#49 / Here's A Homeownership Idea

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

An article that appeared in the January 19, 2026, edition of The New York Times focused on the legal status of "Fannie" and "Freddie," which the article identifies as "government-controlled mortgage giants." The article had the following headline in its online version: "Big Plan for Fannie and Freddie I.P.O. in Flux as Trump Pushes Affordability." Click the link I have provided to read that article. 

The plan that the article says is now "in flux" was a plan by our current president to have our nation's largest banks sell shares of these two government-controlled mortgage-lending companies on a major stock exchange. As I am understanding this proposal, doing that would give greater control over residential mortgages to private investors, freeing these mortgage lenders from current government controls. 

That does sound just like our current president - more benefits for the already-wealthy. Apparently, however, our current president is now having some second thoughts. "Fannie" and "Freddie," the two mortgage lending companies discussed in the article, were taken over by the federal government after the 2008 financial crisis, as a way to prevent their collapse and further disruption of the housing market. Maybe our current president is getting the picture that this might well happen again, if federal control is now relinquished, and that this kind of thing would not play well in the upcoming, 2026 and 2028 elections. 

Thinking about mortgage financing under the current arrangements made me realize that there is a real opportunity to do something meaningful about housing affordability that has not yet been tried, at least to the best of my knowledge, and that might well have a dramatic effect on preventing the kind of housing price escalation that has been so evident in the last twenty or thirty years. My personal case is a good example of what has happened. A two-bedroom home my wife and I purchased in the 1970's cost less than $50,000 when we bought it. Several years later, we then expanded that home by adding two more bedrooms, boosting its then value to about $100,000. The home is now worth well over a million. 

Hooray for me, right? Well, maybe, but ordinary income workers can no longer live in my town. I certainly couldn't afford to live here, myself, if my wife and I hadn't been able to buy our home back when we did.  

Is there anything we can do to stop this kind of ruthless inflation of housing prices, which is going on all over the nation, and which is making it ever more impossible for any person who has an average income to buy a home (or to rent one, either)? Well, let's be honest. Not under our current system. There is no system of "price control" for housing, so housing goes to those who can pay the most for what is available. The "rich," in other words, will always outbid those who aren't, and if the rich want to buy homes on the market, they're going to win out over those who aren't so rich, and who are just ordinary working people looking for a home. 

Seeing homes as "a good investment," which they have surely been, the well-to-do, and "private capital," are increasingly taking control over more and more real estate. The president's plan, as outlined above, would only make things worse, if I am understanding it correctly.

Is there a way to make things better, instead of worse? Here's my thought. 

What if a home were not an "investment?" The wealthy are investing in homes because they think that they will be able to sell them, later, for significantly more than inflation. They can rent them in the meantime. What happened to my home is an example of what's happening, and this is happening everywhere in the nation, of course, and is especially happening in places like Santa Cruz, where my home is located, since this is such a desirable place to live. 

When you go out to buy a home in Santa Cruz, you aren't bidding against other local residents and local workers. You're bidding against people from all over the United States, who earn a lot more than you do. That's why simply building "more" doesn't reduce the price. If the number of "buyers" was fixed, and more housing was built, prices would stabilize. However, the number of "buyers" is virtually infinite. Not only would those living throughout the entire United States, and in fact the entire world, be likely to "outbid" local residents and workers, "investors" from the world over would be competing against  the local worker-resident, too. 

More housing built simply does not bring the price down. Those who put their faith in "supply and demand," with more "supply" supposedly helpful in lowering the price, are badly mistaken when we start talking about Santa Cruz (and places like Santa Cruz). The new supply is minuscule, compared to the untapped, huge, worldwide "demand," and local working residents just can't outbid the rich. This is not just a Santa Cruz problem, but we have one of the worst housing markets in the entire nation, and that is clear proof that building more doesn't solve the problem.

There is, though, I think, something that could make things better.

What if the price of a home did not increase over time? What if the price of a home when sold was the same price as the price it was when the home was purchased? Well, "investors" would not have any reason invest in homes, because the price they could sell for later would be the same price as the price they bought the home for (always taking inflation into account, though). Investors would go out and put their money into something that they thought would make money, as opposed to buying a home, which would not increase in value as time passed. 

But how could that actually be arranged? The government can't just pass a law to that effect. That would be an unconstitutional taking. However, if purchasers of homes had to encumber their home, when they bought their home, and put such a price restriction on the home, then that would be constitutional. And what if that is what mortgage lenders demanded? 

In other words, what if "Fannie" and "Freddie" conditioned their loans on the purchaser placing such an encumbrance on the home? If they were controlled by the government (working, at least supposedly, in all of our best interests), a mortgage lender could be required to provide purchase money to an ordinary income homebuyer, at a very advantageous interest rate (say 2.5%, instead of, say, 6%) on the condition that the homebuyer place a perpetual encumbrance on the property being purchased, ensuring that any future sale of the property would have to be at the same price for which the property was being purchased, plus inflation. 

Prices would come down. Private investors would not be competing with ordinary working folks. Only people who wanted a home to live in would be interested in buying a home

This is just an idea to think about - and that's just what that article in The Times made me do. It made me think about that.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/business/fannie-and-freddie-ipo.html

#48 / It's Time To Revive The Teach-In Movement

     

Hans Morgenthau leads a debate on Vietnam that was broadcast 

to teach-ins across the nation on May 15, 1965

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Dear Friends,

I think it is time to revive the "Teach-In" movement. 

An article from The Nation magazine, published during our current president's first term in office, suggested a need to regalvanize the "Teach-In" movement that had such a powerful impact on this nation during the 1960's. If that "Teach-In" movement was appropriate way back then, it is perhaps even more appropriate and necessary today, don't you think?

Let's start educating and reminding ourselves about what "democracy" and "self-government" actually demand. Let's stimulate and provide some powerful "refresher courses" on what our Constitution contemplates and requires of us, as citizens.

Does this sound like a good idea to you?

If it does, why not communicate with the college or university which you atttended, or from which you graduated? Submit a letter to the student newspaper, for instance! Tell your children, or grandchildren, or anyone else you know who has any current affiliation with an institution of higher learning that this "Teach-In" idea is worth reviving - that this is an idea whose time has come (again). 

Here's my letter to the Dean of the Stanford Law School:

Dear Dean Triantis:

I graduated from Stanford Law School in 1969, and I have benefitted greatly from the education I received there - way back when the Law School was still located on the original Stanford Quad.

This letter is to suggest - to "urge," in fact - that you, and faculty members, and interested students, make arrangements to hold a "Teach-In" - or many "Teach-Ins" - at the Law School, or more generally on the Stanford campus, to start helping current students confront the distressing failures of the Congress, and many of our elected officials, to protect and defend what most call "democracy," and what I usually call "self-government." 

As I hope you agree (though it is, in fact, distressing to admit it), our Constitutional Republic is under attack - an attack coming from within - and many people are confused about what's happening, and what we can, and should, be doing in response. The faculty and students at Stanford Law School should be speaking out, and providing good advice and counsel!

I hope you think that this would be a good idea. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. All best wishes!

Sincerely,

Gary A. Patton 

 

 

 

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/teach-ins-helped-galvanize-student-activism-in-the-1960s-they-can-do-so-again-today/

#47 / Stammtisch

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I was born in 1943. Something else of importance happened that year, as I found out from an article in the December 20, 2025, edition of The New York Times. Here's a link to the article I am talking about, "A Weekly Gathering for Those Who Fled The Nazis Ends After 82 Years." 

A brief excerpt is below:

In 1943, two artist friends who fled the Nazis and landed in New York City decided to host a weekly meeting with other refugees. At this stammtisch, as they called it, they could talk freely, in German, about art and politics and the culture they missed from home. 

Week after week, the stammtisch moved around the many German restaurants on the Upper East Side. And it kept going, even after the war ended and one of the founders died. And when their regular restaurants began to close, they met in a nearby apartment, and then another, and another. 

For 82 years, they spoke German together virtually every week until last Saturday, when the Oskar Maria Graf Stammtisch finally decided to disband.

If the paywall policies of The Times don't prevent you from doing so, I am recommending that you read the article. It can be (and should be) an inspiration. You can, as I have mentioned before, get free access to The Times if you happen to be able to obtain a library card from the Santa Cruz County Library. 

Your individual personal power, added to the personal power of other persons, can make it possible for you to change the world. And I hope you don't doubt that! Our actions do, in fact, change the world - both when we act individually and when we act with others. If we want to do the latter - which is really what people need to do, if they are serious - then we need to get together in a group, meet regularly (weekly is best), and meet in person. I keep insisting on this, since I have personally experienced the power of this kind of activity in my own life, and the difference that this kind of collective activity has made in the life of the community where I live. I know that this formula works. 

The challenges ahead for our nation, state, and local community are really daunting. And since they are, we really do need to "Find Some Friends" and "Think Like A Lion." Reading about the Stammtisch profiled in The Times was truly inspirational to me.

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/20/nyregion/nazi-refugee-stammtisch.html

#46 / Another Posting On A Familiar Assertion

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Relatively recently, I have been trying to reference religious themes in those blog postings that are scheduled to appear on Sundays. That's fine, of course, but then why does my comment today - scheduled for a Sunday - feature a picture of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, our thirty-second president? President Roosevelt is not generally considered to have been any kind of "religious" figure. In fact, he was really "political" - although I do want to report that my grandparents, on my mother's side (Durward and Alma Bracken) did consider Roosevelt to have been a kind of political "savior," given my grandparents' experiences in the Great Depression.

Well, here's why Roosevelt came to mind, as I thought about highlighting (again) what is generally considered to be a "religious" assertion - an assertion found in the Bible something like eighty different times. I speak, of course, of the following assertion: "Fear Not." If you click that link, you'll see a blog posting that I wrote about ten years ago, dedicated to the "Fear Not" commandment. I have mentioned the same thing many times since. "Fear Not" is both a political principle and a statement of faith. If you click that second link to the "Fear Not" assertion, you'll get fifteen different Bible verses about overcoming fear.

Fear immobilizes. Fear paralyzes. Fear incapitates, and fear prevents us from taking action, when action is called for. If you don't sense a reference, here, to the United States Congress in the time of the Trump presidency you haven't been paying attention to what's happening in our politics today. "Fear" has a powerful impact on our ability to take political action - and thus to fulfill our commitment to a politics "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Beyond its religious bonafides, the call to "Fear Not" has immense "political" significance, and that is why President Roosevelt, in this first Inaugural Address, in 1933, told a fearful public that "we have nothing to fear but fear itself." 

For many of us - and probably for all of us, at times - our fear of death is what prevents us from acting when we are being "called" to take action. That idea - that we are, during our lives, sometimes "called" to do something, and, specifically, called to do something that will expose us to known or unknown dangers - is, I would say, a "religious" concept. I'd like to think that many of those who might read this blog posting have had this experience. It is, or can be, anyway, a truly "religious" experience, being called to take action in the world, as we are beckoned to respond to pain, suffering, and moral challenges - and then responding to that call, setting aside what are often quite realistic fears, to do what is being called for. 

I felt "called" to refuse induction into the armed forces, during the Vietnam War, and I heeded that call. I did refuse. That does not mean that I was "unafraid." I was afraid of what would happen to me if I did what I thought I should do, but the Biblical (and political) injunction to "Fear Not" ultimately supported my action to respond to that call of conscience.

When called to act, taking the action to which you are called is the response demanded. It is easier to do that, obviously, if you can do it "fearlessly," but when action is demanded, we can respond "fearfully" as well as "fearlessly." The second way is best, as President Roosevelt realized, as he told us that the only real fear we need to have is "fear itself." 

To accomplish a "fearless" response, when we are called to act, it is death itself that must be faced fearlessly. That is why President Roosevelt's message is such an appropriate one for this Sunday! 

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.biography.com/political-figures/a65191884/franklin-d-roosevelt-facts

#45 / Three Cheers For The Potluck Life

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Below, I am providing a link to an Opinion essay by Matt Hongoltz-Hetling, published in the Saturday, December 6, 2025, edition of The New York Times. Online, the essay is titled, "This Centuries-Old Tradition Is Needed Now More Than Ever." In the hard-copy version, which is how I read the article, on a Saturday morning, the headline on the Hongoltz-Hetling essay is as follows: "Can The Potluck Cure America's Loneliness Crisis?"

Are you aware of this "Loneliness Crisis" that Hongoltz-Hetling is talking about? If not, a round of applause for you and the way you are living! I think there is one! And "loneliness" is not, of course, any late-breaking affliction. Back when I was an undergraduate, I vividly remember reading David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd, which was published in 1950. 2025 minus 1950 adds up to seventy-five years of loneliness, if you accept the reality of what both Riesman and Hongoltz-Hetling are talking about. 

My prescription for a healthy politics - the kind of politics that ends up with genuine "self-government" - absolutely depends on small groups of people, meeting in "real life," and deciding, together, to make the applicable governmental bodies (national, state, and local) do what the citizens want. 

"Loneliness," in other words, which dissociates individuals from the collective reality of our "common world," is death to what most people call "democracy." 

So, set up and participate in frequent potluck meetings (and neighborhood barbeques in good weather will work, as well). That's a piece of "political" advice, but sociologists, from David Riesman on down, will totally agree that this is a good prescription for both individual and social good health. We are, truly, "in this [life] together," and we can find out that this is true, and can start acting, together, to accomplish the things we both want and need to do, after we take the time to sit down to eat with our friends and neighbors - and start talking all about it! 

So, with thanks to Hongoltz-Hetling and his timely column, let's give three cheers for the potluck life!

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/27/opinion/potluck-community-loneliness.html

#44 / Common Sense, II

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

On Monday, January 12, 2025, The New York Times published an article by Jennifer Schussler. Her article was titled, "The Founding Father Whose Pen Became A Mighty Weapon." Click that link to read it for yourself. I am told by The Times that the article may be considered my "gift" to you, and that no paywall will prevent you from reading every word. I hope that's true!

If you have any question about which "Founding Father" Schussler is writing about, and if you don't immediately recognize the person who is pictured above, let me eliminate your need to guess. That is Tom Paine, pictured. He is the person profiled by Schussler. Common Sense is not the only thing he wrote, but it is his most famous writing. It "went viral" in 1775-1776, as an unsigned pamphlet, and Wikipedia tells us that it had the "largest sale and circulation of any book published in American history."

Paine wrote Common Sense 250 years ago, and it is still in print. If you want to read the book (which is recommended), you will have to purchase it yourself - or visit a local library. My bet is that your library will have it, and will let you check it out. 

Schussler's article makes clear that while Paine's pamphlet was widely read in its time, and helped push the nation to its Declaration of Independence, Paine's ideas were not fully appreciated then, and are not, really, fully appreciated now. Read the article as my "gift" and find out about that. You can consult Bob Dylan, too, whose song about Tom Paine, "As I Went Out One Morning," is pretty enigmatic. As is often true with the truth, it's hard to get a secure grip on exactly what "the truth" actually is - and on what it demands of us. 

And what is demanded of us right now - politically, I mean? It may be time for a Common Sense, II, and another revolution. Given what I'm reading each day in the newspapers, our governing authorities, like the Crown and its consorts, in 1776, have way overstepped their place and position. 

Is it time for a Common Sense, II? I have (implicitly) raised this idea before. I'm thinking about it. 

To Subscribe Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://rickchromey.com/the-pain-of-thomas-paine/

#43 / The Great Wealth Transfer

     

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I read an article in the Wednesday, February 11, 2026, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle that made me think. The article was titled, "Will You Be Part Of The Great Wealth Transfer?" Just in case a paywall might prevent you from reading that article, here is a link to another one, with a similar title: "The Great Wealth Transfer Is Coming: Here’s How Much Younger Americans Expect To Inherit From Their Parents."

If that Chronicle link does work, you'll be given a chance to respond to an online questionnaire, outlining your thoughts about the topic. In fact, if you are open for it, there is the possibility that a Chronicle reporter might call you for a follow-up. 

If you have lived in a community like Santa Cruz, California, and if you bought a home in that community in, say, 1971, and have lived there ever since (which is my personal situation), you have probably come into that "great wealth" that the headlines mention. I did the math, and find that the home that my wife and I purchased in 1971 is now worth sixty-four times what we paid for it. We do not think of ourselves as possessing "great wealth," but when your modest single-family home, built in the 1940's, is now worth above a million dollars (based on current market comparisons), questions do arise. 

The questions that arise in my mind have to do with economic and income inequality and the future of our local community, the state, and the nation. What has happened is not good, in my estimation, and those "younger Americans" who will probably receive what at least used to be "great wealth," are not, necessarily, to be envied. Even after the "Great Wealth Transfer," as the headlines name it, will the children who inherit this "great wealth" actually be able to move into those now incredibly pricey family homes, in places like Santa Cruz?

Likely not, I believe, and our nation is going to have to confront the huge inequalities that now massively distort our society, and that aren't going to disappear "automatically." We (that future "we") are going to have to do something about what is a much more a huge "problem" than a wonderful and beneficial "wealth transfer." 

We can do that, I am convinced, but only if "we" remember that the word "we" is a plural. 

We're in it together, and we are going to have to come together to get out of what I'd name as the "Great Wealth Dilemma." 

To Subscribe Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91195489/great-wealth-transfer-how-much-younger-americans-inherit-baby-boomer-parents

#42 / Imagineering

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The "all-new" ship that I have pictured above is called the Disney Adventure. If you click that link, you can book a voyage, and Disney promises that it will be an "unforgettable 3- or 4-night holiday." The first voyage of this new ship is scheduled to set sail from Singapore sometime in March of this year.

I certainly knew about Disney films and television offerings, and I knew about Disney theme parks, but I didn't really know about Disney's expansion into the cruise ship business until I read about it in The Wall Street Journal. 

As it turns out, "theme parks and cruises have overtaken television as Disney’s biggest source of profits, and the company is counting on them to fuel its growth for the rest of this decade and beyond. Disney is investing $60 billion in theme parks and cruise ships through 2033—nearly double what it spent in the prior decade." It is, of course, no surprise that The Walt Disney Company is fundamentally a money-making proposition, and that it is not really a "Magic Kingdom." Disney currently has seven ships in its cruise line, and is aiming to expand to thirteen. 

Here is a link to the article that provided me the information I have just relayed to you. The article is titled, "The 3,000-Person Team Working in Secret To Create Disney Magic." Unfortunately, given the likelihood that a paywall will prevent access for non-subscribers, I can't promise you that the link I have just made available will let you "read all about it." You can, however, give it a try. 

What most interested me in the article was its discussion of that 3,000-person team that is spearheading Disney's effort to boost its theme park and cruise ship revenue. That team has a name. Those who participate are called, "Imagineers," and they "operate largely in secret, working in unmarked warehouses with curtains surrounding the most sensitive work." They sign nondisclosure agreements, too. According to The Journal, Disney's Imagineers have been both "a source of pride for their creative genius and frustration due to their insular culture and budget-busting spending."

As those reading this blog posting of mine probably know, many people are now seeing themselves as "Influencers." They are looking for ways to "monetize" podcast presentations, and short videos, using online platforms like Tik-Tok, Instagram, and YouTube. 

Well, here's a thought. What about some of us trying to become "Imagineers." I am not talking about massive Disney-scale budgets (budgets that the Disney "Imagineers" apparently disregard, with respect to the actual expenses they incur). I'm suggesting a "non-profit" version of the "Imagineers" idea, and I mean "non-profit" in a generic sense, and am not suggesting that setting up a special non-profit corporation would be needed. 

I am suggesting, once again, that small groups might form, meet regularly and in-person, and determine to practice a "politics of imagination." What if.....? There are lots of great projects and activities to imagine, don't you think?

I know, in fact, that a group has formed, right here in Santa Cruz County, to imagine a new way for us to relate to the "World of Nature," giving legal rights to the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the lands and the ocean that sustain us. Here's a link to the website set up by this new group: "Rights of Nature, Santa Cruz." Some of those reading this blog posting may want to get involved with this movement. 

And what else can we imagine? A lot of things, don't you think?

Click This Link To Subscribe

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/disney-cruise-rides-characters-imagineers-adventure-b5c03c1d

#41 / Adoration Of The Present

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The picture above comes from one of Katie Roiphe's "Personal Space" columns in The Wall Street Journal. Specifically, the picture comes from Roiphe's column published in the Saturday-Sunday, January 10-11, 2026, edition of the paper. Roiphe titled that column as follows: "Why 20-Somethings Are Trading Their Vapes For Cigarettes." 

The Journal's website tells us that Roiphe's "Personal Space" column "explores love, life, relationships and current cultural mores," and lets us know that Roiphe is the director of the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University. The Journal also tells us that she is the author of several books, including The Power Notebooks, In Praise of Messy Lives, and The Violet Hour. 

Wikipedia provides additional information about Roiphe's publications, calling out The Morning After: Sex, Fear, and Feminism on Campus (1993), Last Night in Paradise: Sex and Morals at the Century's End (1997), and Uncommon Arrangements, a 2007 study of writers and marriage.

What struck me most about Roiphe's column on how young people, today, seem to be returning to smoking cigarettes was her conclusion that while smoking was, indeed, "unhealthy," and should not, therefore, be celebrated, she nonetheless had sympathy for this new trend:

I find myself watching all these young smokers with mixed feelings. I want my students and children’s friends to be healthy, but I also understand the gesture, the fashionable nihilism, the hedonism, the why not. We could use a little more adoration of the present. Though I still hope the cigarettes are just a phase (emphasis added).

I have a long tradition, in my blog postings, of celebrating "the present," because it is in "the present" that we can act. Observing what's happening is great, and that occurs in "the present," too, but it is in "action," not "observation" that we create the world in which we live. 

"Adoration" of the present, in other words, strikes me as the celebration of observation over action, and Roiphe's use of that term spurred me to remember one of my very first blog postings. I have published one blog posting, each day, since 2010, which means that I have been filing these blog postings for fifteen years. Here is a link to my blog posting from October 14, 2010, which I titled, "Now." 

George Fox, the first Quaker, said the following, his words having been featured a number of times in my periodic writings since that first time, in October, 2010: 

You have no time but this present time; therefore prize your time for your soul's sake.

I honor Roiphe's description of our current cultural mores, but I prefer Fox, who reminds us that it is "now," while we live, that we can act. 

And how we act, and that we will act can (as Robert Frost might have said) make all the difference!

Click This Link To Subscribe

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/lifestyle/why-20-somethings-are-trading-their-vapes-for-cigarettes-c623e95d

#40 / Facts? Forget About The Facts!

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Did you know that the Central Intelligence Agency has, for the last sixty years, published a so-called "World Factbook," on an annual basis, and that this publication has provided "detailed figures on birth and death rates and major exports, relied upon first by government agents and eventually researchers, educators, journalists and more?"

I didn't know this - at least I didn't know it until I read an article published in The New York Times on Saturday, February 7th. That article, linked right here, announced that this publication has now been abruptly terminated, with no reason given. 

Perhaps, it is suggested in the article, the "World Factbook" is now just duplicative, since anyone with access to an Internet browser can probably get whatever information they might want, or need, by simply typing a request into a search bar. 

Maybe that's it. I can't help but think, though, that our current president doesn't really put much value on "the truth," or on "the facts," and that having the facts so readily available, in an authoritative governmental publication, would inevitably get in the way of our current president's habit of asserting as true whatever the president would like the facts to be.

So, why has publication of the "World Factbook" been so abruptly terminated? I am betting that our current president had something to say about that, and for someone who certainly doesn't want his many untrue assertions contradicted by a government publication that provides access to the real facts, getting rid of this source of genuine "facts" probably seemed way overdue.

To Subscribe Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.amazon.com/CIA-World-Factbook-2026-2027/dp/151078604X/ref=sr_1_3

#39 / A Part Of The Main

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Anthony McNaught is pictured above. His friends didn't really call him "Anthony." They called him "Ant." On February 4, 2026, I read Ant's obituary in The Santa Cruz Sentinel. He was born on Februry 13, 1952, and he died on January 22nd of this year.   I didn't really know Ant at all well, but I did have a chance to talk with him, on several occasions, when mutual friends threw dinner parties to which we were both invited. Ant's death, from pneumonia, was very sudden and I think quite unexpected. When I got the word, from our mutual friend, I was startled. Ant was younger than I am, and he was in vigorous health, at least so it appeared. 

Ant was an artist. His obituary tells us that he studied fine art at Christie’s, in London, after which he headed up fine art departments for several big American auction houses, before starting his own gallery, McNaught Fine Art. Ant's obituary lets us know that he loved finding beautiful paintings, making art, and spending time with the people he loved - specifically including his son, Michael, whom Ant mentioned to me in every conversation I ever had with him. Ant also loved to write and perform his songs.  He recorded two albums in Nashville, first “Apache Lane” (2011) and then “Feast of Stone” (2017).

In recent years, I find that I often read the obituaries that show up in The New York Times, and in our local newspaper here in Santa Cruz County, the Santa Cruz Sentinel. Ant's obituary is where I actually found out about Ant. As I said at the start, I didn't really know him well, though we had crossed paths several times. The obituary printed in The Sentinel, on February 4th, announced that a memorial mass for Ant would be held on February 5th (last Thursday) at Star of the Sea Church. I knew that our mutual friends would certainly be there, and I decided to go. 

At the church, those who came were given a little card:

Stella Maris 

(Star of the Sea)

Anthony McNaught

February 13, 1952 - January 22, 2026

Peace I leave with you,

my peace I give unto you; 

not as the world giveth,

give I unto you.

Let not your heart be troubled,

neither let it be afraid.

John 14:27

Love is all there is, it makes 

the world go 'round / Love and

only love, it can't be denied.

Bob Dylan

I was not surprised to fiind that Bible verse on the card I was handed, but I must admit that I was a little surprised to see the quotation from Dylan's song, "I Threw It All Away." The fact that Dylan was featured at this very Catholic service for Ant is an indication that I truly didn't know Ant very well. We would have talked about Dylan, I am sure, had I known that Ant knew something about him, or cared about him. We might even have gotten into a discussion of my own hope that Dylan's songs will be featured at any memorial service that might be held for me, after I have died. 

Going to Ant's memorial mass - going to a mass for someone I really didn't know very well at all - made me think about all the other obituaries I have read, since I have gotten in the habit of reading them. In our local paper, I sometimes see an obituary for someone I know, but mostly the obituaries I read are for people whom I don't know - really, people just like Ant, though in his case, I did at least meet him, and get to speak to him, during the time he was alive. 

Who are these people in those obituaries, people with whom we have lived, and who now have died? John Donne's wonderful poem came to my mind: 

For Whom the Bell Tolls
        by John Donne
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

Each one of us is precious - and unique. We are each special. You. Me. Ant. Everyone. We don't even really know most of those who are living with us, nearby - neighbors, acquaintances, friends.

When we think of each other.... Let's Ring Them Bells! 

In celebration. In gratitude. With joy!

To Subscribe Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.forevermissed.com/ant-mcnaught/about

#38 / "Nationalizing" Our Voting System?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Our current president has proposed that the United States should "nationalize" its voting system. Click this link to hear the president's spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, talk about that idea. Click right here to read a New York Times' article that disscusses the topic. This link, which will also access an article from The Times, advises that the president's scheme would represent a "doubling down on unsubstantiated claims that U.S. elections are rigged." 

I think it's pretty obvious that the proposal to have our current president "take over" all elections in the United States would be a big step towards tyranny, and I am just a bit worried that some will think that such a "nationalized" voting system would be acceptable. 

Let me point out that the nation we live in is called "The United States" for a reason. While governmental efforts to deal with our main problems - and to pursue our main goals - have more and more become "nationalized," with the federal government more and more playing a primary role, even in areas in which "local control" (like education) has always been prized, the nation was founded upon the idea that state governments are primary. Our national government is a "second layer" government. The states are the "first layer," closer to the people and more susceptible to democratic control. 

It is always hard - it's a challenge - to maintain citizen control over "government," even in the best of times, and yet maintaining our system of democratic self-government depends on the practical ability of "the people" to make sure that "the government" actually does what the people want. The smaller the unit of government, the easier it is to achieve that democratic goal. 

In the end, we won't maintain a system of "self-government" if we, as citizens, are not personally and directly involved in participating in, and closely supervising, the actual operations of government. 

I was a local government official for twenty years (elected to serve in that capacity five times). I know, from personal experience, that it is possible for elected officials to be both responsive to those citizen-voters who put them into office, and to be "in charge" of key governmental decisions. But it does take work! As one example of what I'm talking about, let me report that before every meeting of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (the Board met, basically, on a weekly basis, and I maintained this practice during the entire twenty years I was in office), I held an open public meeting to receive comments from anyone who wanted to speak to their elected representative directly. Anyone could come and speak to me, face to face - and they did. I handed out the agenda for the upcoming Board meeting, and let those in attendance ask questions, and make comments. That's one way that I kept in touch with the ordinary people in my community who are supposed to be "in charge" of the government - the government that is supposed to do what "we, the people," want it to do. 

Elected officials who let non-elected governmental bureaucracies set the agenda and implement policy are not doing their job. But.... let's not fault those elected officials for their dereliction. We, the people, are the ones who are mainly derelict, if we let unelected bureaucrats make all the big decisions. 

"Nationalizing" our elections would be a big step in the wrong direction. Let's not allow ourselves be fooled!

 

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.localnewslive.com/2026/02/03/president-trump-wants-nationalize-voting/

#37 / The Third Civil War

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Pictured above is Thomas Friedman, a columnist for The New York Times. In his column published in the December 13, 2025, hardcopy version of the paper, Friedman characterizes what is going on in American politics as a "Third Civil War." That characterization is highlighted in the hardcopy headline - "The United States Is Entering Its Third Civil War." Online, Friedman's headline reads this way: "Trump Isn’t Interested in Fighting A New Cold War. He Wants A New Civilizational War."

What quickly attracted my attention to Friedman's column was this statement, contained in a pull-quote (again, I'm citing to the hardcopy version of his column): "Trump wants to define the American homeland, and determine who belongs in it." 

In thinking about who "belongs" in the United States, Trump and J.D. Vance, our current Vice President, both have a hang-up about "race" and "ethnicity." Both of them suggest that our national definition is both linked to, and properly limited to, those whose progenitors came here from Western Europe, and who are, for the most part, both White and from a Judeo-Christian background. 

In fact, and to the contrary, the greatest thing about the United States is that our "nation" has never been defined by a shared racial or religious legacy. We are, to use that now-suspicious phrase made famous by John F. Kennedy, a "nation of immigrants."

What does, then, define an "American," if it is not race, religion, or origin? 

What defines an "American" is the fact that Americans are self-selected and self-designated by having pledged their lives and fortunes to the proposition that "all persons are created equal," with an equal opportunity to act both individually and collectively. This means that our national identity is connected to our acceptance of the "political" definition of who qualifies, as specified in both the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. 

And who are those who qualify? Who qualifies is anyone who accepts what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say about how we will live together, and build what I try to get people to understand is a "political world." 

As I bring this blog posting to its finish, let me quote from Friedman's column (emphasis added): 

To me, the deep backdrop to Trump’s National Security Strategy [is that] he is not interested in refighting the Cold War to defend and expand the frontiers of democracy. He is, in my view, interested in fighting the civilizational war over what is the American “home” and what is the European “home,” with an emphasis on race and Christian-Judeo faith — and who is an ally in that war and who is not. 

The economics writer Noah Smith argued in his Substack this week that this was the key reason the MAGA movement began to turn away from Western Europe and draw closer to Vladimir Putin’s Russia — because Trump’s devotees saw Putin as more of a defender of white Christian nationalism and traditional values than the nations of the European Union. 

Historically, “in the American mind,” Smith wrote, “Europe stood across the sea as a place of timeless homogeneity, where the native white population had always been and would always remain.” However, “in the 2010s, it dawned on those Americans that this hallowed image of Europe was no longer accurate. With their working population dwindling, European countries took in millions of Muslim refugees and other immigrants from the Middle East and Central and South Asia — many of whom didn’t assimilate nearly as well as their peers in the U.S. You’d hear people say things like ‘Paris isn’t Paris anymore.’” 

Today’s MAGA-led American right, Smith added, does “not care intrinsically about democracy, or about allyship, or about NATO, or about the European project. They care about ‘Western civilization.’ Unless Europe expels Muslim immigrants en masse and starts talking about its Christian heritage, the Republican Party is unlikely to lift a hand to help Europe with any of its problems.” 

In other words, when protecting “Western civilization” — with a focus on race and faith — becomes the centerpiece of U.S. national security, the biggest threat becomes uncontrolled immigration into America and Western Europe — not Russia or China. And “protecting American culture, ‘spiritual health’ and ‘traditional families’ are framed as core national security requirements,” as the defense analyst Rick Landgraf pointed out on the defense website “War on the Rocks.” 

And that’s why the Trump National Security Strategy paper is no accident or the work of a few low-level ideologues. It is, in fact, the Rosetta Stone explaining what really animates this administration at home and abroad.

Let us use Friedman's "Rosetta Stone" to understand what political proposition is being suggested to us. 

When we have understood that, when we are clear about what is being proposed to us, let us then reject that proposition - outright and unequivocally - since it is clear that this proposition is so profoundly "unAmerican!"   

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Friedman

#36 / The Mitford Sisters (And Equality)

  

 Click Here For The Blog In The Original

An article in the December 1, 2025, edition of The New York Times provided an in-depth look into the life of Jessica Mitford, who is best known, I believe, for having authored The American Way of Death. 

But did you know she was a communist? Well, I didn't, or had forgotten that fact, if I ever knew it. 

The recent article in The Times is titled this way: "The High-Born Rebel Who Took Up the Cause of the Commoner." It provides a lot of background on Mitford, known to her family and friends as "Decca," and the article includes the picture above, in which Jessica/Decca is at the far left. That picture also appears in an earlier Times' article, "The 6 Mitford Sisters, Their Jewelry and a New TV Series." That article was published on May 25th of last year.

Oddly enough, The most recent Times' article made me think about our Declaration of Independence, and particularly its claim that it is "self-evident" that "all [persons] are created equal." 

I know that the Declaration actually says that it is all "men," not all "persons" who are created "equal," but I think we now all believe that the 1776 expression was certainly intended to apply to everyone, not just males. Of course, there may be an argument to the contrary, since if it was truly "self-evident" to our Founding Fathers (and to those who came after them) that men and women were "equal," politically and governmentally speaking, then it is a little difficult to explain why women didn't get the right to vote, as our nation came into existence, and why the Constitution was amended to give freed [male] slaves the right to vote in 1870, but women only got the right to vote in 1919, almost fifty years later.

Anyway, here is how the recent article mentioning all of the Mitford sisters made me start thinking about the Declaration of Independence, and its claim that all persons are created equal. There were six sisters, and they were all quite different in their political preferences, not to mention in other things, too. 

The oldest sister, Nancy, became a novelist and parodied the upper classes. No real political involvements are mentioned. The next oldest sister, Pamela, went into seclusion at an early age, and it is intimated that she lived as a lesbian - again, no real "political" views are mentioned. Diana, the next in line, called the "great beauty of the family," was a bonafide Fascist, who got married at the home of Joseph Goebbels. Unity, the next sister, went to Germany to pursue a romance with Hitler, and ended up as one of his inner circle. Then came Decca (Jessica), who became a Communist. The youngest, Deborah was a Duchess, with "royalty" her seeming political preference. 

I have always thought that it is critical to understand that "Equal" does not mean "the Same," or "Similar," and this listing of the different political affiliations of the Mitford sisters made me think about it again. If, in fact, if we are "all Equal," as the Declaration claims is "self-evident," this is obviously not because we are similar, or are in any way "the same." We are, all of us, totally "different" from one another. We are not created "the Same." If there is anything that is "self-evident" that's it. The Mitford women illuminate how true that is. 

But what, then, does it mean to affirm that it is "self-evident" that all of us are "created equal"?

That language in the Declaration, it seems to me, is the strongest possible affirmation that we are absolutely "Equal" in our rights, and privileges, and in our absolutely proper demand that we receive equal treatment by our government, despite every possible difference that might be cited to divide us. 

What about "transgender" persons, to pick a "hot topic?" Transgender persons, like women, like person with dark skin, like everyone in all their manifold distinctiveness are totally and absolutely "equal" to everyone else with respct to their claim upon the society, which is to be enforced and enabled by our government. 

Why the article on the Mitford sisters made me think of this is not completely clear, but that single family, in its differences, does illustrate how we need to understand that our society and our government is committed - must be committed - to treating everyone "equally," no matter how "different" they may be. 

Isn't that a wonderful understanding of what it means to be alive? 

We live in a nation that has been founded on what we have claimed as a self-evident truth that we are "Equal," and that this radical equality of all humans, everywhere, is the only relevant thing when it comes to government. Our "differences," so often held to be of such importance, have no real relevance, at all, when we consider our government, and how it is supposed to act.

Despite differences, we are "all in this together." Once we think about it, that is, indeed, "self-evident." All different. All "Equal." All "in it together." 

How great!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/20/fashion/jewelry-mitford-sisters-tv-series-outrageous.html