#206 / Sasse On The Filibuster

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That's Ben Sasse, pictured. From 2015 to 2023, Sasse served as a United States Senator, representing the state of Nebraska. Sasse was diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer last December, but "rather than retreat into seclusion with his family, Sasse is choosing to die in a visible and vocal way. Sasse spends the few hours he has every day communicating his vision for America and his optimism about the future."

As part of his effort to get the word out on the things he cares most about, Sasse published an editorial statement in the July 20, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal. Online, Sasse's statement was titled, "America Needs The Filibuster." If you click that link, you should be able to read Sasse's argument in its entirety. 

Below, I am providing you with an excerpt (emphasis added). I, personally, think that Sasse makes a pretty good argument in favor of the filibuster:

Articles I, II and III of the Constitution divide power among three federal branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Each branch checks the others, but the Founders put the most authority in legislative hands. As a result, we divide lawmaking power yet again, between two very different bodies. We put the House and Senate on different time horizons and give them different constituencies. 

The upper house is built for the long view, with six-year terms that encourage a deliberative trustee model of representation. Senators owe their states both judgment and conscience. The House provides faster-loop warnings about public frustrations. Two-year terms and smaller districts combine to encourage a more urgent, passionate delegate model of representation. 

Despite these differences, enacting a federal law requires navigating both complex institutions in the same 24-month window and also giving the president an opportunity to weigh in. It’s a long shot by design. We do this in part to give the public time to come aboard—or to object angrily. We also do it because civic life works better when one-size-fits-all nationwide laws come with buy-in from large cross-sections of this continental republic. 

That’s American Constitutionalism 101. While the Senate’s filibuster rule isn’t in the text of the most glorious political document ever written, it plays a critical role in limiting and dividing power. Via procedural requirements to secure a supermajority of 60 votes before legislation can be passed, the filibuster safeguards the spirit of the Constitution’s anticonsolidation objective and prevents the misery of never-ending Flight 93 elections.

This argument, as I said, seems to make a pretty good case for the filibuster. "American Constitutionalism 101" does demand a "division of powers," and our Constitution does intend to encourage give and take, as national policy is developed, with compromise being, essentially, required, not just wished for. 

There is, though, a problem with Sasse's endorsement of the filibuster - at least in the current state of our politics. The "Constitutionalism 101" model of our national policy-making system depends on the idea that decisions that impact the nation, are supposed to be made by the legislature. Currently, our politics is not working that way. The "reign" of the current president (I use the word advisedly) is premised on the idea that "I, alone, can fix it." Our current president is the only one who has ever had the effrontery to say this out loud. However, a politics that lets the Executive, not the Legislature, make most of the key decisions renders the Legislative Branch almost irrelevant - and this has been going on for a long time!

Want to go to war? Well, who decides that? It appears, from the most recent decisions on that topic, that it is the president, and the president alone, who decides on whether the nation is to go to war. What about other major policy decisions - like whether or not to withdraw humanitarian aid, killing hundreds of thousands of babies in Africa? Again, recent experience says it's the Executive who makes those decisions (or maybe one or another of the current president's billionaire/trillionaire friends and major political contributors). If the Congress had to decide these questions (as "Constitutionalism 101" would require), neither of those decisions would have gone forward. 

The failure of the Legislative branch, subordinating itself to the Executive, has become even more destructive of good, democratic decision-making because of the extreme polarization of our politics. Instead of legislative decision-making being tied to compromises coming out of discussions and decisions of hundreds of different members of Congress, who come from different states, and who, thus, have different ideas, and different priorities, both the House and the Senate are now, almost always, either "Red" or "Blue," "Republican" or "Democrat," and the choices are binary. Since whoever is the president leads "the party," an argument that policy changes should be made operates on a four-year minimum turnaround time. 

Sasse's argument is this: 

The filibuster prevents the dramatic pendulum swings that are the natural result of simple-majority lawmaking. Every election and every vote becomes an existential crisis in a system that no longer plods through checks and balances.... 

Unfortunately, we already have the problem that Sasse claims that the filibuster is intended to solve, and the problem is related to the primacy given to the president, when the president is supposed to "execute" the policy decisions made by the Congress. Instead of worrying about the filibuster, right now, I suggest, that we solve our current problem. 

I have not been hesitant in suggesting that electing our current president was a "mistake." If we want to get back to "Constitutionalism 101," we are going to have to make government "by the people" actually work. It's not working now; that's for sure. The only way it can work is if we, the people, take charge and assert political control over those Members of Congress who are supposed to "represent us" - and who can actually do so, too, if they'll just use their power as it's supposed to be used. 

It's a delusion to think that it's enough just to make a binary choice and put a new "party" in charge, to to elect a new president. Great to do both, but the structural problem is that our Congress is no longer setting national policy - which means that "we, the people," aren't setting national policy, That, in the end, is a problem for which we have no one but ourselves to blame.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ben-sasse-dismisses-some-christian-nationalism-as-impractical.html

#205 / Eight Tribes?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a New York Times Opinion writer. She is also a pollster for the Republican Party. Anderson's politics, in other words, are undoubtedly quite different from my own. One of her "Guest Essays," however, which was published online in The Times on July 20, 2026, does have at least one observation with which I definitely agree. The Times titled Anderson's "Guest Essay" as follows: "America Has Eight Political Tribes. Which One Do You Belong to?" Clicking the link should let even non-subscribers read about Anderson's "Eight Tribes." 

Here's the statement from Anderson's essay with which I am unequivocally in agreement (the key assertions are bolded in the quotation, below): 

Voters are rarely in complete alignment with one political party or the other. They might lean to the left on guns and abortion but turn out to be law-and-order hawks on border security and policing. Some purists might see this as ideological incoherence; as a pollster, I call it completely normal. 

In fact, it is the rigid alignment within the parties in Congress, which has increased over the years, that is abnormal. We have a two-party system, but the American electorate is much more complex than the partisan binary would have you believe.

I have been - and rather frequently, too - pontificating in my daily blog postings against the "polarization" of our politics, which promotes the idea that we, the people (citizens and voters), have essentially two choices. You can either vote "Blue" or "Red," "Democrat" or "Republican." Our politics, in other words, is said to give us a simple binary choice. Pick your poison!

That "pick your poison" expression came immediately to mind, because to the degree that our politics has been, and is, relegating us to a "binary" choice, that politics has truly been "poisoned" for many, many citizens and voters. The reason for our widespread rejection of politics is the implicit demand that every one of us needs to select the "team" with which we wish to affiliate. Again, you're either "Red" or "Blue," "Republican" or "Democrat." LOTS of us don't see ourselves in this binary way, where politics is concerned, and so lots of us are rejecting "politics" itself, since it seems that you do need to "pick a side" if you want to get involved in politics in any meaningful way. 

I disagree that politics is best understood as providing us with a "binary" choice, and the bolded statements from Anderson's Opinion Essay are absolutely on target, I think. 

Where I disagree with Anderson is her suggestion that there are, actually, eight different political "tribes." Eight choices, rather than two, is an improvement, I guess, but I think that there is always a fallacy involved when we turn an observation into a statement about the nature of "reality." I definitely disagree that the "tribes" that Anderson identifies are "realities," and that the citizens and voters of the United States can be defined within one of the categories advanced by Anderson.

In fact, we are all "different," individually, and we also change our opinions and our allegiances based on both our observations and our experience. Trying to "understand" and "define" politics by "tribes," or "categories," is always to mistate what "politics" is actually about. "Politics" is the methodology we use to govern ourselves, as a diverse public, millions of people, different, individually, in almost every way, but all "Equal," as the Declaration of Independence so properly notes. 

If we look at how our Constitution tries to establish a framework to guide our experiment in self-government, we see that we expect to govern not on the basis of "parties," or "tribes," but on the basis of geographically-linked "elected representatives," who represent and are responsible to hundreds of thousands of different individuals. These elected representatives (collectively known as the Congress), then have to come to an agreement - of some kind - with hundreds of their colleagues, who represent different "districts," and through the "district" system, hundreds of thousands of other citizens and voters. 

Where has our "politics" gone wrong?

Well, if we really believe in "self-government," we need to be involved in government ourselves. That's the first big failing in our contemporary political life. "Politics" gives us "government," and that means that we each need, in some real way, to be involved in "politics." 

What kind of political involvement am I talking about? Based on the idea that we "govern" by first electing representatives, to make political decisions for us, we need to get involved in the elections by which we pick our representatives. Thereafter, we need to follow what those elected representatives do, to try to make sure that they actually do what we want them to do. We do both of these things by getting organized with others, who agree with our concerns, and then (as necessary) we cajole, harass, or inspire our elected representatives to do what we want them to do. If our representatives don't seem to be doing what we want them to do, we then need to organize to  replace those representatives who are failing effectively to "represent" the constituents as they are supposed to. 

Personal, political involvement by a significant number of citizens and voters is the key to democratic self-government. It's a lot of fun (but there's a lot of work involved, too, of course). Note, that if the government isn't doing a good job representing what the voters and the citizens actually want, the voters and citizens have to make them do so. If the citizens and voters think that's too much work (which is frequently true), then they shouldn't expect the government to function in a way that achieves what the people actually want. 

Our current "pick your poison" system of political polarization essentially lets citizens and voters off the hook. Our political "parties" become the decision-makers, and money (as always) will almost always win the day.

"Red" or "Blue," or eight different "Tribes"? It's no wonder that people hate "politics!"  

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/opinion/voters-political-parties-coalitions.html

#204 / Balcony Solar

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Robinson Meyer has some good news to share. In an article on the Opinion page of The New York Times, Meyer tells us that "Backyard Solar Is The Next Frontier." Online, Meyer's article is titled, "The Tiny Solar Panel That Could Change America."

The purpose of my blog posting today is not so much to comment ("hip, hip, hooray" would be an appropriate comment), but rather to alert anyone reading this blog posting that there may be a pretty cheap, pretty easy, and pretty effective way for you to join the fight against Global Warming (even if you're a renter). 

"Backyard" solar is also called "Balcony" solar. Here are a few excerpts from Meyer's article, though I do encourage you to read the whole thing (something that The Times says you can do by clicking that link I have provided in the first paragraph - even if you're a non-subscriber):

It’s not so easy to harvest the sunshine if you live in America. Homeowners can hire someone to install solar on their rooftops, but it can take many years for it to pay for itself. You might be able to buy a share in a nearby solar farm, but only if you’re lucky enough to live in a place where community solar is available. If you live in an apartment or condo, forget it — in many states, you have no options at all. 

But that might be changing soon in more than half the country. A technology — known as plug-in, balcony or garden solar — is already enormously popular in Germany, in part because you can buy a kit for less than $600 at IKEA. It’s a small solar panel system, often producing up to 1,200 watts of electricity, or generally more than a refrigerator consumes, that you can affix to a wall, hang on a railing or prop up in a garden — and then plug directly into a wall socket. With the help of a small device called a micro inverter, it pumps electricity into your household circuits to offset your power demand.... 

Plug-in solar demonstrates one version of the coming changes: With its small size, it makes balcony and backyard power production possible. But it’s only one messenger of many from that new world. As batteries continue to develop, larger and larger amounts of energy will be stored at ever-smaller sizes and scales, and that will enable innovations and technologies we cannot yet imagine — technologies that will change our world as much as the sextant, the bicycle or the jet engine. Some new zero-carbon energy technologies are already at the cusp of widespread deployment or at least technological feasibility: enhanced geothermal, space-based solar, mined hydrogen, new forms of nuclear fission and even nuclear fusion. 

Balcony solar will play one small role in that drama. It is cheap and modular and an affable addition to the energy system. And it may yet teach Americans the importance of adding new energy generation, recruiting ever more Americans to the head-spinning potential of the new technologies that stretches out before us — should we only wish to change.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://balconies.global/en-ca/our-balconies/

#203 / Possibility #3

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

"Possibility" is "my category." That has been my claim throughout the time I have been writing this blog - and for a long time before that, too. 

My first blog posting with the title, "Possibility" was published on July 19, 2010. "Possibility #2" followed on July 20th, the very next day. Almost sixteen years later, I typed out "Possibility" as the title I was proposing to use for today's blog posting, but before I posted my commentary, I searched back into my past blog postings, just to be sure that I hadn't used that "Possibility"  title before. As just noted, I had! 

As I did search back through the sixteen years that I have been writing and publishing one blog posting every day, I also discovered probably a hundred or more blog postings of mine that speak, in some way, to "possibility." As I say, "possibility" is what I consider to be "my category," meaning that I believe that thinking about what is "possible," as opposed to confining ourselves to thinking about what already exists, is the best way to relate to the world. Thinking about "possibility" can open up our thinking to a future about which we can be hopeful, and can help us direct our efforts in ways that will have some kind of positive impact. Thinking about "possibility" can also help us defend ourselves against a future that appears, so often, to be compounded of doom and despair.

I was fortunate, while an undergraduate at Stanford University, to have been enrolled in an Honors Program In Social Thought And Institutions led by Professor Charles Drekmeier. Those enrolled in that honors program, which is described a bit in the obituary linked to Professor Drekmeier's name, studied one word, or one phrase, during the entirety of their two-year enrollment in Dr. Drekmeier's Honors Seminar. Our group (in 1964 and 1965), studied and reflected upon the word, "Utopia." In fact, while officially enrolled as a major in "History," I really believe that I majored in "Utopia" during my time in college. That is undoubtedly where I finally determined that "possibility" is "my category," though I do want to credit my father, too. One of my past blog postings, "Father's Day Stories," provides a guide to how I was already heading in the direction of "possibility" by the time I got to college. 

oooOOOooo

In today's blog posting, I want to highlight a column by Peggy Noonan, published in The Wall Street Journal on May 30, 2026. Noonan's column, which definitely touches directly on possibility, was titled, "Becoming Who You Are Ain’t For Sissies," and clicking that link just provided should let you read it, as a "gift article." Noonan's picture, above, shows her in 1986, when she was 36 years old. The picture was furnished by Wikipedia.

I routinely read Noonan's columns, since I do subscribe to The Wall Street Journal, and Noonan makes a weekly appearance on The Journal's "Opinion" page, published on Saturdays. Noonan was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, and her politics and mine are certainly different. Still, she is often on the "right side" of current controversies, in my opinion - though definitely not always!

I consider Noonan's May 30th column to be a stellar introduction to "possibility," and I do hope that anyone reading this blog posting will take the time to read what Noonan has to say. I also hope that the "gift column" link I have provided will, in fact, let non-subscribers access Noonan's compelling story.

In short, Noonan was a kind of F*up and a "failure" during her high school years, and she had no expectations, whatsoever, of going to college, or of having any other kind of significant "success" in life. Her seventh-grade school counselor told her as much. A chance encounter, though, after Noonan had graduated from high school, as she worked as a waitress, convinced her that she did, in fact, have "possibilities" which she should pursue. 

She pursued them! 

I bet Noonan would say that "possibility" is her category, too, just like I say it's mine. Read her story and see if you agree. I hope anyone reading this - and reading Noonan's column - will decide that "possibility" should  be their own category, as well.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

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

#202 / Who's His Boss?

 

Vice President J.D. Vance

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A headline in the June 1, 2026, edition of The New York Times (I am referring to the hardcopy edition) did readers, and the nation, a significant disservice. Here's that headline, as it appeared in the paper dropped on my front walkway on Monday, June 1st:

Is Vance Heir Apparent In '28? His Boss Doesn't Seem Sure

So, here's the quiz question: What's wrong with this headline? 

Here's what's wrong: The President of the United States of America is not "the boss" of the Vice-President. The Vice-President is an independently-elected officer of the nation, as provided in Article II of The Constitution. The Vice-President is not a direct "subordinate" whom the president is entitled to boss around. Were that the case, Vice-President Mike Pence should have done what the then-president told him to do, after the 2020 elections, and subverted those elections, keeping in power the then-president, who lost his office in the elections held in 2020.

Citizens of the United States - many of whom do not, routinely, read the Constitution, and who don't, much, research what it says - should not be misled by what is often claimed to be the nation's most important daily newspaper. 

Let's be clear. Our current president believes that his election as the nation's Chief Executive is an entitlement that allows him to boss everyone around (including the Vice-President and including the Congress). That's not what our Constitution says. That is emphatically not what our Constitution says.

Let's not forget it!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/30/us/politics/is-jd-vance-the-2028-front-runner-trump-has-questions.html

#201 / Social Media Has Its Upsides!

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I received a social media message, a week or so ago, which kind of came out of the blue. I am copying that message, in full, below. I am also presenting a social media photo (above) that is associated with the person who sent me the message. 

I liked both the message and the photo, though I really don't have any inkling of what the photo might actually be seeking to convey! All I can say is that the photo above did put me in a pretty good mood - as did the message, too: 

Hello Gary, I only recall meeting you once, I believe it was in Safeway in Felton, many many years ago, but I and many of my fellow Santa Cruz residence will forever owe you a debt of gratitude for all the energy and resistant strength that you put into keeping our beautiful home from turning into a copy of the Santa Clara Valley. Were it not for you places like the lighthouse field, pogonip, the wingspread property and countless others would be lost forever. I wish there was somebody to pick up The baton from this point forward. Looking at what’s becoming a destructive trend to turn Santa Cruz into Los Angeles north. I appreciate your efforts even more. You fought some pretty tough battles against some very determined adversaries, and you won more than your share. You did us a wonderful service and many of us will continue to be grateful for that All the best

As you can see, that is a pretty nice message, and I truly appreciated receiving it - and, of course, I sent my "thank you" back right away. That message did come out of the blue, so it was one of those "made my day" communications! 

In all fairness, let me report that not all the messages that come my way on social media are so positive. For instance, here is an actual (no kidding) exchange dating from a few weeks before I received the laudatory message I have just copied out, above. MY social media posting comes first, with the reaction message next: 

MY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTING:

THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED TO MY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTING:

You are included into a sick fuck crowd that was created during the sixties. You represent a hate group that is far more evil than the Nazis or the KKK. You will never understand this until you die and meet with Satan.

oooOOOooo

Luckily, I don't get too many messages like that one!

As for the nice comment that I have put into this blog posting, I am naturally happy to have my efforts as an elected official recognized in such a positive way. In fact, though, while I played a major part in the land use and social justice policy changes that occurred during my time on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, all the accomplishments were made not by me alone, or by any individual, but by our engaged and active community, working together. I was honored to be an official charged with helping to implement the changes that our community wanted, but when I make a pitch for your personal involvement in politics, it's because I know what dedicated community action can do. 

We, truly, did "change the world," in Santa Cruz County (and in the state and the nation, actually), and I want anyone reading today's blog posting to know that when I put in a pitch for your personal involvement in "politics," and tell you that your involvement requires way more effort than just "voting," I do so because I have lived through a time when members of my local community did make positive things happen, using their government as the mechanism to make those good things happen. 

There's a lot more still to do, just in case you haven't noticed! I'm kidding! I know that we are all painfully aware that's true. Please don't give up on "politics," or think that "politics" is just the same thing as "resistance," or that your political involvement means "voting," pure and simple. 

Getting together, in person, with others who share a vision of what needs to happen positively, and what needs to be prevented from happening, negatively, is the way we can create the kind of world we need, and most ardently desire. 

Together, we can change the world. Check out that nice message I got. Let us remind ourselves of what we can do - and then.... let's get to work doing it!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10155891414963904&set=a.439613293903

# 200 / A New Way Of Living

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Here is one of Father Richard Rohr's "Daily Meditations," this one published on June 14, 2026: 

Christianity first emerged not as a new religion, but as a reform and sect of Judaism within Judea and the Mediterranean. Wherever Paul, Peter, and other early missionaries traveled, they formed small communities of believers in “the Way,” a movement that emphasized Jesus’s teachings, death, and resurrection as the path to transformation. Gradually the movement grew and took on a life of its own, welcoming non-Jews as well as Jews, becoming more inclusive and grace-oriented, until it eventually called itself “catholic” or universal. By 80 CE, there were Christians as far away as India and France. 

The early church period (the five hundred or so years following Jesus’s resurrection) was a time of dramatic change in culture, politics, and economy. All these changes affected the development of the fledgling religion, shaping liturgy, rituals, and theology. Historian Diana Butler Bass writes, “For all the complexity of primitive Christianity, a startling idea runs through early records of faith: Christianity seems to have succeeded because it transformed the lives of people in a chaotic world.” During this time, Christianity was not so much about doctrines or eternal salvation, but about how to live a better life here and now, within the “reign of God.” 

From the perspective of occupying Roman powers, the Christian sect was radical because it encouraged alternative behaviors that were both attractive to those at the bottom and threatening to the worldview of empire. Rather than acquiring wealth, this new sect shared possessions equally. Followers of the Way lived together with people of different ethnicities and social classes rather than following classist and cultural norms. 

Much of what Jesus taught seems to have been followed closely during the first several hundred years after his death and resurrection. As long as Jesus’s followers were on the bottom and the edge of empire, as long as they shared the rejected and betrayed status of Jesus, they could grasp his teaching more readily. Values like nonparticipation in war, simple living, inclusivity, and love of enemies could be more easily understood when Christians were gathering secretly in the catacombs. 

Several writings illustrate this early commitment to Jesus’s teachings on simplicity and generosity. For example, the Didache, compiled around 90 CE, says: “Share all things with your brother, and do not say that they are your own. For if you are sharers in what is imperishable, how much more in things which perish!” At the time, Christianity was still pure, simple, and loving, relatively untouched by empire, rationalization, and compromise (emphasis added).

I find a lot to like in downplaying a definition of religion understood as doctrine and dogma, and identifying religion, instead, with a "new way of living," a life of "simple living," with "generosity" and "nonparticipation in war" being a couple of the main features. 

 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://jenhatmaker.com/podcasts/series-16/live-yourself-into-a-new-way-of-thinking-richard-rohr/

#199 / From The Left

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That's Bill Press pictured. At the bottom right hand corner of the photo, you will see a copy of his book, From The Left. I just got through reading that book, and here is my one word review: RECOMMENDED!

I have known Bill for a long time, but I hadn't really seen him for many years. Quite recently, right around the Fourth of July, and on almost no notice, I had the pleasure of getting together with Bill for coffee, as he was vacationing with an eleven-member family group, right here where I live, in Santa Cruz County, California. Normally, Bill hangs out in Washington, D.C., with his wife Carol, and that is not a town I normally visit - especially under its current management. 

I did specifically ask Bill, and I'm sure it's on your mind, too: Bill absolutely swears that he had nothing to do, whatsoever, with the obvious sabotage of the Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool. Was Bill fleeing D.C. to avoid being pulled in for questioning? I put that right to him. No. This visit to Santa Cruz really was a vacation! And.... (I hope I'm not giving away any family secrets) a couple of Bill's grandkids, soon heading off to college, wanted to check out UCSC. Good idea, grandkids!!

If you read Bill's book - and again, it's recommended - you will encounter references to Bill's connections with almost everyone who has been involved in American politics over the last fifty years or so. That specifically includes those on both sides of the great political divide that has now come to characterize our political life - Red v. Blue, MAGA v. Progressives (those "progressives" sometimes known as Democratic Socialists), Republicans v. [Regular] Democrats. Oh yeah, and "Right" versus "Left." Bill, as the title of his book proclaims, is coming "From The Left."

Here's one more Santa Cruz and UCSC reference and story before I provide a little more information on what you'll find when you read Bill's book. A couple of Bill's friends, in a life that includes hundreds of friends, were Page Smith, the first Provost of Cowell College at UCSC and the author of some wonderful books on American History - and, equally impressively, Eloise Smith, Page Smith's wife and an independent star in her own right. Eloise was, among other things, the first Director of the California Arts Council. 

Well, my wife Marilyn and I, like Bill and Carol, count our friendships with Page and Eloise as a highlight of our lives, so Bill and I did get into a little bit of "Page and Eloise" storytelling during Bill's recent visit. I was happy to find that I had a tie to Page that Bill did not. We have both read, and possess, virtually all of Page's wonderful books on American History, and Page's The Chicken Book. Bill did not, however, possess a copy of A Letter From My Father. I am proud to say that I turned Bill on to that book (I use this terminology advisedly), and Bill has since reported back to me that he, now, also possesses a copy of that classic work, which he found "quite stimulating." Again, do your own research with the links I have provided and you will see that Bill's description of his enjoyment in reading that book is a description chosen for a reason.

Well.... on to a quick review of Bill's book, From The Left. This book is the story of Bill's life, which started out in Delaware City, Delaware, and went from there to nine years preparing for entry into the clergy of the Catholic Church, and then came around to politics (particularly centered on politics in California), which then led Bill to his current role as a (or maybe as "the") leading "progressive" or "left" commentator on the fraught politics of our nation. Bill started out on "Crossfire," and is now producing his own political commentaries. These include timely podcast presentations, as well as weekly written commentaries, which are something you can "read," as differentiated from something that you either "watch" or "listen to." 

I am definitely of the "I like to read" cohort, and I confess that I never saw even one episode of "Crossfire," back when it was, I believe, the most significant political commentary on television. I realize that this probably distinguishes me from almost everyone else who might be reading this blog posting. 

I ended up with this take away from Bill's book, which is one of the reasons that I recommend it to you: Despite the dramatic polarity of our contemporary politics, Bill has been able to be (and is) friendly with those on all sides of our politics, and he clearly believes (as I do) that "We Live In A Political World," and that our personal involvement in politics needs to survive our various reluctances to get involved, as well as the divisive polarization that seems to indicate that the aim of politics must be to destroy, entirely, the "other side." 

Whether you are, like Bill (and me), "From The Left," or whether you are "From The Right," we are all "in this together," and the joy and fulfillment that comes from a deep and sustained involvement in our politics is something we need, especially right now. Bill's life and work is convincing that this is possible.

Perhaps reading From The Left will inspire your own involvement in our politics - as a participant, not just as a spectator. 

I bet Bill would join me in saying that he hopes so!

https://billpresspods.com/

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Press

(2) - https://billpresspods.com/

#198 / If You Don't Shoot....

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Pictured above is Justin Cummings. Justin is currently representing the Third Supervisorial District on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors. That District includes most of the City of Santa Cruz, Bonny Doon, Davenport, and the Santa Cruz County North Coast. 

I was the Third District County Supervisor, in Santa Cruz County, for twenty years, from 1975 to 1995, and I still live in the Third District. Naturally, I pay attention to our County Board of Supervisors, and I keep my eye on Justin (whom I have endorsed both times he ran for the office). Justin has done a great job in what I know, from personal experience, is an important and consequential assignment. 

Recently, based on Justin's social media postings, I have become aware that Justin is massively interested in and invested in the World Cup soccer matches being played, this year, in the United States. This, for instance, is how Justin is currently heading up his personal profile page on Facebook: 

That picture above, so prominently associated with Justin's self-presentation on social media, indicates to me that Justin is definitely deep "into" the World Cup. I cannot match Justin's knowledge, involvement, or enthusiasm, but I have been happy to have been exposed to his ongoing commentaries as the various World Cup contests have proceeded. In fact, one of Justin's most recent commentaries presents some wisdom, in my view, that goes far beyond World Cup rivalries (emphasis added): 

England was looking good until after they scored, they changed up their game and decided to not attack. Argentina lived by my golden rule; if you don’t shoot you can’t score and that’s exactly what they did during the end of the second half. I was pulling for England, but they blew it by not trying to score second half and succumbed to the late game Argentina has been playing this entire cup.

Saturday 3rd & 4th: France v England 

Sunday World Cup FINAL: Spain v Argentina

Justin's "Golden Rule" (if you don't shoot you can't score) makes sense for those playing soccer (or "football," if you prefer to be "international" about it). However, that observation has relevance far beyond the soccer pitch. 

If we don't TRY, we will never succeed. Trying doesn't guarantee success, but Justin's "Golden Rule" is absolutely on target. If you don't "shoot" you will never "score." 

So, my message today is to follow Justin's guidance. Justin's "Golden Rule" provides some very good advice for those involved in the upcoming final World Cup matches. 

But Justin's "Golden Rule" is even better advice as a rule for living in general, and for politics in particular! For politics, though, we do need to remember that we're not "spectators," sitting in the bleachers and voting for the team we like best. We're on the field!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://patch.com/california/santacruz/candidate-profile-justin-cummings-county-supervisor

(2) - https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10109180847335452&set=a.10100249889306932

 

#197 / Global Warming Is Bugging Me (And You)

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Shayla Love has written an article that appeared in the June 1, 2026, edition of The New Yorker. In the hardcopy version of the magazine, Love's article was assigned to the "Brave New World Dept." It was titled, "Breeding Ground." Online, the title provided for Love's article is a lot more explanatory: "Our Warming Planet Is a Petri Dish for New and Deadly Microbes."

I am suggesting that you read Love's article, which is truly eye-opening. I think that the link I have provided will let you do that, but I do subscribe to the magazine, so it may be that non-subscribers will be stymied. I hope not! 

What Shayla Love tells us is that hot temperatures are leading to rapid and massively significant evolutionary changes in the various "bugs" to which we have, over millennia, built up resistance. 

We are unprepared to deal with the "modified" microorganisms that are now evolving to protect themselves from the ever-hotter temperatures being experienced virtually everywhere on Planet Earth. I have previously written about Ministry For The Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, a work of "fiction" that is based on real facts. It paints a pretty horrible picture of what increasing temperatures, like the ones being charted all over the world this summer, can do to us. We are in pretty deep trouble already, without taking into account the phenomenon that Love is writing about. If her article doesn't alarm you, you are not paying attention. 

Here is a link to an article in Grist, which I picked out pretty much at random. Its title is, "Western Europe just set the record for its hottest June ever." Love's article makes clear that the dangers of increasing heat are much greater than the fact that heat can kill us directly, as temperatures get too high. The record-breaking temperatures we are experiencing are probably going to get to us indirectly, by way of deadly microbes, long before we get start having to deal with conditions like those described in Kim Stanley Robinson's novel. 

No time for further delay! We need to modify everything, and make fighting against global warming our top priority - worldwide! See if the Shayla Love article doesn't convince you that I am right about that. 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/06/01/our-warming-planet-is-a-petri-dish-for-new-and-deadly-microbes

#196 / Who's To Blame?

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Presumably, I do not have to go into a great deal of detail, for anyone who reads this blog posting, as I provide a comment on the sad story of Graham Platner, who is pictured above. 

Platner, a Maine oysterman, just recently won the Democratic Party nomination for the United States Senate, in the State of Maine, and Platner was set to take on Maine's incumbent Senator, Republican Susan Collins, this Fall. Maine tends to vote Democratic, and there was a lot of enthusiasm for Platner, and it looked like Platner would probably win in November, giving Maine a Democratic Senator, and perhaps giving the Democratic Party a majority in the United States Senate. Obviously, as is always true in politics, there were no guarantees, but that what lots of people were predicting.

Alas (at least for Platner, and possibly for the politics of Maine, and possibly for the politics of the entire United States of America), the scenario just outlined has collapsed. Shortly after he won his primary victory, a former girlfriend accused Platner of rape, and although Platner denies the truth of that charge, the accusation seems to be pretty credible, and many of Platner's supporters (including Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) promptly withdrew their support for Platner's campaign. Platner has now removed himself from the Senate race in Maine. 

So, who is to blame in this sad story - other than Platner, of course? Well, Bruce Neuman, a resident of New York State, not Maine, fired off a letter to The New York Times, which The Times printed on July 9, 2026. Here is Neuman's analysis (emphasis added):

To the Editor: 

The issue is not what lessons can be learned from the rank candidacy of Graham Platner for the Senate but the sheer incompetence of the Democratic Party in allowing him to get this far. With so much at stake and with the signals of a problem candidate apparent, how did this guy even get through the process? 

We are at a dangerous point in American politics. Corruption abounds, as do moral issues that are seriously testing what kind of nation we are. Our aspirations have unfortunately often been vastly exceeded by the reality of our actions since our founding; what was a steady trajectory upward in our more recent history has all but evaporated. Comparisons can now be drawn to other failed states. 

The Platner candidacy was the most recent example of where we now stand. We look pathetic.

Bruce Neuman
Water Mill, N.Y.

Here's my comment on Neuman's assignment of blame. It appears, from the way that Neuman has phrased his letter, that Neuman is suggesting that "The Party" should pick candidates, instead of "the people" picking the candidates. 

If politics is held in significant disrepute, nowadays (as I think it really is, and as Neuman suggests that it is), one big factor, in my view, is the dominance of our politics by our political parties, which appear, all too often, to be largely funded by, and largely to represent, those who have a lot of money. In fact, "The Party," whichever "Party" it may be, is really in charge of our politics. That is the premise that underlies Neuman's letter. The editorial that appeared in the July 10th edition of The Times, and particularly the headline - "The Democrats Can't Go On Like This" - also seems to confirm that voters should expect to be given the choice of candidates that "The Party" approves and has presented to them. This is not, in my view, how best to achieve genuine "self-government."

In case that phrase, "self-government" isn't self-explanatory, "self-government" means a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," as Abraham Lincoln so wonderfully phrased it. That "by the people" part is actually the most important. "Self-government" means something quite different from having the ability to vote (even acknowledging how truly important that is). "Self-government" means that many of us (ideally all of us) are personally involved in politics and government, in some way - and that we are involved ourselves. We, the people, should be picking the candidates whom we believe will best represent us. A potential candidate's party designation is often relevant, but we should be picking the candidate, not "The Party."

Our political parties are supposed to take direction, not give directions. At least, that's the way I see it, and I think that ceding authority to "The Party" to decide who is going to represent us in our governmental bodies is to sacrifice, ultimately, the possibility of a self-government that can accomplish what that phrase promises. Instead of blaming some others, those with "authority," we need to move on from that and take a look in the mirror, and then do just what Michael Jackson says: "Change."

If mistakes were made, as in Platner's case it seems that such mistakes were made, WE, the people, the voters in Maine, made those mistakes. Instead of trying to blame "The Party," let's all take a hint from Michael Jackson, and look in the mirror! Click the link to hear him sing the song!

We've got a big November coming up. 

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/08/opinion/graham-platner-maine-senate.html

#195 / Hermon Husband, Revolutionary Hero

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Which image best tells us what Hermon (or Herman) Husband actually looked like? And who the heck is Hermon (or Herman) Husband, anyway? Wikipedia says Husband's first name is spelled "Herman." The New York Times Magazine, and author Woody Holton, says it's "Hermon." 

Well, let me return to this more important question: Spelling issues aside, "who the heck is (or was) Hermon (or Herman) Husband?"

Though our Fourth of July holiday has passed, I am still reading and thinking about that 250th anniversary of the signing of The Declaration of Independence. July moves on, but I'm still stuck on July 4th. As someone who majored in American History in college, this only seems natural. 

For those who weren't aware of this, virtually the entirety of the July 5, 2026, issue of The New York Times Magazine was devoted to a series of articles that The Times called, "Visions of America." I am making my way through that special edition of the magazine, and I am also still reading another special section of the July 5th edition of The Times that was focused on "six sentences that have shaped the American story." Clicking those links I have provided should give you access, even if you're not a subscriber to The New York Times. [And for those who aren't, but who might like to read The Times, from time to time, let me remind you that anyone who possesses a Santa Cruz City-County library card - free to County residents - gets free online access to The New York Times].

As someone whose favorite book is titled, On Revolution, I like to think that I am pretty well-versed in the history of the American Revolution. However, until I read those "Visions of America" articles (seven articles, by seven leading historians, focused on little-known revolutionary leaders), I was not really aware of how little I actually did know. I commend the series to you!

Hermon Husband (I'll use The Times' spelling) is described by author Woody Holton and The Times as a "radical pacifist who inspired the first armed rebellion of the founding era." I was most struck by Holton's description of how Husband worked to make sure that actual power would be available to "ordinary Americans." He was, in other words, someone who worked to provide the kind of real political power to ordinary people that would allow the nation actually to be governed by "we, the people," not just by "the elites." 

In case you haven't been reading the news, this is a real problem today. Elites of various kinds, from the billionaires on down, are actually the people who are "running the place." In the United States of America, that is not the way it's supposed to go. Hermon Husband knew that, right after the American Revolution disposed of British rule, and we've still got the same problem today. I identify with Hermon!

Read up. Maybe you'll identify with Hermon, too.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://thewayofimprovement.blog/2012/12/17/herman-husband/

(2) - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/06/22/magazine/american-revolution-hermon-husband-william-tryon.html

#194 / Three Flags, Coffee, And A Poem

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

On Sunday mornings, I walk from my house to the Santa Cruz Quaker Meeting; it's about a mile. Quakers are known, officially, as "The Religious Society of Friends." At the end of the Meeting, I walk back home. Before I do walk back home, I always get myself a cup of coffee, which the Quaker Meeting kindly provides. 

Yesterday, as I walked along, I encountered a couple of flags, and they put me in mind of another flag, from somewhere else (some pictures are below). Those flags tell a kind of story about our community, or so it seems to me. 

As for the poem, by Danusha Laméris, formerly the Poet Laureate of Santa Cruz County, someone had placed a copy of that poem on every seat in the Friends Meeting, before the Meeting began. Her poem stimulated quite a few lovely comments during that Friends Meeting yesterday.

A Flag From My Neighborhood

A Flag From A Nearby Neighborhood

A Flag From Somewhere Else

Small Kindnesses

Danusha Laméris

I’ve been thinking about the way, when you walk
down a crowded aisle, people pull in their legs
to let you by. Or how strangers still say “bless you”
when someone sneezes, a leftover
from the Bubonic plague. “Don’t die,” we are saying.
And sometimes, when you spill lemons
from your grocery bag, someone else will help you
pick them up. Mostly, we don’t want to harm each other.
We want to be handed our cup of coffee hot,
and to say thank you to the person handing it. To smile
at them and for them to smile back. For the waitress
to call us honey when she sets down the bowl of clam chowder,
and for the driver in the red pick-up truck to let us pass.
We have so little of each other, now. So far
from tribe and fire. Only these brief moments of exchange.
What if they are the true dwelling of the holy, these
fleeting temples we make together when we say, “Here,
have my seat,” “Go ahead—you first,” “I like your hat.”

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://grateful.org/resource/small-kindnesses/
(2) - (4) - Gary A. Patton, personal photos

(5) - https://danusha-lameris.mykajabi.com/