#316 / "Battlefield" Redefined

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The original meaning of the word "battlefield" is pretty clear. The idea is that "battles" are supposed to occur upon "fields" which, by definition, are outside the urban areas where large numbers of people live and work. Think about "Gettysburg," for instance, to use an American example, or "the Western Front," to pick an example from our last "World War." 

War, as a human activity, cannot really be justified (in my opinion) on the basis that "war," in general, or any specific war, constitutes a logical and effective way to resolve disputes, or to achieve some potentially positive goal. The planned, systematic killing of other people - people who are almost always personally uninvolved in whatever national conflict or dispute may exist - is simply not an appropriate or successful way to achieve some potentially positive economic, geographic, or political goal. Destroying the built environment is similarly an unsuccessful way to achieve anything positive. War, to my mind, is clearly both inefficient and ineffective as a way to resolve human disputes, or to demonstrate some sort of personal or national preeminence.  As I think I have revealed in an earlier blog posting, I refused induction into the United States Armed Forces in 1969, declining to participate in the "War in Vietnam," the then current conflict to which the United States voluntarily committed itself. 

While the War in Vietnam ended some time ago, the United States has subsequently found lots of other opportunities to "go to war." The current war in Iran, initiated by the the president of the United States, in total defiance of the requirements of our Constitution, has been allowed to proceed by our elected representatives in Congress, despite the fact that this shows their total lack of willingness to carry out the duties they were elected to fulfill. It's no wonder that "faith in government" has pretty much disappeared in the United States of America. 

But.... let's get back to that definition of the word "battlefield," the main point being that we don't really have "battlefields" any more. A fairly recent article in The New York Times reminded me of this - not that any of us really need to be reminded that the halcyon days when wars were fought on "battlefields" are now long gone. In World War II, the bombing of Dresden and other German cities, followed up by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic weapons (maybe as a "proof of concept"?), clearly demonstrate that no one believes, or ought to believe, that "wars" are something different from the large-scale murder of those whom the leaders of the nations involved have determined should be extirpated. 

And what objective is served?

Pardon me for sounding off, prompted by a rather "normal" news story. We will either replace "war" altogether or we will all end up (and it seems sooner rather than later) proving again the wisdom of an observation often attributed to Gandhi: 

An Eye For An Eye Makes The Whole World Blind

"Blind." Or, more likely "Dead."

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/24/us/politics/trump-netanyahu-iran-new-phase-of-war.html

#315 / One Ordinary Day....

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

This blog posting of mine copies out and conveys a story I found on Facebook on September 17th of this year. I am providing you with a complete copy of that Facebook posting, including that classroom picture, shown above. The story presented, I believe, is both profound and inspirational. This story documents the kind of change that is possible, but never guaranteed, unless and until some one person (or we together) does something new, and unexpected. 

Every teacher should consider the story recounted here as a model for an assignment for that teacher's class, or classes. But this story also provides an example for what could be an "individual" application of what this story is describing. 

We can, each one of us, help others to realize that their "greatness," their "value," and that the so-often unexpressed appreciation for them, by others, is genuinely and truly "real." Such an unexpected testimony can help someone else believe that they really are "great," and appreciated, on each an every "ordinary day." I actually had a thought about this, in one of my blog postings in September, contemplating those who died on 9/11.

Let's not wait for the aftermath of disaster to tell others what they only hope is true!

oooOOOooo

One Ordinary Day

One ordinary day, a teacher decided to try something simple with her class. She handed out two blank sheets of paper and asked her students to write down the name of every person in the room, leaving space between each one. There were no instructions yet, no explanation for what would come next. The room buzzed softly as pencils scratched names onto paper.

Then she gave them the real assignment.

“I want you to write the nicest thing you can think of about each person,” she said. “Something kind. Something true.”

The class went quiet.

At first, a few students hesitated. Compliments did not come easily to middle schoolers. But slowly, heads bent down. Pens moved. Thoughts formed. One sentence at a time, kindness began to take shape. The entire period passed without distraction. No one rushed. No one asked to leave early. When the bell finally rang, the students handed in their papers and walked out, unaware that they had just created something that would outlive the classroom itself.

That weekend, the teacher sat at her kitchen table and read every word. For each student, she carefully compiled a single list made up of all the kind things their classmates had written about them. She typed each list neatly, making sure nothing was left out.

On Monday morning, she handed each student their own page.

At first, there was silence. Then smiles appeared. Some students stared at the paper as if they didn’t quite believe it was meant for them. A few whispered to their neighbors, “I didn’t know anyone noticed me.” Others said softly, “I didn’t know people liked me that much.”

The lists were never discussed again in class. The teacher didn’t turn it into a lesson or ask for reflections. She simply let the moment be what it was.

But something had shifted.

Students walked a little taller. They spoke more gently to one another. For a brief, precious time, everyone felt visible. Valued. Safe.

Years passed.

One day, the teacher received news that stopped her cold. One of her former students, Mark, had been killed while serving in Vietnam. She attended the funeral, standing quietly among rows of uniforms and grieving faces. When she approached the coffin, she barely recognized the boy she had once taught. He looked older. Stronger. Too young to be gone.

A soldier stepped beside her and asked softly, “Were you Mark’s math teacher?”

She nodded.

“He talked about you all the time,” the soldier said. “You really mattered to him.”

After the service, Mark’s parents approached her. His father reached into his wallet and pulled out two worn pieces of paper, taped together, edges frayed from years of handling.

“They found this on Mark when he died,” he said. “We thought you might recognize it.”

It was the list.

The same list of kind words written by his classmates all those years ago.

Mark’s mother held back tears. “Thank you,” she whispered. “As you can see, he treasured it.”

As they stood together, more former students gathered around. One by one, they shared their own quiet confessions.

“I still have mine,” Charlie said. “It’s in my desk drawer.”

“My husband keeps his in our wedding album,” Chuck’s wife added.

“Mine is in my diary,” Marilyn said with a gentle smile.

Then Vicki reached into her purse and unfolded a faded piece of paper. “I carry mine with me,” she said. “Everywhere.”

The teacher could no longer stand.She sat down and cried — for Mark, for the students who carried those words through their lives, and for the ones who never got the chance to grow old together.

That was when she understood.

A single sheet of paper. A few honest sentences. A moment of kindness given without knowing how deeply it would be needed.

We spend so much time waiting. Waiting for the right moment. Waiting for courage. Waiting for someday.

But someday is not promised.

Kindness is not small. Words are not temporary. You never know which sentence will become someone’s anchor, which gesture will be folded and carried through war, marriage, grief, and time.

Say the kind thing.

Write the note.

Let people know they matter — now.

A teacher asked her students to write one kind thing about each other… never knowing those words would be carried through decades, war, and heartbreak. This beautiful story will remind you how powerful kindness can be:

Click to read the full story: https://ifeg.info/.../the-teacher-asked-her-students-to.../

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1245920835971361/user/61577703639826/

#314 / Comanditos

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Back in July, The New Yorker ran an article about María Corina Machado, who is pictured above. Click right here for a link to The New Yorker article. 

Wikipedia provides the following information about Machado:

Machado is a Venezuelan politician, activist, and prominent leader of the opposition to the administrations of Hugo Chávez, Nicolás Maduro, and Delcy Rodríguez. She served as a member of the National Assembly of Venezuela from 2011 to 2014, and has run as a candidate in presidential elections. She was awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. 

Machado has just recently returned to Venezuela, and to her former political life. That "political life," in fact, is what The New Yorker article is all about. I was most struck by the following, which chronicles events during Machado's most recent campaign for the presidency in 2024 (emphasis added): 

One day, driving through the western part of the country, Machado stopped at a restaurant off the highway. “A waiter came running over,” she recalled. “He hugged me and said, ‘María Corina, I’m your campaign manager in the village next door!’ ” Perplexed, she asked, “Who appointed you?” The man replied, “I did!” 

The waiter explained that there was no party office in his village, so he’d started one himself. The encounter inspired an idea: the creation of comanditos, small units of citizens that could serve as informal party representatives. Machado’s team wound up registering nearly seventy thousand such groups. At campaign stops, Machado encouraged people to announce the names that they’d selected for their comanditos. In conservative places like Mérida, the names tended toward Holy Virgin and the Trinity. Then, Machado recalled, she showed up at Maracaibo, where the locals are famously profane. “And it was Son of the Big Bitch! I’d tell them, ‘Coño, I can’t say these names—not during children’s hours.’ ”

For those who are discouraged about the possibility that "grassroots" or "community-based" politics could work here in the United States, at a national level (and that's really the only kind of politics that can accomplish the kind of transformative political changes that we need), this story should be inspirational. 

Self-appointed "campaign managers," dedicated to making sure the next presidential election will result in a Congress (and a new President) which will help steer our nation to what Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda used to call "Economic Democracy," could accomplish the kind of political changes we need. 

If that sounds good to you, I suggest that you consider doing a little research on Hayden and Fonda's "Campaign For Economic Democracy," or CED. Think about the possibilities! 

And.... think about becoming a community "campaign manager" for the political season upcoming.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/07/27/maria-corina-machados-opposition-in-exile

#313 / We, The People (And What Comes Next)

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The results of the midterm elections represent a genuine political earthquake - and a genuine political opportunity. What will happen now? Well, of course, that will depend on what people do. It will certainly depend on what the new members of Congress do, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and it will also depend on what our current president chooses to do. It will also depend on what "we, the people" do. I have a suggestion about that. 

We already have an idea about what our current president intends to do. While the election was a clear repudiation of the kind of divisive and mean-spirited approach to leadership which has characterized his current tenure as president, the president is apparently going to double down on that approach. Prime example? The president promptly terminated his Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, and has replaced her with Stephen Miller, who has both inspired and has helped lead the illegal and unconstitutional actions taken by ICE against "illegal immigrants," which has translated into death-dealing and family-dividing actions that have targeted, especially, persons who are not white. I think it is probably accurate to say that Miller is one of the most disliked persons in the Trump Administration. He is getting the nod to step up to be the central player who will communicate what our current president wants and thinks - besides what our current president communicates, himself, in his midnight barrage of social media postings. Some experienced commentators suggest that Miller is now the "defacto president." 

Moving on from the elevation of Stephen Miller, it appears that while our current president has somewhat wavered on the question, he has decided to reaffirm his support for Pete Hegseth, who likes to call himself the "Secretary of War," and who is hoping to get official support from Congress to rename the "Defense Department" as the "War Department." Hegseth may (and soon) face an impeachment effort in the House. Here is a link to a recent statement by Hegseth, in which he makes clear that he thinks that our greatest strength as a nation is not "diversity," but "unity." Since any real commitment to "unity" requires active support for "diversity," Hegseth clearly doesn't understand what unity is really all about. In his recent "State of the Force" speech, he made clear that his principle is to exclude those who don't fit his idea of who belongs in our armed forces. In short, "No fatties. No trannies. No beardos. No weirdos. No wimps. No radicals." Does this sound like "unity" to you?

Division, not unity, is going to be the main aim of our current president, as we enter what could be a completely new era, after the important changes made, across the nation, in the 2026 midterm elections. 

So, what should "we, the people" do? As I said at the start, I have a suggestion. 

I  believe that we have an important opportunity, right now, to make clear that "diversity" and "unity" go hand in hand, and that this election demonstrates that the American people want genuine "unity," based on a deep and sincere effort to elevate and celebrate our national "diversity." In other words, I believe that what the midterm elections showed is that an overwhelming majority of the nation wants inclusive policies that bring economic and other advantages to ALL Americans, instead of continuing to advance the interests of the already-wealthy, and the ultra-wealthy, at the expense of all the rest of us. Our nation made clear that we don't want any more of the name-calling and division that our current president and his appointees have promoted, and that he, apparently, intends to continue to promote. 

I believe that our new Congress should not see and celebrate this recent election as a victory of "Blue" over "Red," and of "Democrats" over "Republicans," and the new Democratic Party majorities in both houses of Congress should not use the Democratic Party midterm victories as an opportunity to pursue and punish those who lost the election. 

What the people voted for, and want, is not an ever more acrimonious division and polarization of our people, in all their diversity. What the overwhelming majority of us want is "one nation...indivisible." Those who have been elected should be working to achieve that. To me, that means that those who now control Congress should outline a bold program aiming at bringing "peace" to the world, not "war." They should be trying, in every way possible, to provide a second "New Deal," making sure that the wealth of the nation will be properly be called upon to benefit ALL of us, not just those who have been economically successful. We are in this life together, and that means that we need to make sure that the wealth of the United States is used to respond to all of our needs. 

Those Republicans representing traditional "Red" areas should be generously included in efforts, initiated by our new "Blue" Congress, that will benefit everyone, including "Red" constituencies. "One nation, indivisible," not more polarization and division, is what the country has voted for. Let our new Congress forget about trying to punish those have aided and abetted our current president, who has sought to divide us, and turn its attention - and "our" attention - to doing everything we can to promote the unity we so desperately need, and that we need to rely upon, as we face a future filled with danger, and with great possibility as well.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/116393680895

#312 / Bob Dylan Says, "I'm A Religious Person"

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I have been subscribing to The Wall Street Journal for quite a while, but I can't really remember how long I have been subscribing. Was I a subscriber in 2022? I think so, but if I was, I somehow missed a news story on Bob Dylan, published in The Wall Street Journal on December 19, 2022. Here's a link to that article, which was titled, "Bob Dylan On Music’s Golden Era vs. Streaming: ‘Everything’s Too Easy.’" I'm a longtime Dylan fan, and I think what Dylan said in that 2022 Wall Street Journal article was right on target. Use the link and check it out for yourself.

However, as I sat down to write out a blog posting on Dylan's commitment to religion, I discovered that something wasn't exactly right, and I was not at all clear what was going on. I heard about The Wall Street Journal's December, 2022 article from another article, this one much more recent, being dated June 6, 2026. That recent article was published in Church Leaders, and was titled as follows: "Bob Dylan: ‘I’m a Religious Person Who Reads Scripture Daily.'"

I absolutely believe that Dylan truly is a "Religious Person," and I am not a bit surprised to find out that he does read scripture on a daily basis. However, when I read the Church Leaders' article, in which those claims were made, the authority for what it claimed about Dylan, and the authority cited for a fair number of lengthy quotes, was that 2022 article in The Wall Street Journal for which I have already provided a link. 

Here's the problem: NONE of the quotes attributed to Dylan in the 2026 Church Leaders' article can actually be found in the 2022 article in The Wall Street Journal that Church Leaders cites as the authority for the claims made about Dylan.

Perhaps Church Leaders, and author Stephanie Martin, just made a mistake, and they should have been referencing some other place where Dylan actually made the statements attributed to him in that Church Leaders' article. Another alternative explanation might be that Church Leaders and Stephanie Martin just made up the Dylan quotes.

I decided to pursue the topic, since I was not, and am not, inclined to "take it on faith" that Bob Dylan actually said the following (as claimed by Church Leaders, citing to a Wall Street Journal article in which this statement does not, in fact, appear): 

“I’m a religious person,” [Dylan] told the Journal. “I read the scriptures a lot, meditate and pray, light candles in church. I believe in damnation and salvation, as well as predestination. The Five Books of Moses, Pauline Epistles, Invocation of the Saints, all of it.”

My "research," if you can call it that, ultimately got me to an explanation, thanks to a November 4, 2026 article in The New York Times, talking about Bob Dylan's recent meeting with the Pope. Until I read that very recent article, I didn't know whether Dylan actually said what I have just quoted - what Church Leaders has claimed that Dylan said, citing to an online reference in The Wall Street Journal that does not support the Church Leaders' claim. In fact, though, Dylan did say what the Church Leaders' article claimed, but the proof of that is not in the published Wall Street Journal article that Church Leaders cited. Dylan's statement appears in the transcript of a discussion between Dylan and Jeff Slate, a musician, not a reporter, who is cited as the author of that Wall Street Journal article. Click right here, if you'd like to read the transcript of the discussion that ultimately led to the article in The Wall Street Journal. The transcript is found on Bob Dylan's official website, and the conversation occurred in December, 2022. 

I am happy that I was able to track down, and verify, Dylan's statement about reading the scriptures a lot, and about Dylan being a "religious person." The transcript absolutely confirms what I have actually always known, namely, that Dylan is, in fact, a "religious person." My "Memorial List" of songs,  mentioned in some of my earlier blog postings, is a compendium of Dylan songs that convince me that's true. Those songs also provide lots of evidence that Dylan, indeed, must "read the scriptures a lot." 

You can click this link if you'd like to evaluate those Dylan songs yourself. They're pretty good!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://churchleaders.com/christianity/441296-bob-dylan-im-a-religious-person-and-read-the-scriptures-a-lot.html/2

#311 / A Little Free Library Book Report

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

There will probably come a time when the person whose photograph is featured above will not be so universally well-known, or so well-remembered and so loved, that no identification of that person will be necessary, beyond the photograph itself. 

It may be true, in fact, that such a time has already come for someone who is now reading this blog posting (reading it on November 7, 2026, the date I am publishing it, or at some future time, beyond that date). For me, the picture is enough. I know who that is!

If, in fact, there is someone reading this for whom that picture is not enough, please know that the picture I have presented is of Eleanor Roosevelt, the wife of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but a person of great substance, individually, all on her own.

In the last year or so, I have found myself doing a lot of reading of books that I acquire, for free, from one of the many Little Free Libraries that abound in Santa Cruz, California. I can't, actually, remember where, specifically, I found Eleanor: The Years Alone, by Joseph P. Lash, but I am extremely happy that I did! Unless you get really lucky, and find your own copy in some Little Free Library somewhere, you will have to buy the book - or (let's not forget) you can borrow a copy from your local library. Reading this book is something that I do recommend. I particularly recommend the book for anyone who was born in the 1940s, as I was, and who cares about American history. Lash tells a story that you will probably assume you know all about, but I am betting that you won't actually know much, at all, about Eleanor Roosevelt, and the life she led after the death of President Roosevelt in 1945. 

Eleanor Roosevelt was born in 1884, and she died in 1962. Lash's book covers those the seventeen years from 1945 to 1962, from Franklin Roosevelt's death to her own, and those were years packed full of consequence. Eleanor Roosevelt played an incredibly important role, during those years, and what she accomplished (and how she accomplished it) presents a gripping story about the politics of our nation. 

Here's a quote from Page 327 (emphasis added): 

"This I know," she dictated to Miss Denniston [who attended her in her last days], in a voice that was almost a whisper. "This I believe with all my heart. If we want a free and peaceful world, if we want to make the deserts bloom and man grow to greater dignity as a human being - we can do it!"

I want to say about this statement by Eleanor Roosevelt the very same thing I said about a statement made by Franklin Roosevelt, which I featured in my blog posting on September 1st: 

*I endorse this message!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/eleanor-roosevelt

#310 / Acedia

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

 

Acedia is counted as one of the seven deadly sins, and is specifically identified as "sloth." Acedia is also known as the "Noonday Demon," or as the "Noonday Devil." A search on Google makes clear that equating "acedia" with "sloth" does not fully explain the condition, at least as "sloth" is usually understood as pretty much the same thing as "laziness." Acedia is not just some kind of simple "laziness," though a failure to "get to it," and "get to work" does typify "acedia." While it is akin to " burnout," acedia is associated with a kind of "existential dread." It is a "modern malaise distinct from clinical depression."

When I recently confessed to battling with "acedia," in a conversation with some "political" friends, I was more or less amazed, when I defined the term (previously unknown to them), to hear them profess the same affliction about which I was complaining. Of course, what lies ahead for our nation, and the world, does generate a kind of "existential dread." The realities of the world, today, are perilous, and like some sucking vampire at my neck, I do find myself fighting off acedia, that "existential dread" that saps my faith and powers and postures itself as "sloth." 

Naming the demons that bedevil us can be seen as a "step one" in shaking them off, and banishing them from our lives. I am fighting back, and I can still profess, and do, that "Possibility" is my category!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://stonedominicans.org/en/news/283-acedia-the-noonday-devil

#309 / An Anthology Of Miracles

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I faithfully read The New York Times each day. I get the paper delivered, so I do my original reading in the hardcopy version of the paper, which means that I have to wash the ink off my fingers before typing out any reaction I might have, here in my daily blog. 

Often, the "hardcopy" and the "online" version of a headline will be different. That is not true in the case of a column by Roger Rosenblatt, published in The Times on September 3, 2026. I will provide a link to the column, which even non-subscribers should be be able to access. I recommend that you do that. Rosenblatt's column is not "political," but speaks to those of us who are "getting old." His column is titled: "The World Is A Room With A Piano, Waiting To Be Played." 

If you click the link to Rosenblatt's name, Wikipedia will tell you that he is "an American memoirist, essayist, and novelist." That column in The Times certainly goes along with that "memorist" category. In the column, Rosenblatt tells a story from when he was six years old. He was on vacation with his parents in Westport, Connecticut, and went out for a solo walk (even at six years old). He saw "a large, beautiful house with a sunroom with glass walls so that I could see a Steinway concert grand in the middle of the floor."

The "door was open," Rosenblatt discovered, and so he went in and started playing. This led to his discovery by "a princess-like woman" who was smiling (not upset). The woman took Rosenblatt back to his parents in their rented vacation house, and upon receiving an apology from Rosenblatt's mother, the woman said that "it was a pleasure to see how innocent and unafraid" he was. 

Well, Rosenblatt's mother responded, "that's how he is. He thinks the world is a room with a piano in it waiting to be played." In his column, the adult Rosenblatt, the memorist, tells us that "in fact, it is."

I loved Rosenblatt's column. Why I did is obvious, if it is remembered that I frequently say that "possibility is my category." Rosenblatt's description of what the world is really like is a wonderfully poetic translation of my own thought. But what I also loved about Rosenblatt's column - let me renew my suggestion that you read it yourself - was this statement:

Like any life, mine has had its pain, yet from the outset it seems to have been graced by unbelievable people and events. An anthology of miracles. Before me and around me as a child and with me ever since. 

Me, too! And you, too, I hope!! Life can best be understood as an "anthology of miracles." I hope you recognize that your life is just like that. 

To replay Rosenblatt, "in fact, it is."

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/30/opinion/wonder-awe-aging.html

#308 / Run For Something

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Who is that, pictured above? That is Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run For Something.

Run For Something is a political action committee that recruits and supports young progressive candidates. Wikipedia tells me that Litman has been recognized by Time, Bloomberg Businessweek, Politico, and Fortune for her work in progressive politics, and that her writing focuses on generational turnover in American political leadership.

Well, are yesterday's midterm elections taking us to a "generational turnover" in our nation's political leadership? I think it's a little too early to be absolutely certain, but I'm hoping that they are!

Yesterday, November 3rd, election day, Litman had an online conversation with Robert Hubbell, who writes a daily blog on American politics. Hubbell's blog is called "Today's Edition." I think, if you click the link I am providing right here, that you will be able to view a video and listen to their conversation. 

I found the conversation between Hubbell and Litman extremely heartening. I keep suggesting, in my own blog (the one you're reading right now) that we can be successful in restoring self-government to the United States, and that the key to making that happen is to elect people to office, and to then hold them responsible. 

Running for something is absolutely required. Somebody has to do it!

It could be you, and if you are young, and progressive, Amanda Litman and Run For Something will help you win!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/20/climate/tree-plagues.html

#307 / It's Election Day

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Way back on September 5th, I was advising those who read my blog that "a tough political choice" was coming up in the City of Santa Cruz. I continue to think that this is a pretty accurate statement about the Mayor's race in the City. That choice is now upon us. Today is your last day to vote (if you haven't voted already, which I actually hope you have).

Back in September, I didn't really know all of the questions that would be presented to voters in today's election. Having now reviewed my ballot in its entirety (actually, I have already submitted my ballot), I find that there are lots of tough political choices - particularly with respect to both statewide and local ballot measures. Some of the state propositions, for instance, are genuine puzzlers. Do we need to have a new system to change how replacements are selected when a statewide official is recalled? Proposition 5 eliminates the need for a "second election." There are some legitimate arguments on both sides.

There are also very legitimate questions about some of the local ballot measures. Take Measure E, for instance. A "Yes" vote will impose, within the County of Santa Cruz, a temporary half-cent general sales tax increase, hopefully giving giving our County government an ability to cope with cutbacks expected in funding for health care and local food and housing assistance. As one of my friends noted in a Letter To The Editor, however, the proposed tax is a "general tax," and the new funding, if authorized, can actually be used for any legal purpose. 

Do we trust current and future officeholders to spend the new money that the tax increase would bring for the kind of emergency food, housing, and essential services protections that are advertised? Why not propose a "special tax" that could be spent ONLY for the essential services that Measure E promises to support? Well, the problem is that a "general tax" only requires a vote of 50% plus one to pass. A "special tax" requires greater than 2/3 of the voters to agree, and such measures often fail. If we really want to provide more money for these essential services, a "Yes" vote on Measure E does seem advisable, but that also does require some significant faith in our elected officials, and/or some faith that we will make certain by our future political action that our elected representatives won't let County bureaucrats convince Board Members to divert these monies to fund more employee perks (as an example). I, personally, am voting "Yes" on Measure E.

IN THE CASE OF TWO BALLOT MEASURES, THE RIGHT VOTE IS CLEAR (in my opinion). 

If you haven't yet voted, I hope you'll say "YES" to Measure D, a Santa Cruz County Measure which will make it much more difficult for those who want to turn our offshore waters into oil fields - or who want to initiate "seabed mining" that would massively degrade our ocean environment. 

In addition, State Proposition 45, if enacted, would eliminate or massively limit any kind of significant environmental review of potentially harmful industrial and other development proposals, including (though the proponents attempt to hide this fact) the development of so-called "data centers," putting the state's natural environment at significant risk, as well as putting at risk the energy and water supplies we now take for granted. I STRONGLY URGE A "NO" VOTE ON PROPOSITION 45!

What I am really urging in today's blog posting is that you VOTE. If you haven't yet voted, please do! 

To use a phrase that I often used when I was running for election myself, "the stakes are high." That's true today, just as it was back in 1978, when Santa Cruz County voters protected this county's commercially viable farmland, put a limit on urban sprawl, and demanded the production of affordable housing by way of "Measure J," a local ballot measure that I wrote, and that is still in effect.

I expect that many, and in fact most of those who read this blog posting will (like me) have already voted. If you haven't voted yet, please do vote, today. I think it's too late to put your ballot in the mail. Vote in person, or drop your ballot at one of the "dropbox" locations you can find right here. 

Then.... after we all vote on the state and local issues that have crammed our ballot, we can all stay up late, watching the national news, and hope that the nation is making a turn towards the better. I'll be doing that, and I think that some very critical political work is just beginning, starting tomorrow morning!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://action.momsrising.org/sign/have_you_voted_2024/?

#320 / Federal Control Over Elections

     

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

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

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

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

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

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

oooOOOooo

David Remnick

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

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

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

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

Image Credit:

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

#305 / The Christian Moral High Ground

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

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

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

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

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

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

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

The audience broke into cheers before he had even finished. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

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

#304 / Democratic Socialism

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compromise will be required!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

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

#303 / Am I (Are We) Superfluous?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Meriam Webster

superfluous (adjective)

b: not needed : unnecessary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

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