also do endorse Mystal's suggestion that our basic laws and the structure of our government should recognize what might be called "affirmative" rights - our right to have the government act, positively, on our behalf. 

Let us not forget, though, that "we, the people," are the government, and that our Constitution not only "permits," but in fact "requires" us to act, positively, on our own behalf. There are still efforts to deny or diminish the ability of those who are not "rich white men" to wield effective political power, but the remedy for the failures of our government to provide positive assistance to us (as we are seen both individually and collectively) is a failure that we can, in fact, remedy by our personal engagement in the task of self-government. 

It is always a temptation, all too easy to accept, to believe that what now exists (or the history of what has existed) is an actual and fair description of "reality," and can thus accurately define what is "possible." That is a mistake. 

In the "political world," a world that we make for ourselves, anything is "possible," things both "good" and "evil." There are possibilities, for instance, of things that make Mystal's "trifecta of evil" look like minor inconveniences. I am thinking, as one example, of our current president's possible decision to initiate a nuclear war, somewhere, for something that "he, alone" decides would justify that.

And on the good side? Well, how about healthcare for all? How about a collective decision that "we, the people," will provide healthy, safe housing for every person? The list of both good and bad possibilities are limitless because it really is true that the realities that ultimately define our "political world" will come from the choices we make, and the actions we take, together. 

I, personally, will always and continually resist any effort to "define" this nation by the evil it has done, and by the evil that has been done in its name. I will always, and ever, seek to define the reality of our national life by what we most deeply hope for and desire - and by what we seek to accomplish. 

Self-government - a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" - plus action to realize the possibilities that are ours to define - can relegate to history the "trifecta of evil" that we know characterized the early days of our republic. To escape the "gravity" of that "trifecta" outlined by Mystal, we must focus on our ability to create a new and contemporary "history" that can stimulate and accomplish the kind of future to which Martin Luther King, Jr. has called us. 

It is in action, always, that our dreams are made true. And (like Dr. King)....

I have a dream!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.thenation.com/issue/july-august-2026-issue/

#294 / Wanna Bet?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The Wall Street Journal, in an August 19, 2026 story by Krystal Hur, has alerted its readers that "Cantor Lets Hedge Funds Place Big Bets on Kalshi’s Prediction Markets."

You can be forgiven, I believe (I have forgiven myself), if you didn't know that "Cantor" is an investment company that offers "a full suite of global capabilities—including investment banking, capital markets, prime services, research, and asset management—backed by a team that provides tailored support to meet clients’ unique financial needs." 

If you don't know about "Kalshi," however, I think you may not have been paying enough attention to what is going on in modern America. Kalshi is a so-called, "prediction market." "Polymarket" is another one. Here's what a "prediction market" is all about, according to Wikipedia: 

Prediction markets, also known as betting markets, information markets, decision markets, idea futures, or event derivatives, are open markets that enable the prediction of specific outcomes using financial incentives. They are exchange-traded markets established for trading bets in the outcome of various events. The most common form of a prediction market is a binary option market, which will expire at the price of 0 or 100%. 

Prediction markets can be thought of as belonging to the more general concept of crowdsourcing which is specially designed to aggregate beliefs on particular topics of interest, where the market price can indicate what the crowd thinks the probability of the event is. Traders with different beliefs trade on contracts whose payoffs are related to the unknown future outcome and the market prices of the contracts are considered as the aggregated belief. 

Prediction markets are considered gambling by many governments, and are banned in some locations. Some users and researchers have reported that prediction markets are similar to gambling and can cause addiction.

If you want to invest your money, lots of companies (and individuals) are willing to advise you about your investment options, and what might be a good way to deal with future uncertainties. Will inflation continue, for instance? Maybe, or maybe not. Those who pay close attention (as investment advisors are supposed to do) are likely to have informed opinions on whether and to what extent inflation may increase, or decrease, in the future. Depending on whether future inflation is likely, or not, it might be prudent and smart to make one kind of investment - or not prudent and smart to make that investment. Cantor, for instance (even though I had never heard of it before) has traditionally based its business on providing good advice to those who have money, and who want to know what to do with that money that isn't immediately needed for food, clothing, shelter and entertainment (and, perhaps, college tuition for children or grandchildren).

It is not unusual to say that investment decisions are "bets" on the future. However, when investments are made, or not, they have traditionally been informed by an evaluation of something beyond one's personal ideas about what might happen. For instance, the fact that conditions in the Strait of Hormuz area now a significant constraint on energy availability, worldwide, is a significant factor in deciding whether or not a factory located in Germany, for instance, will likely continue to be profitable, or whether it won't. Someone deciding that the Strait of Hormuz will likely be reopened as it was prior to the war with Iran can be said to be "betting" on that outcome, as they make investment decisions, or as they provide investment advice. 

So what about "prediction markets"? Aren't the "bets" made on those "prediction markets" just the same kind of "bets"?

Actually, no. Market and investment advisors are advising their clients to "bet" on one possibility, rather than another, on the basis of the advisor's judgment related to objective realities. 

"Prediction markets" (except when distorted and "played" by those with "insider knowledge," which is another topic and a real problem) represent "bets" not on a prediction based on objective "facts," but on a prediction about what other people will think and do. "Prediction markets," in other words, are largely responsive not to "objective" facts, but to "subjective" judgments by other people making their "bets" on the same basis.

Hopefully, we can all see the difference, and thus understand that "prediction markets" are, in fact, a type of "gambling" in a way that typical  investment decisions are not. 

As you can undoubtedly see, I am advising against any "investments" in "prediction markets" when the "investor" doesn't understand that what is really going on is just gambling on a guess. I have proffered similar advice, in the past, with respect to cryptocurrency, and I continue to recommend this wonderful book: Extraordinary Popular Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds.

The folks at Cantor, to the extent that they are telling Cantor's customers and potential customers that "prediction market" bets are the same as the kind of investment "bets" they have traditionally advised about, should be ashamed of themselves!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://t2conline.com/are-stock-trading-and-betting-just-two-sides-of-the-same-coin/

#293 / Letter To A (Potential) Law Student

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Every once in a while, a young person, just getting ready to head off to law school, or maybe somebody studying to take the so-called LSAT, the "Law School Admission Test," asks me some questions about the law. Do you like being a lawyer? Do you have any tips on the LSAT? What do you think about this or that law school? Things like that. 

Recently, a young person who had just graduated from college, and was thinking of being a lawyer, and so was studying for the LSAT, asked me a question that was quite a bit more "philosophical" (or more "profound") than the kind of questions that I most typically get asked. Here was the question that this prospective law student posed to me:

Do you think that the worldly law creates freedom, or does it primarily create boundaries within which we are free?

As I say, this was not, really, the kind of question that I am normally asked, but I was happy to have been presented with that question. It's a pretty important one! Here was my reply: 

I think that the statement that “worldly law creates freedom” is pretty close to what I think. It might be more accurate to say that my view is that “worldly law” expresses our freedom, since our “freedom” is primary, in my view. 

I don’t know whether or not your idea of “worldly” law is the same as mine, but you seem clearly to think there are at least two kinds of law - the “worldly” kind and some other variety. I agree with the idea of TWO different kinds of law. The idea that there are two kinds of law came to me as a kind of revelation (it’s pretty hard, now, for me to remember exactly when that happened). I do think that there are two different kinds of law. 

My idea of “law,” prior to this “revelation,” as I have just called it, was that “law” was more or less the opposite of “freedom.” In other words, the “law” tells you what you have to do. While I don’t think I made this distinction at that time, our physical laws (which I am guessing are not the “worldly” laws you are thinking of) is what I was thinking of as the basic “law” by which we are governed. You, know, like the “law” of gravity. You can’t disobey the law of gravity (or other physical laws). 

That idea was my basic idea about “law.” The law says what must and will happen (and this is definitely true in the case of the laws that govern our physical world). While It is obviously true that we can disobey human laws, I thought that physical laws were really the only kind of law that is really “law,” so that when we came up with statements that said what should happen in our social and human-created world, we used the word “law” to indicate that you “had” to do something, or had not to do something. “Law," in other words, was always associated with “necessity,” not “freedom." 

Naturally, since human laws are obviously not like the law of gravity, I assumed that if someone “broke” the law, they should be punished. While we can violate our human laws, we aren’t supposed to, and if we do, we are, or should be, punished - and/or made to do what “the law” prescribes. I think this idea of “law” may be along the lines of “law” being a set of "boundaries within which we are free,” as you put it. This way of understanding human laws suggests that our human laws are intended to constrain what we do in a larger, overall view. 

At some point, I changed my idea about human law, and I ended up with what I decided to call my “Two Worlds Hypothesis.” My daily blog is really just a set of daily reflections on the implications of that “Two Worlds Hypothesis,” and the “Two Worlds” mentioned are (1) the "World of Nature" (in which the laws absolutely say what must and will happen - “gravity” being the go-to example) and (2) what I call the “Political World,” the world that we create by our own choices and our own actions. 

The actual title of my blog is, “We Live In A Political World.” I hope you'll read it! I have a new comment every day - and have made those daily comments for sixteen years. As for the title, we most certainly do, most “immediately,” "Live In A Political World." “Ultimately,” though, we live in the "World of Nature," where the laws are absolute and tell us what must and will happen. When we get these two “Worlds” mixed up, the problems can be severe. 

Global Warming, for instance, governed by the laws that prevail in the "World of Nature," may well kill us all off, and eliminate the “Human World” entirely. Our "Human World" depends on the "World of Nature," but since the “freedom” that we are provided in our "Political World" allows us to make choices that can conflict with the "World of Nature," we can choose to do something that might end up destroying the "Natural World," on which we ultimately depend. Global Warming could do it. So could Nuclear War.

My experience as a “politician” is what led me to the “Two Worlds” idea, and my claim is that in our “Political World,” anything is possible. The human world is created by our own choices and actions, and is a world in which our “freedom” determines what exists - and what doesn’t. The "Natural World" follows the laws of “necessity,” but our (political) world is governed by the reality of our “freedom,” and in “our” world, our “Political World," the “law” is the expression of our freedom. In our world, in other words, we, essentially, write down what we have chosen to make real, and then, by following the laws we have enacted, we bring that “world” into reality. 

I have ended up with a great enthusiasm for “the law,” because I do see the law as the realm in which we most clearly - and with great consequence - create the world in which we most immediately live. 

“Politics,” as you will see, is the realm in which we most directly express our freedom (at least our “collective” freedom). We are each free to act, individually, but we can (and do) act in concert, together, and we have the freedom (collectively) to create any world we want (at least if that world is consistent with the World of Nature, which is primary). I often call that primary world, the “World of Nature,” “The World that God created.” 

Much of what lawyers do, of course, is to work within the human world that we have collectively created, that “Political World,” in which the laws provide rules, and prohibitions, and outline opportunities for action, etc. Many lawyers, I believe, end up being more or less frustrated and/or resentful about the “law,” and of the rules that establish what is “legal,” and what is not, and which laws can end up seeming to constrain freedom, or to perpetuate injustice, and that may well impose constraints that are unreasonable, unfair, or even just plain “wrong.” 

Since I have never lost my “political” perspective, I have never become as jaundiced, and perhaps even as resentful, as some lawyers end up being. So, I do recommend not losing that larger perspective. The “laws” with which we most immediately deal are the laws that we establish ourselves (by "politics," by the way). What we “legislate,” in other words, will determine the realities which most directly affect us. "Law," in other words, is a realm of freedom, not a realm of penalty and constraint. 

That's my view at least. Keep me posted - and really good luck on the LSAT!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://mikesavad.com/featured/lawyer-books-law-books-mike-savad.html