#90 / Why Democracy Needs The Rich. Wow!

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Last February, about a month ago, The Wall Street Journal provided a book review of the book that is pictured above. "Wow," I thought, when I saw that "Bookshelf" column in the paper! I was really stumped. Why does democracy "need the rich?" I have to be honest, and I need to tell you the truth: no good answer sprang immediately to my mind.

At any rate, while I am not a "kill the rich" kind of guy, I have never thought that "democracy" would be in trouble if there weren't a lot of those "rich" people hanging around, making themselves available for the betterment of our democratic institutions. In fact, if you think back to what some might title the "Months of the Magnificent  Musk," shortly after our current president took office, in January 2025, the willingness of billionaire Elon Musk to get deeply involved with our democratic government, in Musk's "hands on" effort to make the government run better, turned out to be the very opposite of inspiring - and the very opposite of helpful. Musk is definitely one of the "rich," so his involvement with government does not seem to support the thesis expressed in the title of the book. 

And it's not just Musk, either. There is a pretty good case to be made, I think, that the "rich" people whom our current president has brought into government with him - and not to forget our current president himself, who is certainly among "the rich" - have spent most of their time figuring out how our "democracy" can help them, and can make those rich folks even more rich. I don't know whether you'd agree, but I haven't seen much impact going the other way.

Well, John O. McGinnis, the author of the book I am profiling, who is the George C. Dix Professor in Constitutional Law, at the Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, has a very simple answer for any skeptics (like me, and maybe you). Democracy "needs the rich" because [quote] "public policy is heavily shaped by interest groups and bureaucracy. The rich have the freedom to provide alternative perspectives" (emphasis added).

Wow! (My second "wow" in this blog posting!) McGinnis thinks that "the rich" are helping out our "democracy" by generously giving us their "alternative perspectives." Wow! (third time). I never thought of that!!

Let me give you a more ample outline of McGinnis' argument by quoting from the book review published in The Journal (emphasis added): 

A law professor at Northwestern University and former U.S. Justice Department official, Mr. McGinnis seeks to defend the ultrawealthy from the growing number of accusations leveled against them. Although incomplete, Mr. McGinnis’s argument deserves to be taken seriously.

Who are the rich? If they’re defined by wealth, Mr. McGinnis would include people in the top 0.1% of asset-holders—$61 million and above—as “truly rich.” What matters to the author isn’t how much they are worth, but how free they are to express their views, take risks and support innovative activities.

A highly paid corporate executive or celebrity isn’t necessarily immune to pressures from the marketplace, government regulators or adoring fans. However, someone who has amassed a vast fortune, especially through entrepreneurial skill, Mr. McGinnis argues, has greater freedom to act with impunity or champion unpopular causes. That makes the rich especially valuable in a representative democracy like the U.S., where policy is normally shaped by the play of public opinion, competition among interest groups and the weight of a permanent bureaucracy. The wealthy—and the organizations or politicians they assist—have the means to provide alternative perspectives, typically rooted in the practical realities of building a business rather than in intellectual theories, media stereotypes or government rules.

Arent' you tempted to say, "Wow," too? 

"Democracy," at least as commonly understood, is based on the idea that ALL CITIZENS are to be encouraged to "express their views," and to "provide alternative perspectives" and actually to be engaged in "self-government," which is what I call what many people, including McGinnis, denominate as "democracy." In fact, given just how much "the rich" have assumed full, and effective, and defacto control over our government, and over everything our government does, it seems especially important that the "poor," and just plain-old "average" Americans get personally involved in "politics," and in political decisionmaking, and come up with "alternative perspectives." 

Talk about someone who truly doesn't "get it" about "democracy." Mr. John O. McGinnis really takes the cake. 

Wow! 

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/why-democracy-needs-the-rich-review-a-wealth-of-ideas-646e083f

#89 / Is Someone Preparing Ahead - And For What?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I was struck by an article in the Saturday, March 21, 2026, edition of The New York Times. Click the following link to read that article, which is titled, "In Trump’s Administration, Military Housing Is Becoming a Hot Commodity."

The article to which I am referring is headed up by the set of photographs reproduced below. If you can't identify those pictured, read the article. They include the person whom our current president has selected as his Deputy Chief Of Staff For Policy, who is the person who has urged on the kind of attacks by ICE agents which have terrozied many, throughout the country, and which have led to the death of a few citizens who have protested or objected. Others pictured below include those persons selected to guide our foreign policy, our intelligence policy, the "War" Department, the Department of "Homeland Security," and the author of "Project 2025," which has provided an outline of many of the most controversial initiatives of the administration. All of those individuals pictured below are now living in "military housing."

The picture at the top of this blog posting appeared in a different article in The Times, that article published on Wednesday, March 25, 2026, and titled, "When Trump Wants Something Done, He Dispatches ICE To Do It." 

Another Times' article that I suggest is important is "Chuck Schumer: This Is Trump’s Plan To ‘Guarantee The Midterms.’"

I am informed that all of the articles I have linked can be read in their entirety (no paywall!), and I certainly encourage anyone reading this blog posting to make use of those "gift links" to do just that. My following comment, as I already said, has been prompted by that article that lets us know that a number of key advisors to our current president have now been provided with "military" housing. When I read that, I began wondering why - and as I began wondering why, I began entertaining what are really some rather dark thoughts. 

Here's my thought process. The highest legislative priority for our current president is, clearly, the so-called "SAVE Act." Click the link just provided to hear from the League of Women Voters, which strongly opposes this suite of bills. The "SAVE Act" and its impact is also well-described by Chuck Schumer in that opinion piece from The Times that I have linked. If enacted, the "SAVE Act" would help ensure that the current administration's control over Congress will continue. But what if it is not enacted (and there is a good chance that it won't be)? In that case, political forecasters are thinking that the current administration will probably lose control of the House of Representatives, and possibly the Senate, in the so-called "midterm elections" coming up in November. If that happened, our current president would, to a significant degree, lose his ability to act unilaterally, as though he were a "King," a title that he has has enjoyed discussing in the past. 

Assuming that the Congress does not pass the so-called "SAVE Act," and/or that upcoming elections do deprive our current president of his current ability to do whatever he wants to do, unimpeded by the currently acquiesent Congress, the extent of his frustrations can be imagined. I would not be surprised if he began making increased use of those Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) troops, which have already been deployed to carry out operations that seem intended to terrorize the communities to which they are dispatched. As that Times' headline says, when he "wants something done," our current president "dispatches ICE to do it." 

Well, is there some possibility that our current president might be thinking about sending ICE troops to local communities which have "resisted" - or might "resist" - his desires, to compel then to sit down, shut up, and do what he says? Is there some chance he might send them to the polls, during elections? Things like that could occur, should our current president continue to assert that he, and "he alone," is going to make decisions for this nation. If he used federal (ICE) troops, and/or regular armed forces troops, to insist that things be done "his way," we would be facing a real, constitutional dilemma, with the armed forces asserting control over our constitutional and "civilian" government.

Could that ever happen? I would like to think not, but IF it ever did, it might be very important for our current president to have those he relies upon most in his administration protected in their homes, which could be accomplished by locating their homes in "military housing." 

That was my thought process. Is there some hidden reason that the key administrators of our key administrative agencies are now living in housing located in the midst of a "military" enclave in our nation's capital? Maybe, they're all just a bit "greedy," and wanted to take over desirable residences formerly allocated to people serving in leadership positions in the military. That's pretty much the impression left by the article in The Times. 

But, there could be a different explanation. If you have been following along with my "thought process" you will understand at least one possible explanation that came to my mind. 

How should we all be acting, given what has been going on in this country? Well, what I will call the "Minnesota Model" has come to mind. That model relies on small groups of neighbors and friends, who coordinate with other such small groups, and confront difficult situations nonviolently. Those whose minds might contemplate the kind of thoughts I have outlined here should probably start thinking seriously about the contingencies that might become realities in the months ahead. Forming up a "Nonviolent Peaceforce," and getting ahead of the curve, could be an appropriate reaction to our recent news. 

As our current president might say, "Thank you for your attention to this matter." Let's all start thinking, seriously, that things could get a lot worse than they already are.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/23/us/politics/trump-ice-airports.html

(2) - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/21/us/politics/trump-aides-military-housing.html

#88 / A "Two Worlds" Sunday Sermon

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Bishop Robert Barron publishes daily reflections on the Bible. Click right here if you'd like to check out the latest, or if you'd like to subscribe (it's free). Below, find Bishop Barron's reflection on Matthew 21:33–43, 45–46 (emphasis added):

Friends, just before his passion and death, Jesus tells this striking story of the landowner who planted a vineyard. The fertile vineyard stands for Israel, his chosen people. But it could be broadened out to include the world. What do we learn from this beautiful image? That God has made for his people a place where they can find rest, enjoyment, and good work. 

We—Israel, the Church, the world—are not the owners of this vineyard; we are tenants. One of the most fundamental spiritual mistakes we can make is to think that we own the world. We are tenants, entrusted with the responsibility of caring for it, but everything that we have and are is on loan. Our lives are not about us.

You don't have to be formally "religious" to understand what I call the "Two Worlds Hypothesis," which is the name I have given to my understanding that we all live in two quite different "Worlds," simultaneously. Click that link for an early expression of my thinking, from 2014. 

Most, immediately, we live in a "Human World" that we, ourselves, design and build. Take a look out your window to the city streets - or, turn on your television. We shape and design the world that we most immediately see, and inhabit. That's "our" world.

In fact, though, the world in which we most "immediately" live (a world I often call the "Political World") is not the world upon which we "ultimately" depend. The "World of Nature," which can also be called the "World That God Made," at least by those who are not averse to utilizing some "religious" terminology, will either support our human civilization - or it won't. It's up to us to be smart enough to realize that we do, in fact, depend on Planet Earth, and the natural systems of Planet Earth, and that we are ultimately dependent on those natural systems, which will either support us, or not. 

As Bishop Barron is hoping to make us see, we are "tenants" in the vineyard, not owners. 

Let's pay attention to the basic requirements of the lease. Our "lease on life" depends on being smart enough to do that! If you don't know what I am talking about, do an internet search for "Global Warming."

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://vineyards.com/wine-region/usa

#87 / Once More With Feeling

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I am not a fan of cryptocurrency. I regard it as a scam, and I somehow can't stop repeating myself on the topic. Witness the screenshot below, showing some (not all) of my past blog postings making the point. 

Don't bite! That is my oft-repeated advice on cryptocurrency:

A relatively recent article in The New York Times is what has prompted the blog posting you are reading right here. The article was titled, "What Trump’s Embrace of Crypto Has Unleashed," and it points out that "a boundary-pushing array of new crypto ventures have reached the stock market, enticing investors and leading to more risk taking." Something new has been happening, with respect to crypto, and our current president is right in the middle of it. Here is a brief explanation by The Times: 

Mr. Trump has turned the once obscure world of digital currencies into a major force in the global economy. Declaring himself the first “crypto president,” Mr. Trump ended a regulatory crackdown on crypto companies, promoted crypto investments from the Oval Office, signed pro-crypto legislation and even launched a “memecoin” called $TRUMP.

That our current president has used his position to increase his own, individual wealth, and the wealth of his family, is nothing very new. Today, all across the country, "No Kings" demonstrations are protesting our current president's ceaseless efforts at self-enrichment, as well as protesting how our current president has sought to usurp the powers of the people. As I trust we have all learned, that is just how this guy rolls. And that's bad, of course! What's perhaps worse, though, is how his actions may compromise the economy:

A wave of companies have started offering products that make it easier to incorporate crypto into brokerage accounts and retirement plans. And industry executives are pitching regulators on a plan to offer coins that represent shares in public companies, which would be traded in a crypto-powered version of the stock market. 

The rush of experimentation has already led to problems. Major cryptocurrencies crashed over the last two months, sending businesses that had loaded up on the assets into free fall. Other new ventures have drawn warnings from economists and regulators who point to mounting risks.

At the center of the concerns is a rise in borrowing. By this fall, public companies had taken out large loans to buy crypto. And investors had placed more than $200 billion in bets on future coin prices, a type of trade often made with borrowed money, which sets buyers up for major gains or crushing losses. 

The industry’s latest offerings have also linked crypto to the stock market and other parts of the financial world, raising the prospect of a chain reaction that spills a crypto crisis into the broader economy. 

“The line between betting, speculating and investing has largely disappeared,” said Timothy Massad, who served as the Treasury Department’s assistant secretary for financial stability after the 2008 recession. “It’s very worrisome to me.” (emphasis added)

That the financial sector of our economy has been turned into a blind betting pool should be "worrisome" to all of us. If, or when, the entire economy tanks, because of a huge failure in the "crypto" universe, those who foolishly bet on one or another form of "crypto" won't be the only ones hurt. Thus, my "don't bite" advice needs to be updated. Individually, we should not be putting our own money into investments in "crypto," but if the whole economy goes down (think about what happened in 1929), everyone's economic position will be compromised, and the nation's economy, itself, might founder. 

It can't happen here? Or it can't happen "now"? 

Wishful thinking, I'm thinking. It's time for Congress, that set of elected representatives that is supposed to represent us, to start doing something about the economic dangers that threaten (and here's that word, again) "us."

Our current president is representing, and looking out for, himself. That's about the extent of it. Let's use these elections coming up this year to put people in office, as Members of Congress, who will care about us, and not just care about themselves. There's a lot of time before November, and things can go (badly) wrong with our economy. The promotion of "crypto" by the national government is "worrisome," indeed, and we may just have to keep our fingers crossed until we can do something more directly - by electing representatives who will actually represent us, and who will do something about the economic dangers to which the promotion of crypto has now exposed the nation.

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/technology/trump-crypto-unleashed.html

#86 / Let Us Remember: NO Kings!

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Tomorrow, all across the nation, Indivisible and other groups will be coordinating "No Kings" demonstrations. I have announced this before, so I am repeating myself.

THIS IS A REMINDER.

Wherever you may be, click this link to find a location where you can participate. If you're from Santa Cruz County, you can join a local "No Kings" demonstration by showing up at 10:00 a.m. TOMORROW MORNING, at San Lorenzo Park, in the City of Santa Cruz. A demonstration in Watsonville is scheduled for noon, in the City Plaza.

For my Santa Cruz friends: I am hoping to see you tomorrow at San Lorenzo Park!

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.nokings.org/?SQF_SOURCE=indivisible

(2) - https://www.indivisiblesantacruzcounty.com/ 

#85 / Seems Right To Me

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I have a pretty good opinion of Robert Reich. He is pictured above. I assume those who might be reading this blog posting will know who Reich is, but just in case that's not true, please feel free to click the following link, for a summary of Reich's career, thanks to Wikipedia.

 

Reich currently writes a Substack blog, and on February 26, 2026, his blog posting bore this title: "Pete Hegseth and the AI Doomsday Machine." Below, I am reproducing most of what Reich had to say, (emphasis added) because what he is saying does seem right to me. 

Reich claims that "the future of humanity" might well be at stake. Given that, let's contact our Congressional representatives, as Reich requests. You know, since "the future of humanity" might well be at stake. 

Friends,

Which is more important to you? Allowing Pete Hegseth to use artificial intelligence (AI) however he wants, OR preventing AI from doing mass surveillance of Americans and creating lethal weapons without human oversight?

That’s the stark choice posed by the intensifying fight between an AI corporation called Anthropic and Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Secretary of “War.” 

AI is dangerous as hell. I view it as one of the four existential crises America now faces — along with climate change, widening inequality, and the destruction of our democracy....

Anthropic has been one of the most safety-conscious of all AI companies. It was founded as an AI safety research lab in 2021 after its CEO Dario Amodei and other co-founders left OpenAI, concerned that OpenAI’s ChatGPT wasn’t focused enough on safety. 

Amodei has argued that A.I. needs strict guardrails to prevent it from potentially wrecking the world. In 2022, he chose not to release an earlier version of Anthropic’s AI software Claude, fearing it would start a dangerous technology race. In a podcast interview in 2023, [Amodei] said there was a 10 to 25 percent chance that A.I. could destroy humanity. 

In January, Amodei argued in an essay that “using A.I. for domestic mass surveillance and mass propaganda” was “entirely illegitimate,” and that A.I.-automated lethal weapons could greatly increase the risks “of democratic governments turning them against their own people to seize power.” Internally, the company has strict guidelines barring its technology from being used to facilitate violence.

Over the past year Anthropic has battled the Trump regime by pushing for state and federal AI guardrails. 

In recent weeks, Hegseth and Amodei have been fighting over the Pentagon’s use of Anthropic’s AI, called Claude. Amodei has stuck to his demands: no surveillance of Americans, and no lethal autonomous weapons lacking human control....

Last Tuesday, Hegseth issued Anthropic an ultimatum: It must allow the Pentagon to use its AI for any purpose or the Trump regime will invoke the Defense Production Act — forcing Anthropic to let the Pentagon to use Claude while also putting all Anthropic’s government contracts at risk.

The Pentagon already has agreements with Musk’s xAI to use its AI Grok, and is closing in on an agreement with Google to use its own AI model, Gemini. But Anthropic’s Claude is considered a superior product, producing more accurate information.

What’s at stake here? Everything. 

Pentagon officials have said that they have the right to use AI however they wish, as long as they use it lawfully. 

But because AI has so much political power, Congress and the Trump regime won’t enact laws to prevent it from doing horrendous things. That in effect leaves the responsibility to private AI companies such as Anthropic. Anthropic says it wants to support the government but must ensure that its AI is used in line with what it can “responsibly do.”

Hegseth and the Trump regime have given Anthropic until this Friday at 5 pm to consent to letting the Pentagon use its AI however it wishes or it will simply take it. 

Friends, this isn’t just a dispute between two people — Hegseth and Amodei. Nor is it a fight between the Pentagon and a single corporation. The issue goes way beyond this particular controversy. I don’t want to be overly alarmist about it, but the outcome could affect the future of humanity. 

What can you do? Call your senators and representatives now, today, and tell them know you don’t want the Defense Department to take Anthropic’s AI technology, and you do want them to enact strict controls on the future uses of AI. 

Visit www.congress.gov/members/find-your-member and type your address into the search box. A list of your representatives and their contact information will appear. Or you can call the Capitol switchboard directly at 202-224-3121 to be connected to your members’ office. 

As I’ve said before, congressional staffers log every single call that comes into their office in a database that informs the member of the issues their constituents are engaged with, and they use this data to inform their decisions. Staffers answering the phones are trained to talk with constituents, and they do it all day. They won’t be debating you about your position, and are likely to be primarily listening and taking notes. 

Please. Today.

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/5/11581940/robert-reich-ezra-klein

#84 / The Last Refuge And A Reminder

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I feel certain you know the name of the guy who is pictured above. The title I have put on today's blog posting was inspired by a Bob Dylan song. You can read the entire lyrics below, at the bottom of this blog posting, and you can also click right here to listen to Bob Dylan sing that song. The verse below is one of my favorites:

They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king

Bob Dylan, "Sweetheart Like You" 

Not only is the verse just above one of my favorites, it's a kind of reminder. This coming Saturday, all across the nation, there will be 3,000, or more, "No Kings" demonstrations. 

This is expected to be the largest protest in American history. 

Don't miss it!

oooOOOooo

Sweetheart Like You

WRITTEN BY: BOB DYLAN

Well, the pressure’s down, the boss ain’t here
He gone North, for a while
They say that vanity got the best of him
But he sure left here in style
By the way, that’s a cute hat
And that smile’s so hard to resist
But what’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

You know, I once knew a woman who looked like you
She wanted a whole man, not just a half
She used to call me sweet daddy when I was only a child
You kind of remind me of her when you laugh
In order to deal in this game, got to make the queen disappear
It’s done with a flick of the wrist
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

You know, a woman like you should be at home
That’s where you belong
Watching out for someone who loves you true
Who would never do you wrong
Just how much abuse will you be able to take?
Well, there’s no way to tell by that first kiss
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

You know you can make a name for yourself
You can hear them tires squeal
You can be known as the most beautiful woman
Who ever crawled across cut glass to make a deal

You know, news of you has come down the line
Even before ya came in the door
They say in your father’s house, there’s many mansions
Each one of them got a fireproof floor
Snap out of it, baby, people are jealous of you
They smile to your face, but behind your back they hiss
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

Got to be an important person to be in here, honey
Got to have done some evil deed
Got to have your own harem when you come in the door
Got to play your harp until your lips bleed

They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings
Steal a little and they throw you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king
There’s only one step down from here, baby
It’s called the land of permanent bliss
What’s a sweetheart like you doin’ in a dump like this?

Copyright © 1983 by Special Rider Music

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/donald-trump

#83 / Thank You For Your Attention To This Matter

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I think it is likely that anyone reading this blog posting will be familiar with the following observation: "An Eye For An Eye Makes The Whole World Blind." If that's not true in your case, or if you'd like to refresh your recollection, please click that link. Clicking the link will take you to one of my previous blog postings, dated October 14, 2023. 

On March 23, 2026 - yesterday - The Wall Street Journal carried a front page story that reminded me of that "Eye For An Eye..." statement. Here is the headline on that story from yesterday's paper: "Trump, Tehran Exchange Threats." Clicking that link should let you read the entire article. Here is the statement in the article that led me to my keyboard yesterday, and to punching out the blog posting you are reading right here (emphasis added): 

Iran said it would target critical infrastructure if President Trump follows through on his weekend threat to “obliterate” the nation’s power plants if Tehran didn’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz within days. 

The escalating rhetoric set off alarm bells across the Middle East, with oil-exporting Gulf countries saying that Iranian reprisals could further endanger the world economy. 

The U.S. president’s threat came in a Saturday evening social-media post. 

“If Iran doesn’t FULLY OPEN, WITHOUT THREAT, the Strait of Hormuz, within 48 HOURS from this exact point in time, the United States of America will hit and obliterate their various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!” Trump posted. 

Tehran said it would respond in kind to any attack on its critical infrastructure. Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi posted on X that the U.S.’s threat raised issues under international law. 

“An explicit threat to target power plants and vital infrastructure goes beyond a mere political statement; under international law, it concerns civilian objects,” he wrote, citing principles of international humanitarian law that he said prohibit deliberate attacks on civilian infrastructure.

If you are concerned about this exchange of threats - typical of our current president, as he continues to act as if bullying people is the best way to relate - I think you ought to "do something." 

What can we all do? Well, how about informing everyone we know - including by alerting our Members of Congress, and by putting out a bulletin on any social media to which we have access - that this kind of threatening, bullying behavior by our current president is, in our opinion, putting all of us in danger, and is totally unacceptable, and must be stopped, forthwith. 

And, further, how about urging everyone who sees your message, as you are seeing mine, to take immediate action to do the same thing, immediately, and to make clear that no one purporting to represent the United States of America has been authorized to make any such statements, and that any such person (including our current president) needs to "cut it out quick," lest the whole world go blind, with horrible consequences affecting everyone.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

 

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.istockphoto.com/search/2/image-film?phrase=blind+man+with+glasses&tracked_gsrp_landing=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.istockphoto.com%2Fphotos%2Fblind-man-with-glasses

#82 / TDS

 

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Wikipedia provides the following definition of "TDS," which I have used as my title, as seen above:

Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) is a pejorative term used to describe negative reactions to U.S. president Donald Trump that are characterized as irrational and disconnected from Trump's actual policy positions. The term has mainly been used by Trump supporters to discredit criticism of him, as a way of reframing the discussion by suggesting that his opponents are incapable of accurately perceiving the world.

I thought I might make a brief comment on "Trump Derangement Syndrome" since I have been accused of being afflicted by it. Some of my Facebook Friends, too, who have made comments that ended up on my Facebook page, have also been called out as carriers of TDS. 

As is so often the case, when arguments over issues of importance occur, accusing the "other side" of something that actually applies to you and "your side" is a well-proven way to defend oneself from criticism. For supporters of our current president to say that Trump critics are "incapable of accurately perceiving the world" is actually humorous, in a way, because a lot of the criticisms of our current president are based on the fact that he frequently says things that, seemingly, don't actually square with reality - at least reality as most people perceive it.

If you click here, you will be transported to a brief, online comment from the BBC, the theme of which is that our current president has provided contradictory "mixed messages" about the war he started in Iran. I, personally, think it's pretty accurate to say that these statements, and other statements made by our current president, do not accurately depict the world as the vast majority of the world perceives it. In other words, if there is any "derangement" in our relationship with the current president, the "derangement" is mostly on the president's side. 

I, however, don't think it's too helpful to argue about who is the most "deranged," the president or his critics. To the extent we pursue that approach, we will find ourselves, on both "sides," slipping around in an increasingly muddy pit full of accusations and responses. 

I wrote about our current president in this blog back on January 21st, and suggested that "the people," to whom the president is legally and constitutionally responsible, need to decide this question: Did we make a mistake in electing him to the presidency?

Back in January, when I published that earlier blog posting, our current president had not yet started a world-altering war with Iran. Now he has. Do we think that what our current president did was a mistake? If so, it was a huge and horrible one. If we think that choosing to begin that war was a mistake - based on what has happened since - then we need to take action to correct that mistake. 

I'm suggesting that we - acting through our representatives in the United States Congress - need to deliberate on this question. Seriously! Was it a mistake for our current president to start a war with Iran without obtaining the authority and direction to do so, as the Constitution provides? Was it a mistake, and has that mistake had negative consequences for us (and for the world)?

If our current president's unilateral action in starting a war with Iran was a huge and consequential mistake, would it make sense to put someone else in charge? The Constitution does provide a mechanism for us to do that, to correct such a mistake, if that's what we decide it was!

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_derangement_syndrome

#81 / What God Has Given To Us

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Precious angel, you believe me when I say

What God has given to us no man can take away

Bob Dylan's song, "Precious Angel," just came into my mind the other day, and the thought that I have written out, above - "What God has given to us, no man can take away" - seems like a pretty good statement for a Sunday. If you click that link I have provided, above, you'll end up with the complete lyrics to the song. Of course, if you'd like actually to listen to the music, then this link here is the one to click. 

As it turns out, I wrote an earlier blog posting about "Precious Angel," and it was pretty good, too - at least that's what I am thinking right now! You can click right here to go back in time to June 9, 2022, and to see what I said about that song (and Dylan) way back then. 

Here's what I am saying about the song right now: There really is part of us (or maybe, actually, it's the whole of us) that no one can take away. I am referring to our relationship to our "Higher Power," to use an Alcoholics Anonymous term. That relationship is the most profound and experienced truth of our human life - and if that claim doesn't resonate with you, that's because you really do have to believe it to experience it. In other words, I am suggesting that the old saying (that you have to experience it to believe it) may actually have it backwards - at least with respect to what's the most important truth to which we have access. 

It's paradoxical, I know, but the actual truth of the matter does seem to be this. "Seeing is believing" has got to be flipped right around, if we want to dive a little deeper into what we call our life: "Believing" (as it so often turns out) is actually the way we're able to "see" the reality of our situation.

"Possibility" is my category. That's what I like to say. Could it be that I'm right about thinking that "possibilities" can trump those "realities" that seem to limit and define our expectations? Is a "believing can make it so" way of thinking about the world a practical guide on how to live one's life?

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://people.com/music/bob-dylan-life-in-photos/

#80 / Light Secrets

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I really enjoyed a short story by Joseph O'Neill, published in the January 26, 2026, edition of The New Yorker. The story is titled, "Light Secrets," and if you are a subscriber to the magazine, I believe that clicking that link should give you access If you are not a subscriber, you might try this link. I think that might work, too, though no guarantees!

"Light Secrets" are the opposite of "Dark Secrets." We all know about those "Dark Secrets," don't we? Things like this: 

• What about the time that one of your work colleagues left his computer open when the coworker went to the restroom, and you read his screen, which you shouldn't have done, and which violated company policy, and because you did that you were therefore able to make a quick stock purchase that netted you $50,000, using your insider knowledge? 

• Or, what about that time that one of your wife's best friends dropped by "unexpectedly," or so she claimed, while your wife was out of town? But what then eventuated was really all her fault, wasn't it? 

• Or, what about the fact that your daughter, who ultimately achieved academic success, only got admitted to Stanford (you never told her this - or told your wife, either) because you made a $150,000 contribution to the university's development fund, and did so only after getting absolute assurances that your daughter would get in?

There are lots of "Dark Secrets" that are many times worse than those I just listed. We should count ourselves lucky if we don't have any of those really bad "Dark Secrets" - or any "Dark Secrets" at all, for that matter. 

"Light Secrets" are also genuine "secrets." We don't talk about them. We don't reveal them, even to our best friends or family members - or even to people we absolutely know that we will never meet again. Here is how O'Neill introduces the idea of "Light Secrets," on the very first page of his five-page story: 

P. says, "Everybody's got something to hide. Everybody." He wears his usual gloomy face. With no lessening of the gloom, he says, "but you know what else is true? Everybody's done something good that's hidden - the opposite of a dark secret." 

"A light secret," I suggest. "Precisely," P. says.

To repeat myself, I really liked O'Neill's story, and I encourage you to hunt it down. It struck me, after reading it, that going out of my way to build up a big, personal inventory of "Light Secrets" would be an excellent way to make worthwhile use out of whatever time I have left of my current life.

You might like that idea, too!

 

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/01/26/light-secrets-fiction-joseph-oneill

#79 / Both-And

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

 

Rahm Emanuel, pictured above, was heralded in one of my recent blog postings for his very sage advice on how to bring up one's children in the very best way. Emanuel's #1 child-rearing precept, which I completely endorse, is the following: "Meals matter. If you want to raise successful children, families have to eat together" (emphasis added).

I have repeated that advice here, in my blog posting today, just because I do think that this is extremely good advice. It bears repetition. In fact, though, today's blog posting has another main point. 

Emanuel, it appears, is getting ready to run for president, and according to a column in The Wall Street Journal, he is presenting himself as a "Renewal Democrat." The other option, according to the column by Matthew Continetti, is to be a "Resistance Democrat." You can read Continetti's column yourself, if you want to, but only if you can slip past what I think is likely to be a pretty robust paywall. Continetti's column is titled, "There's Only One 'Renewal Democrat.'"

Personally, I would have to say that "Resistance" needs to be a primary focus of anyone who wants to run for Congress this year, or for anyone who might be running for president in 2028. "Resistance" is absolutely called for at this moment in our nation's political life - unless you like what our current president and his appointed officials have been doing in Minneapolis, Minnesota in in Iran and the Middle East (to pick two, extremely dramatic, examples). 

"Renewal" would also be nice, don't you think?

Why do Continetti and The Wall Street Journal indicate that we have to choose?

I don't want our next president to have avoided resisting what our current president and his henchmen (a "loaded" term, I know), have been doing. I also don't want our next president to be unaware of the need profoundly to "renew" what it means to be an American, and to "renew" our nation's self-understanding. 

"Both-And." Is that really too much to ask?

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/theres-only-one-renewal-democrat-909dd548

#78 / Is Self-Congratulation Really What We Need?

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Writing in a column in The Wall Street Journal, Richard D. Kahlenberg and Lief Lin claim that "American Studies Can't Stand Its Subject." What does that mean? Well, the basic assertion is that scholars writing about America are painting a "one-sided and unrelentingly negative portrait of the U.S." Here's from the column (emphasis added):

 

Kahlenberg and Lin examined ... almost 100 articles ... from over a three-year period in American Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Studies Association. Published by Johns Hopkins University, it’s widely considered the country’s premier journal of American studies.... 

We found that 80% of articles published between 2022 and 2024 were critical of America, 20% were neutral, and none were positive. Of the 96 articles we examined, our research identified 77 as critical, focused on American racism, imperialism, classism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and transphobia. Some articles went to absurd lengths to identify sins. One essay posited that thermodynamics—the science dealing with the relationship between energy, heat, work and temperature—is “an abstract settler-capitalist theory that influenced the plunder of Indigenous lands and lives.” ...  

What’s striking is the complete lack of gratitude on the part of scholars who write for the leading journal of American studies and benefit every day from the country’s commitment to liberty. Four-fifths of the world’s population can’t criticize their government without fear of reprisal. Despite the White House’s crackdown on universities (which we oppose), professors can and do regularly criticize President Trump without worrying about losing their livelihood or freedom. 

American Quarterly is only one journal, but what’s found in its pages captures a much larger problem in education, particularly at the collegiate level. During our research, we contacted University of Texas at Austin historian Steven Mintz, who has analyzed the field of American studies. He told us: “A field that once asked, ‘What is America?’—exploring its myths, music, monuments, and contradictions—now too often narrows its focus to a different question: ‘Whom has America silenced, failed, or harmed?’ ” 

This deeply pessimistic view of the U.S. has taken hold of many young people. When asked whether America’s founders are “better described as villains or heroes” in a poll cited by the Atlantic in 2024, about 4 in 10 Gen Z respondents chose “villains,” compared with only 1 in 10 baby boomers. The bigger problem, as Rep. Ritchie Torres (D., N.Y.) has said, is that “a nation cannot endure if its children are taught to loathe it.”

The way the article comes across, the scholars who wrote for American Quarterly, and whose articles were analyzed by Kahlenberg and Lin, are faulted for not having been even a little bit congratulatory about America. It doesn't appear that Kahlenberg and Lin are claiming that any of the articles they reviewed were "false." They just didn't like the fact that there weren't more favorable articles, too. My impression is that Kahlenberg and Lin think that American Quarterly should have "balanced" what it published, so that the journal offered both self-congratulation and self-criticism in something close to equal measure. 

I agree with Kahlenberg and Lin that there is much to celebrate when we think about our nation and its history - and I think we should be celebrating those things! However, both the journal and the scholars who wrote for it were focused on what's "wrong" with America, not what's "right," which makes me think that Kahlenberg and Lin should have written an article exploring why the scholars' "negative" slant on America was so prevalent during the period they analyzed. Instead, they just deplored this negative slant, and implied that American Quarterly should have found some way to present a more favorable view of the nation and its history. 

Well, why do you think that "negative" perspective seemed to predominate in that period from 2022 to 2024? My suggestion? Read the newspapers! Think about how ICE raids in Minnesota are the antithesis of what we have always thought America was all about. That's just  one example. In fact, the actual "news" over the last quarter century is, factually speaking, news about those "whom has America silenced, failed, or harmed.” A more helpful article from Kahlenberg and Lin might have pointed this out, and then said why, and called for the nation to return to the foundation principles first articulated in The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. 

A call for "happy talk," which is what Kahlenberg and Lin seem to be arguing for, isn't going to help us. Scholarly observers are concluding, based on the findings made by Kahlenberg and Lin, that things are going wrong. 

I think it's true that things are going wrong, and instead of saying that scholars should be ignoring what the problems are, in order to highlight all the positive things, is not going to help us address the problems that the scholars have been identifying.

What we really need, I think, is not a more generous dose of self-congratulation. Rather - and calling up a phrase we hear a lot nowadays - we need a continuing scholarly commitment to outline and define what our nation actually needs to do if we want to:

Make America Great Again

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/american-studies-cant-stand-its-subject-c919f89c

#77 / Acceptance?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A recent article by Judith Levine, which appeared online in The Guardian, was published under the following heading: "Fears about nuclear war are reaching a fever pitch. Another grim sign of the times." Early into that article, Levine makes the following observation: 

The prospect of a third world war is both so unimaginable and so real that we seem to have leapt from Elisabeth Kübler-Ross’s first stage of grief, denial, directly to its last one: acceptance.

So, I guess I'm not the only one who's worried! It's just like Bob Dylan was singing, way back in 1963, in "Talkin’ World War III Blues" (I'm giving you the last verse):

Time has passed and now it seems
Everybody’s having them dreams
Everybody sees themselves
Walkin’ around with no one else
Half of the people can be part right all of the time
Some of the people can be all right part of the time
But all of the people can’t be all right all of the time
I think Abraham Lincoln said that
“I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours”
I said that

Even if you are not a Dylan-obsessive, I bet you've heard that song. At least, you will have heard it if you are in my age group. Click this link if you need to refresh your recollection by listening to Dylan actually sing that song - or click it if you are way too young ever to have heard that song, or to have grown up thinking all the time about World War III, and whether it's coming today, or maybe just tomorrow. 

Levine's reference to Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, by the way, references Kübler-Ross's book, On Death And Dying, in which Kübler-Ross argues that there are "Five Stages Of Grief." These five stages are, in order: (1) Denial, (2) Anger, (3) Bargaining, (4) Depression, and (5) Acceptance." I assume that anyone reading this blog posting is already at Stage #2, and I can report that some of my family members and friends have recently been speculating that I am already in the fourth stage. That could be right, but I am here to proclaim that I am never going to move on to Stage #5 - and I'm asking the same from you!

"Acceptance" means we have given up on the idea that our individual and collective efforts can change the world - to make it better, or to prevent it from becoming worse. I am ok with "Thinking About The Unthinkable," but I am never going to be willing to "Accept The Unacceptable." 

I am hoping you are also on that very same page!

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/mar/12/war-iran-world-war-3-discussion