#34 / Sam (B.S.) Altman

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The title on my blog posting today was stimulated by a column by Michelle Goldberg, who writes for The New York Times. My title, implicitly, accuses Sam Altman of "bullshit," to spell it out for you. That's Sam Altman, pictured above. 

I, personally, think that it is pretty clear that the deployment of Artificial Intelligence, or AI, as that deployment is currenty underway, raises hugely important questions. I also think that these questions are properly catagorized as "political" questions, and they are of consumate importance. Frequent readers of my blog will not be surprised by this assertion. Senator Bernie Sanders spells out a number of these political questions in the video below: 

Michelle Goldberg, in the column I have linked in my first paragraph, also spells out important reasons to question the deployment of AI. Her column focuses on "which party" will lead anti-AI efforts, but her concern about that question stems from Golberg's contention (agreeing with Sanders) that we are "sleepwalking into a dystopia that any rational person can see from miles away." 

If you haven't spotted that upcoming dystopia yourself, do listen to what Senator Sanders has to say in his video, and read Goldberg's column, outlining her thoughts (The Times' paywall permitting, of course). 

As Goldberg properly notes, AI "obviously has beneficial uses." However, she says, "the list of things it is ruining is long." Goldberg's list of things being ruined by AI includes (1) Education; (2) Employment; (3) The environment; (4) Privacy, and (5) "Our remaining sense of collective reality." Again, Goldberg and Sanders are both pointing to REAL threats and concerns. 

And what about Sam Altman? Altman began his involvement with AI by helping to set up a nonprofit corporation dedicated to preventing the potentially negative impacts that AI might have. Time having passed, Altman has transmuted his nonprofit into a for-profit company, and he is a "booster." Here is how Goldberg describes the trajectory of Altman's "changing views" (emphasis added):

In “Empire of A.I.,” Karen Hao’s book about Altman’s company, she quotes an email he wrote to Elon Musk in 2015. “Been thinking a lot about whether it’s possible to stop humanity from developing A.I.,” wrote Altman. “I think the answer is almost definitely not.” Given that, he proposed a “Manhattan Project for A.I.,” so that the dangerous technology would belong to a nonprofit supportive of aggressive government regulation. 

This year Altman restructured OpenAI into a for-profit company. Like other tech barons, he has allied himself with Donald Trump, who recently signed an executive order attempting to override state A.I. regulations.

Goldberg's column goes on to raise a question about "what we get in return for this systematic degradation of much of the stuff that makes life worth living," and in looking for an answer to that question, Goldberg quotes Sam Altman, directly: 

“The rate of new wonders being achieved will be immense,” he wrote in June. “It’s hard to even imagine today what we will have discovered by 2035; maybe we will go from solving high-energy physics one year to beginning space colonization the next year.” 

Altman's answer to the concerns being raised is that what we're going to get from AI will be "immense, hard even to imagine." Let's not try to avoid saying it. This is nothing but promotional bullshit, intended to keep investors willing to put their money into Altman's corporation, hoping for a big win, moneywise. Altman and those who are funding his efforts are aiming to make billions, and there is no substantive discussion about the very real concerns that Goldberg and Senator Senators are enumerating. In fact, as Goldberg says in her column, "the most high-profile innovations that OpenAI’s ChatGPT has announced in 2025 are custom porn and an in-app shopping feature."

I am always promoting "self-government," which means that we, the ordinary people of the nation, who will be directly affected by what happens, should be having a direct impact on that "what happens" question. We should be "running the place," not acting like spectators at a tennis match. That idea about self-government is what got us started almost 250 years ago. 

To be in charge, we need to confront the hard questions, and then figure out what to do. 

Bullshit does not assist us!

Click This Link To Subscribe

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.toolshero.com/toolsheroes/sam-altman/

(2) - https://youtu.be/K3qS345gAWI?si=1CYaM9PqZliBFa3A 

#33 / Curtains For The Movie Theater?

 

 Click Here For The Blog In The Original

In an "Upward Mobility" column in The Wall Street Journal - a column that appeared in print on December 9, 2025 - Jason L. Riley opined  that it would "soon be curtains for the movie theatre." He could be right! As a "pull quote" in the hardcopy edition of the newspaper put it: "older generations can't be bothered to go, and younger people want to stream their films." Right at the end of his essay, Riley expanded on this "pull quote," as follows:

Younger generations raised on smaller screens can’t miss what they never experienced, and they seem mostly to enjoy staring at themselves on their devices, which is a topic for another day. In any case, streaming allows them to consume movies on their terms rather than the theater’s, and Netflix is giving them what they want.

Let me address Riley's "topic for another day" right here - and right now. As he notes, our relationships with truth and reality, are now most typically experienced as we gaze into a "screen" of some kind. That includes how we relate to the movies we watch, but the same phenomenon is evident in education, in business, in social interchanges, and in politics. A preference for human interactions mediated by our "screens," and by "online" exchanges instead of "real life" exchanges, has diverted a lot of real life political action into online engagement - when it hasn't switched it off, entirely.

I don't think this kind of approach to politics will "compute," to pick a verb. Effective political action requires real people gathering in small groups, meeting frequently and jointly working to achieve specific governmental actions - making our so-called "elected representatives" actually represent the people they are charged with representing. 

I recently had occasion to respond to a Santa Cruz County resident who is upset with a proposed development proposal in an unincorporated part of the County, and who had written me for encouragement, asking if she and her neighbors were, now, basically, "powerless." As I read Riley's observations about the movies, and thought about some of the political implications of the migration of so much of our lives, including our politics, "online," my advice to this county resident came to mind: 

I don’t really know anything about this proposed development. It’s in “the County,” not the City, so the land use policies of the County will apply, and the Supervisor who represents this District is, by reputation, pretty pro-development. State law is also very supportive of higher density housing developments, so I am sure this is an uphill battle. However, “powerless” is not the right word. 

The key thing, I believe, is to have an organized group in opposition. Such a group would need to meet, in person, on a frequent (probably weekly) basis, and learn everything that can be known about the project, and then build broad opposition to the project as now proposed, and then make the County Supervisor who represents this area know how much opposition there is, so the Supervisor starts working to respond to local constituents. 

Bottom line, local residents are not “powerless,” but they need to get organized to consolidate and maximize their power - they need to spend a lot of time (and probably some money) to impact governmental decisions, in an environment in which lots of residents are really “detached,” and in which the state government is now affirmatively helping development interests defeat local residents who [oftentimes quite properly] are opposed to a development proposal that might have very negative environmental and other impacts.

The need for "in-person" engagement is necessary for effective political action at all levels - local, state, and national. To be politically effective, in other words, we need to do it in "real life," not "online," and we need to reallocate our time so that "politics" and "political organizing" gets some increased and appreciable share of the time not already absolutely committed somewhere else.

Less "entertainment," and more "engagement." Whatever the future for the movie theater, that's the prescription that will keep our politics healthy.

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g33048-d7762389-Reviews-Del_Mar_Theater-Santa_Cruz_California.html

#32 / Our "God-Given" Right?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I learned, from the January 26, 2026, edition of The New York Times, that Republican members of Congress were "split in response to the shooting" of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, who was killed by a federal agent in Minneapolis on January 24th. 

I assume that those reading this blog posting will have heard of this killing, and will, probably, have already formed an impression about whether or not it was justified. The circumstances were a bit different from those present when a federal agent killed Renee Good, but in both cases, citizens who believed that they were exercising their rights, as American citizens, were killed by federal immigration agents. I have already commented, in an earlier blog posting, about the killing of Renee Good. 

Cited in the January 26th article was Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican from Kentucky. Here is what Massie apparently said, in criticizing what the federal agents dealing with Pretti did: 

Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it’s a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don’t understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government.

I am not willing to go quite as far as Representative Massie. There is no doubt that American citizens have a Constitutional right to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution secures our right to do that - and it's clear. The Second Amendment provides that we have an explicit, Constitutional right "to keep and bear Arms."

Our Seconed Amendment rights, however, are not "God-given." The right to "keep and bear arms" was established by a political choice made at the time that the Bill of Rights was added to our Constitution. God was not directly involved. That right to "keep and bear arms" has been established by human (not divine) action. 

We could change that, you know! 

Let's not forget that fact!

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://gundigest.com/handguns/best-9mm-pistol

#31 / A Peace Action Questionnaire

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I am a contributor to Peace Action, a nonprofit group based in Silver Spring, Maryland. Click the link if you'd like to become a contributor, too.

Peace Action describes its work as follows: 

Peace Action is the nation’s largest grassroots peace network with chapters and affiliates in states across the country. We organize our network to place pressure on Congress and the administration through write-in campaigns, internet actions, grassroots lobbying and direct action. Through a close relationship with progressive members of Congress, we play a key role in devising strategies to move forward peace legislation. As a leading member of various coalitions, we lend our expertise and large network to achieving common goals. 

For over 60 years, Peace Action has worked for an environment where all are free from violence and war. We understand that long-standing global conflicts require long-term solutions and that US foreign policy has a lasting effect on the world. We are working to promote a new U.S. foreign policy that is based on peaceful support for human rights and democracy, eliminating the threat of weapons of mass destruction, and cooperation with the world community. We organize against pre-emptive wars, and advocate for the withdrawal of American troops and contractors from the endless wars across the Middle East. 

There are still nearly 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. The U.S. and Russia have thousands of nuclear weapons on hair trigger alert ready to launch in minutes. While the Cold War may have ended, the nuclear threat has not. The only way to ensure that nuclear weapons will never again be used – whether purposefully, or accidentally – is global abolition.

Recently, as a past contributor, I received a questionnaire from Peace Action, a "2026 Campaign Priorities Survey." I was asked for my personal views about what Peace Action should be focusing on during this year just now beginning this January. Peace Action asked some specific questions, and then also for any general "feedback I might have about the orgnization's programs and strategies." Peace Action provided me with a half-page space to write down my thoughts. Here's what I wrote: 

We need, as a nation, to inspire young people, particularly, to see their personal lives not from the perspective of how can I get ahead/survive individually, but from the perspective of what we can each do, individually, to help bring about, together, the huge economic, social, and political changes that will allow us - and the whole world - to survive. In other words, we need to find an effective means to encourage and allow concerned people (and especially young people) to reallocate their time, moving away from individual career and entertainment activities as the most important priority to activities that will promote environmental protection, economic and social justice, and genuine peace, on a worldwide basis.

Time reallocation. That's what I am advocating as a major need. And I think that is true for all of us. For we "old folks," too - as well as for young people. During the 1960's, people redirected their energies from inidividual efforts to "get ahead" to engage in joint and collective efforts to stop the war then proceding in Vietnam, and to end the centuries-old regime of racial injustice that has afflicted our nation from its beginnings. We changed the world - and for the better - though backsliding has definitely occurred.

Today, global warming and the increasing threat of nuclear war loom over every one of our lives. And while some progress has been made on racial, economic, and social justice, I do believe much more work is needed. 

My "old folks" view is that "time is short." 

Time reallocation - for all of us. That can help us meet this moment! For those who follow my blog postings on a more or less regular basis, you will see that I am reiterating, as this first month of the year comes to an end, what I said as this month began!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.peaceaction.org/who-we-are/

#30 / Could, Should, Might, Don't!

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I heard about the book pictured above from a review in the "Bookshelf" column in The Wall Street Journal. Andrew Stark's review was headlined, "A Profession Of Prediction." Stark says that the book he reviewed, Could Should Might Don't, by Nick Foster, is an examination of "how we think about the future." 

Let me weigh in with a personal observation, which is directed at a slightly different, though clearly related, question. "How should we think about the future?"

My comment here replays comments I have made before, in earlier blog postings. I continue to be concerned that we not see ourselves mainly as "observers" of reality, but as the "creators" of reality. That is even more important when the "reality" we are thinking about, and discussing, is a "future" reality. 

"Observation," telling us "what is," makes the most sense when we are talking about current conditions. When we think about the future, though, I suggest that we need to think in terms of "possibility," not "observation." Thus, any discussion of what the future "could" be, or what the future "should" be, needs to include a focus on our own ability, by our personal action, to "make it so," to use the language notably employed by Jean-Luc Picard, in Star Trek.

Based on the review, it looks to me like Nick Foster's book is mainly focused on how we might best "predict" the future, and that, of course, is important. It's important to plot the trajectory of events and to know what "might" happen in the future. It's also important to consider those "don't do" actions and activities, too, as we contemplate what sort of a future we might have to confront. Here, for instance, is one of my favorite "don't do" actions: Don't ever use nuclear weapons again, ever! Click right here to see what I said about that topic last Wednesday.

When we "think about the future," though, what is most important is to think about what we want the future to be, and then about what actions we need to take to create that future. 

Our "real" future - the future "reality" that we will confront (starting with tomorrow, and moving forward from there) is not properly understood by looking ahead at what "might" happen (including all the bad things that "might" happen if we undertake some of those "don't do" proscriptions). 

What is the best way to "think about the future?" 

What "could" we do? What "should" we do? Those are the questions we need to focus upon, as we think about the future, and what we really need to do is to start is by thinking first about what we "want" to do. 

Then, we all need to turn into Star Trek fans, and follow this famous admonition: 

Make It So!

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374619350/couldshouldmightdont/

#29 / With More Tragedy And Stupidity

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

 

The image above depicts Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal. Below, I am providing you with a copy of his column dated January 28, 2026, so you can read it in its entirety. I think it's worth reading. 

The column is particularly worth reading if you know something about the editorial positions that have typically been taken by The Wall Street Journal. The Journal is (or has been, perhaps) extremely supportive of our current president - at least, that's the way I read it. The column below, though, is different. It claims, for instance, that "Fight, fight, fight isn't a presidential coalition built to achieve anything." The title of the column implicitly calls our current president "mean," and the column states that our current president is repeating a [failed] pattern with respect to his "deportation binge," but that he has done so "with more tragedy and stupidity." 

Now, do you think that there is any chance that Republican Members of Congress might start doing a little "truth telling" of their own? 

We can only hope that they'll start doing that - and/or we can replace them this coming November. Let's not forget that option!

oooOOOooo

Trump’s Regression to the Mean

By Holman W. Jenkins, Jr., January. 27, 2026

Only with more tragedy and stupidity, Donald Trump repeats a pattern. Like every other president’s deportation binge, his is ending in a backlash while producing no meaningful effect on the large U.S. illegal immigrant population.

Take the headline on this column as a double entendre but today’s subject is the conventional meaning of regression to the mean, the statistical phenomenon whereby extreme outcomes are followed by more typical or average outcomes.

To give the most obvious indicator, the betting markets have signaled for months that Republicans in the fall are likely to lose the House and perhaps the Senate. 

Lacking in last week’s Davos hysteria was any sense of politics. Mr. Trump’s address was a stump speech for channel flickers at home, on the way to dropping the Greenland threat that he so typically parlayed into global attention.

Guess who else is a politician? Every national leader in the room in Davos, who all have voters back home. Mark Carney could have not bothered getting back on his plane unless he found a suitably viral way to express what Canadian voters were feeling about Mr. Trump in that moment.

And yet NATO will survive. Quite obviously it will become only a more attractive U.S. partner as Europeans shoulder more of the cost and responsibility. 

Say what you will about the Davosites, they are worldly types who understand regression to the mean. The next U.S. president won’t be anything like Mr. Trump, most importantly lacking the license he gave himself to behave the way he does by being Donald Trump in public for 40 years before becoming president.

Nor will the next president’s way be paved by the political gold that Mr. Trump got from the idiocies of Adam Schiff, Rachel Maddow, James Comey and the Bidens Joe and Hunter, who might as well have been on the Trump payroll.

Nor will he or she benefit from the nakedly commercial, ratings-based codependency of Mr. Trump and his cable TV detractors, also a product of his unique career path.

At every opportunity, headline writers define Mr. Trump as an outlier, a norm breaker, an offender against all that is holy. That is, until he opens his mouth at Davos. Then he becomes, alarmingly, synonymous with “the U.S.”

Davosites aren’t fooled. They know Mr. Trump is not a country of 340 million. They may even know a bit of electoral history. Nationalist, Midwestern, isolationist, culturally conservative America gets its hands on one party or the other’s nomination every 60 years or so: William Jennings Bryan, Barry Goldwater, Mr. Trump.

I would add another reversion to the mean. An OECD study finds a measurable increase in the stupidity of U.S. and other Western publics in the social-media age. Politicians speak frankly of a post-literate electorate. A practicing psychotherapist pointed out on these pages that Trump derangement syndrome is actually a bipartisan affliction. You suffer from it when your self-esteem is threatened by somebody saying something positive about Mr. Trump. You’re no less afflicted if you’re a supporter who feels threatened when somebody says something negative about him.

There’s only one way for the pendulum to swing: back toward adulthood, or what our therapist contributor calls proper psychological distance.

How will you know? When one of those serious, lauded Democratic governors, the kind always being cited as a future president, decides it’s safe to give an adult speech about Ukraine. Or when there is a sudden abatement in the panting ambition of Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut to be this cycle’s Adam Schiff.

As for Mr. Trump, he has three years to change the story line, but the provisional epitaph has been written. He is failing to expand his coalition. He shrinks it with reckless gestures aimed at keeping his name in the news. He had the AI wind at his back, the post-Covid recovery, a business and investment community united in revulsion at the fake moderation of his predecessor Mr. Biden. Mr. Trump could be building a pro-growth legacy like Ronald Reagan’s, leaving his mark on both parties by reviving Americans’ faith in themselves as a free and enterprising people.

What is Reagan not remembered for? Deportations. He put his effort into legalizing people already here—nearly three million, the largest such legalization in U.S. history. He made a point of promoting and signing a law with increased enforcement powers but barely used them. He deported in eight years fewer people than President Obama did in six months. Reagan understood the purpose of prosecutorial discretion. America had failed so long and so consistently to enforce its own immigration laws or make them sensible. It owed better to those now here than to treat every undocumented grandmother and restaurant worker as the equivalent of a Tren de Aragua gangster.

This even Mr. Trump has repeatedly given an impression of understanding.

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-regression-to-the-mean-011c8056

#28 / Thinking About The Unthinkable (Update)

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That is Herman Kahn, pictured. Kahn was an American physicist and a founding member of the Hudson Institute. He is regarded as one of the preeminent futurists of the latter part of the twentieth century. Kahn originally came to prominence as a military strategist and systems theorist while employed at the RAND Corporation. He analyzed the likely consequences of nuclear war and recommended ways to improve survivability, positing the idea of a "winnable" nuclear exchange. I am citing to Wikipedia in describing Kahn's background and bonafides.

What I remember best about Kahn is his book, Thinking About The Unthinkable, which was published in 1962, and which I think I read during my freshman year in college. I never bought into his idea that we could wage and win a nuclear war, and for most of my lifetime, nobody has really taken that idea very seriously, or has suggested that we should think about putting Kahn's theory to a real-world test. 

Our current president, though, is now proposing that the United States should start a whole new round of nuclear weapons tests, sending a different signal to the world. The way I read that message, our current president is suggesting that we should be looking backwards, to the days of an all-out nuclear arms race, and he wants us to get going right back in that direction! Our current president, in other words, is once again suggesting that we should be "thinking about the unthinkable." I am still not sold. 

Also not sold on this idea, I note, is Sojourners magazine. A recent article by David Cortright and William D. Hartung is suggesting how we should be reacting to what they identify as a resurging nuclear threat. Click the following link to read their article, "People Of Faith Helped Stop Nukes Once; Let's Do It Again."

Really, I am absolutely certain in my own mind that we have a lot better things to think about than how to "Make America Great Again" by ramping up efforts to prepare to fight and win a nuclear war.

If you have a contrary view, maybe the link you need is the one to that book by Herman Kahn!

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/notable-quotable-herman-kahns-deterrence-1479679722

#27 / A Dependence On The People

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

My title is quoting James Madison, one of our Founding Fathers and the fourth president of the United States of America. Madison was popularly acclaimed as the "Father of the Constitution" because of his pivotal role in drafting and promoting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Here is what Madison said in The Federalist No. 51:

A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

I came across this quotation not from my own reading of The Federalist. Rather, I have copied it out from a newspaper column by David French. French's column appeared in the January 21, 2026, edition of The New York Times, and here is the title of that column: "An Old Theory Helps Explain What Happened to Renee Good." 

If you click on the link, you should be able to read the entire column - and I encourage you to do that! Renee Good, as I assume those reading this blog posting will know, was killed on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent named Jonathan Ross.

A main point of French's column (perhaps the main point) is that there is not, really, any effective remedy when an agent of the federal government (like Ross) violates your rights, and damages you. This effective immunity, says French, extends even to instances in which you are unjustifiably killed by a federal agent. 

While there can, undoubtedly, be a debate about whether Ross's decision to kill Good was "justified" (I, personally, don't think it was, and it seems that French doesn't think it was justified, either), French's point is that this question is really irrelevant. If federal agents are immune from prosecution or penalty when they kill people, as they act in their official capacity, it actually doesn't matter whether or not there was any "justification" for what the agent did. 

Are you a federal agent, acting in that capacity? Well, if you are, it appears that you can feel free to kill people as you go about your duties. That is really the existing situation, as outlined by French. 

Because this is so antithetical to everything we believe in - and specifically to our belief that no person should be above the law - French's column explores the topic. That is where his citation to The Federalist comes in. Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," was clearly worried about this topic, and about the possibility that government officials might abuse their power. If they do, says Madison, it is "the people" who have the ultimate responsibility to make sure that justice prevails. Of course, as Madison properly notes, "auxilliary precautions" should also be in place. 

Reading French's discussion, it becomes clear that our current president, and his administration, have helped strip away any kind of legally-enforceable restraints on the power of government agents, giving rise to a situation in which they are, effectively, able to do whatever they want, including murdering people they decide they don't like. If they do that they will be, in all practical senses, "immune" from any consequences. 

However "wrong," and unjustified, and outrageous Renee Good's conduct  may have been (as some claim it was), an extremely strong argument says that shooting Renee Good in the face, three times, was totally unjustified, even if she was, in fact, "impeding" ICE's legitimate work (which I really don't think was true). But whatever Good's conduct, that doesn't matter. The federal agent who killed her will bear no penalty.

This is what French reports. There are no effective limits that can be used to penalize an ICE agent for the agent's conduct, even if that conduct is ultimately found to have been completely unjustified. 

Well, if that is the actual legal situation (and French makes a very strong case that this is, in fact, the case), then where does that leave us? If French is right, and any "auxilliary precautions" that used to exist no longer do exist, and have been stripped away, then what we have left is "the people." 

This is where we all have to ask ourselves (because you and I are, in fact, "we, the people") what can we actually do? 

Well, we will have to do something different from what we're doing now, right? Do we care enought to do that - to "reallocate" our time? Once you start thinking about it, it is clear that this is what is absolutely necessary. Are we willing to continue to be "the led," even if that ends up meaning that federal agents can murder people that they get irritated with, with no effective penalty?

If "you," as an individual, or if "we," getting together to act collectively, want to change our current situation, then we will need to organize to take back the political power that we have ceded to an authoritarian president and a heedless Congress, and to state and local officials who aren't, lots of times, fighting back in any strong and spirited way against the totalitarian and authoritarian claims made by the federal government.

There isn't any other way. As I said in an earlier blog posting, it's pretty clear to me that we, as a nation, have made a "mistake." If we don't like where that has put us, it's going to be up to us to rearrange our lives, and to organize to return effective power to "the people," to whom it rightfully belongs. If we reacquire actual control over our government, we can then set up rules that do make sense. 

A legal situation that permits any federal agent to murder anyone that the agent gets crosswise with, with no consequences for the federal agent, is absolutely "ripe for review."

At least, that's what I think!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/18/opinion/renee-good-ice-immunity.html

#26 / What Is The Truth, Exactly?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That image, above, came from a column in the October 21, 2025, edition of The New York Times. In both the hard copy and online editions, the column, by Bobbie Johnson, was titled, "What Is Sora Slop For, Exactly?" 

Anyone who read my earlier blog posting ("Who Needs The "Real World"?) will probably remember that Sora is an online AI program that allows users to place themselves into created videos that seem to depict "realities" that aren't, in fact, "realities" at all. Johnson indicates that such fake "realities" are "slop." Here is his statement about Sora: 

At a time when we are surrounded by fakes and fabrications, Sora seems precisely designed to further erode the idea of objective truth. It is a jackhammer that demolishes the barrier between the real and the unreal. No new product has ever left me feeling so pessimistic (emphasis added).

I have written a lot of blog postings about "truth," including a very brief reference to the question posed by  Pontius Pilate, just before he turned Jesus over to a mob to be crucified. "What Is Truth?" was the question posed.  I think, though I do not guarantee it, that clicking on this link will give you a listing of a number of my past blog postings on the topic of "truth." 

I have a good bit of skepticism about claims, by anyone, that they know "the truth." On the other hand, the implication of what Pilate said is that there may not, in fact, be any "truth" at all. Sora, the way Johnson sees it, will lend credence to such a worldview. 

On the one hand, we determine, in many ways, what our "reality" will be - what will constitute "truth" in the world that we create. In the social, political, economic, and even physical world that we collectively construct, "truth" is subject to change - though not by simple assertion, to be sure. On the other hand, there is such a thing as "objective truth." For instance, I am, objectively speaking, about 5'4" or 5'5" in height, not six feet plus. I am "short," in other words. Perhaps I would have been happier, I sometimes think, to have been six feet plus. I gather that Sora could demonstrate that I actually am, perhaps as I am depicted in a video that I have created, using the program to show me racking up multiple points in a pickup basketball game against Victor Wembanyama, who is reliably thought to be 7'5" in height.

I continue to believe that my "Two Worlds Hypothesis" points to an important insight about "reality," and thus about "truth." In the world that we human beings create, through our collective activities, we can determine what the "truth" will be. "Possibility" is the category that rules the human world - what I call the "political world." In "our" world, we can create "the truth." This provides us, obviously, with an incredible opportunity for us to create the kind of world that most of us might agree we want. 

In the "World of Nature," on the other hand, or in "The World That God Created," as I sometimes call it, "reality" and "the truth" precedes us, and that reality, and that "truth" is not something that we can reconfigure or ignore. Our so-called "Climate Crisis" is a demonstration that there are "realities" that will determine our fate, as we interact with the Natural World. If we ignore the fact that human activities are heating the earth, and that this human-caused global warming will lead, inevitably, to consequences to which we will have either to adapt, or perish, then we will (collectively) be opting to perish.

As for Pontius Pilate, his question actually asks whether or not we should give credit to claims (like the claims made by Jesus) that all of what we do, ultimately, is in the hands of a God who loves us, and that we live, ultimately in a world that God created. 

We have a choice about how we handle our response to that basic question posed by Pilate - "What is Truth?" However, if we ignore "Truth" as the presiding reality in both "our world" and the "World of Nature," we are consuming cans of "slop," not substance. Thanks to Bobbie Johnson for pointing this out. 

He is not the only one doing so, of course!

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/opinion/ai-sora-slop.html

#25 / Great 2025 Essays

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

David Brooks (who is not the guy pictured above) writes columns for The New York Times. Brooks' column that was published in the Sunday edition of The Times, on December 28, 2025, was titled, "Let's Celebrate These Great 2025 Essays." Actually, that is the "hardcopy" version of the title. Online, which is where you'll find the column if you click the link I provided, the title is less "professorial" and more "political." Online, Brooks' column is titled this way: "Sick of Trump News? I’m Here for You."

Well, I am definitely "sick of Trump News," and I am happy to report that the Brooks' column does have a number of good suggestions for some other things to read about and ponder. Among those other things, Brooks is suggesting that we all read an essay by Christian Wiman, “The Tune of Things.” It is Wiman, not Brooks, who is the person pictured at the top of this blog posting. I knew nothing about Wiman until I read what Brooks had to say:

The Yale poet Christian Wiman is one of my favorite essayists. His essay “The Tune of Things” in Harper’s Magazine walks us through some spooky phenomena. “Trees can anticipate, cooperate and remember, in the ordinary sense of those terms,” he writes. He continues: “Some people revived from apparent death report confirmable details they could not possibly have observed, at times far from their bodies. Cut a flatworm’s head off and it will not only regrow a new one but remember things only the lopped-off head had learned.” 

Across the essay he mentions some more: Ninety-five percent of the past century’s Nobel Prize-winning physicists believed in God. If no one is watching, a photon behaves as a wave, but if someone is watching, it behaves as a particle. When scientists in the Canary Islands shot one entangled photon, it behaved as a wave. Then they went to a different island and shot another entangled photon, and it behaved as a particle. When they returned to check on the first photon, they found it had gone back in time and acted as a particle. 

Wiman is saying the world is a lot more mystical and more fluid than we think. When you acknowledge that fluidity, some of our inherited dualisms don’t make sense — between reason and imagination, mind and body, belief and unbelief, consciousness and unconsciousness, even past and future. The kind of thinking you need to understand the ineffable flow of spooky reality is not contained in the linear, logical, machinelike process we call rationalism. Perhaps the kind of thinking we need to understand a fluid world is radically different, a kind of thinking that artificial intelligence will never master.

Well, I am not advocating artificial intelligence, period, and I am quite prepared to contemplate a reality that is "spooky" in the extreme, though the use of the word "spooky" doesn't fully do justice to the immense beauty and grandeur of what I guess 95% of the past century's Nobel Prize-winning physicists would be happy to call "God's Creation." 

For A Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poets/christian-wiman

(2) - https://amuedge.com/finding-personal-comfort-in-the-vastness-of-the-universe/

#24 / Good Advice From My Grandson

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

My grandson, who is in his second year of college, visited with us during the Christmas holidays, and he provided me with some good advice, by way of the diagram I have posted above. 

There is no need, I think, for me to elaborate. This is a real "think about it" item, and I find it rather profound (besides being funny, of course). 

So, that's my message for today. Some good advice from my grandson.

Think about it!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

Dylan Drottar

#23 / Soup To Nuts And A Heartfelt Comment

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Below, I am reprinting an email, in its entirety. This is an email that I received from Public Citizen - and I am including a short prefatory note from Lisa Gilbert, which introduced the email. Gilbert is a Co-President of Public Citizen. The email itself is very long. 

As Gilbert says in her introductory note, her email outlines Public Citizen's "soup to nuts" strategy for dealing with the political challenges facing the nation. 

I think Public Citizen is doing a good job, and I think that Gilbert's email accurately presents some of the most serious challenges facing us. I also think that Public Citizen is responding well to those challenges. If you decide to read this report from Public Citizen, and if you agree with what I just said, you may want to use the link at the bottom of Gilbert's message to make a contribution. 

Stimulating a financial contribution to Public Citizen, of course, was the main purpose of the email I received from Lisa Gilbert. In my case, however, I am sending on this email for one purpose only - and that purpose is not to solicit contributions to Public Citizen. My purpose is to document my immediate reaction to a statement made in the very first line of the email that Gilbert sent out. Here is that comment from Gilbert's email: "The American people are confronting an authoritarian onslaught with no precedent in our nation's history and no guarantee that our democracy will survive in any meaningful form (empahsis added)." 

Here is my objection to the emphasized part of that very first sentence in the email. Public Citizen is telling its supporters, and potential supporters, that democracy is not only in danger, but that it may well be lost. The phrasing used in this introductory sentence implies that democracy is something that "happens to us" - or that doesn't happen to us, depending on lots of factors, presumably. That sentence impliedly suggests that the recipients of the email are, largely, "observers." 

Not so long ago, I published a blog posting that I titled, "I Get Tired." That opening sentence in the Public Citizen email makes me "tired" in just the way I was complaining about earlier. 

I am very tired of good people, doing good work, acting like the survival of our democracy - or not - is something that will happen to us - or not - and that the primary way we interact with the political world that has such profound impacts on our lives is by "observing" events as they happen. 

When, almost 250 years ago, patriots gathered and - after significant debate - signed onto our Declaration of Independence, they did not phrase their statement as an "observation." They phrased their statement as a "Declaration" (as the title makes clear). In other words, those who founded this nation did not write down an outline of what might happen to them, or not, but wrote down a statement of what they would do themselves. They wrote as "actors," not "observers." 

That is exactly what those who are serious about "democracy" have to do today. Read, carefully, what those who signed our Declaration of Independence said, in their closing paragraph (emphasis added): 

For the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Facing what we face today, those who truly care about our democracy, what I call "self-government," must not speak in the grammar utilized by Public Citizen, and provide others with an "observer's report" on the dangers ahead and what might - or might not - happen to us. 

What we need is a statement - from you, and me, and from all of those who truly appreciate our current "American Crisis" (to make a contemporary use of the title of Tom Paine's famous book) - that is not formulated as an "observation" but that is formulated as a "pledge." What we need from all those who understand the dangers we contront is their pledge to take whatever action is needed to preserve democratic self-government, and which commits both their lives and fortunes to insure that "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, will not perish from this earth."

When we are prepared to do that, we won't have to wonder whether or not our democracy "will survive in any meaningful form." We will have fully committed ourselves - our lives, and our fortunes, and our sacred honor - to making sure that it does.

oooOOOooo

THE PUBLIC CITIZEN EMAIL

A NOTE FROM LISA GILBERT

Folks really seemed to appreciate the note we sent yesterday — copied below for anyone who might have missed it — about Public Citizen’s “soup to nuts” strategy to continue fighting against Trumpism and for progress in the coming year.

It’s definitely not the shortest email we’ve ever sent, but I’m hoping you can take a few minutes to at least skim through it.

Onward!

- Lisa Gilbert, Co-President of Public Citizen

THE EMAIL

The American people are confronting an authoritarian onslaught with no precedent in our nation’s history and no guarantee that our democracy will survive in any meaningful form.

In pursuit of his dictatorial ambitions, Donald Trump and his regime are prosecuting and seeking to imprison opponents. They are deploying thousands of masked agents to abduct “immigrants” (and people they think look or sound like certain kinds of immigrants). They are putting heavily armed military personnel on our nation’s streets to intimidate American citizens. They are in effect extorting the media, major law firms, and universities. They are conducting illegal military strikes that they seem hellbent on turning into a reckless and unconstitutional war. They are forcing through unprecedented congressional gerrymanders and actively undermining the voting rights of millions of citizens.

The Trump regime has stripped healthcare from 17 million people to fund even more tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, blocked job-creating investments in renewable energy and showered benefits on Big Oil, all but shuttered the agency designed to protect consumers from financial ripoffs, gutted our public health institutions, and buddied up to the Big Tech goliaths it once claimed to oppose.

Along the way, Trump and his family have cashed in on the presidency to add billions to their personal wealth. Trump tore down an entire wing of the White House — which had stood for almost 125 years — so that he can erect a gilded ballroom sponsored by corporate titans eager to prostrate themselves before a wannabe king.

In one particularly obnoxious and revealing example of Trump’s perception of himself as some kind of “great leader,” a giant banner of Trump now hangs down the front of the Department of Labor, overlooking Capitol Hill here in Washington, D.C. It’s the kind of thing you associate with Big Brother from George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four.

We could go on about the countless cruel, stupid, and destructive things that the Trump regime — along with its adherents in other branches of government at the national, state, and local levels — are doing, or attempting to do, as they try to distort America into a grotesque version of what it could and should be.

But the real point of this note is to give you a quick recap of what Public Citizen has been up to since Trump was re-elected and a brief(ish) outline of how we’re going to build on that work to continue fighting Trump throughout 2026.

Public Citizen is marshalling all our resources in a multifaceted, interdisciplinary, “soup to nuts” strategy to prevent a worsening authoritarian slide and to pave the way for a more democratic, just, and sustainable future.

A FEW HIGHLIGHTS OF PUBLIC CITIZEN’S WORK IN 2025

We’ve been emailing all year to keep you updated on our ongoing work to confront the Trump regime’s authoritarianism, corruption, cruelty, and greed. So we won’t take up too much space here with that, but we did want to highlight some of the areas where we’ve concentrated our time and energy:

We filed 22 lawsuits against the administration’s illegal actions — on everything from the assault on the Treasury Department by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to the regime’s petty and heartless attempt to shut down the National Hunger Hotline. There will be more lawsuits to come.

We helped lead historic mass mobilizations against authoritarianism, including the largest day of protest in American history (so far).

We are leading a massive coalition of thousands of organizations to resist Trump regime efforts to clamp down on nonprofit groups.

We filed dozens of ethics complaints over administration conflicts of interest and wrongful behavior. We issued numerous deep-dive investigative reports into matters ranging from the corporations sponsoring Trump’s “Billionaire Ballroom” monstrosity to the torrent of dropped investigations into flagrant lawbreaking by Big Business. 

As you’ll see below, we have much, much more planned in the coming year. All of this work adds up. Together, we are blocking some of Trump’s worst abuses and building the power to defeat Trumpism once and for all.

CONFRONTING THE AUTHORITARIAN MOMENT

This is a scary time. It helps to acknowledge that. But it is also a time when we can’t let our fears overwhelm us or lead us to withdraw, become isolated, or give up. We must combine a strategic savvy with an empowering hopefulness.

As we meet the authoritarian challenge, these are some of our guiding principles:

1. There is no single, definitive solution to defeat authoritarianism and defend democracy. We need lots of approaches.

2. Authoritarians are driven and so too must we be persistent, relentless, and resilient. We won’t win every battle, but even those we lose can serve to further inform and inspire our broader resistance.

3. Like authoritarians before them, key figures in the Trump regime are spreading fear, despair, and hopelessness with the intent to isolate, divide, and disempower pro-democracy forces. Our job must be to bring people together — figuratively and, as much as possible, literally — so that we feel our collective strength and power.

4. Our anti-authoritarian, pro-democracy movement needs as many people — and as many different kinds of people, from all sectors of society — as we can possibly get.

5. Political leadership is vital, but politicians tend to follow more than lead. It is up to us to make our political leaders stand strongly against Trump’s authoritarianism.

6. Our values and policies are not just moral, they are also good politics, supported by overwhelming majorities of Americans (even if it sometimes feels otherwise).

7. Solidarity is perhaps our most important virtue in confronting authoritarianism. That means aggressively supporting those targeted by the regime, building unified responses to authoritarian impositions, and being fully committed to caring for each other.

These understandings underpin our anti-authoritarian program, which aims to wield the considerable strengths of Public Citizen in every way we can to defend democracy.

TAKING THE TRUMP REGIME TO COURT AGAIN AND AGAIN

We are challenging a lawless regime that disregards the Constitution with a bevy of lawsuits to uphold basic American values and the rule of law. Public Citizen has unmatched expertise and skill in areas relating to constitutional and administrative law. We are responding to the moment with an aggressive litigation strategy.

To date, we have filed 22 lawsuits against the administration since Trump returned to power (with several more imminent). These lawsuits have:

Defeated an attempt by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to shutter the Job Corps program, which provides training and housing for low-income youth.Forced the administration to make payments on foreign aid grants.

Required the administration to repost health information it had wiped from government websites.Forced the administration to repost an online database that reveals how federal agencies will spend federal dollars.Saved the National Hunger Hotline from cancellation.Forced the administration to remove partisan language from the “out-of-office” emails of furloughed federal employees. 

Blocked an administration effort to deny commercial driver’s licenses to certain immigrants.Others of our cases aim to preserve the jobs of the independent members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission; protect the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; block wrongful sharing of immigrants’ personal information between the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security; preserve the civil rights office at the Department of Homeland Security; and more.

We have many more cases in the works, and we are prepared to litigate against the just-beginning deregulatory blitz involving everything from environmental to worker safety protections.

As we look to the coming year, we anticipate filing even more lawsuits than we did in 2025.

Of course, exactly what we do will follow from the administration’s abuses, but these are some of the areas we are monitoring for more litigation, investigation, and advocacy:

Trump’s Grift

Trump’s shady business dealings in this term are even more egregious than in his first term. We are exploring litigation opportunities around a range of schemes that benefit Trump and his family financially, including a possible plan to siphon off a share of government drug purchases.

Health Care

We are adding staff to monitor the chaos at the Department of Health and Human Services under Robert F. Kennedy Jr. We anticipate even more health policy-focused litigation in the coming year. We are tracking efforts to weaken Medicare and shovel money to for-profit insurers, among other key issues.

Corporate Subsidies

The cronyism of the Trump regime and its readiness to deploy taxpayer dollars to subsidize allied corporations knows no bounds. We are monitoring a major new initiative to throw massive subsidies at coal plants, tech companies, and more.

Immigrant Rights

The regime’s rabid cruelty toward immigrants means that anti-immigrant animus is informing all kinds of governmental activity — not just involving ICE, but also at the IRS, the Department of Education, the Department of Labor, and more. We’ll build on our existing docket of cases challenging the administration’s illegal and unconstitutional actions targeting immigrants.

Open Government

We expect to file a significant number of lawsuits under the Freedom of Information Act, forcing the disclosure of information that the regime is trying — illegally — to keep secret.

In the almost two dozen cases we have filed so far, we have a strong record of success at the district court level and a more mixed record on appeal. We know we are going to lose cases we should win, and we know it would not be enough even if we won every case.

At the same time, we know these cases make a difference. We are scoring substantive wins that mitigate the authoritarian overreach perpetrated by the administration, protecting rights, blocking deregulation, overcoming censorship, and preserving agencies.

Along with the substantive wins, these lawsuits are inspiring hope — hope that authoritarianism can be stopped, that fighting makes a difference, that something can be done. In this way, our litigation is about more than the cases themselves. It is about overcoming fear, isolation, and hopelessness — so that people connect and mobilize and build the power we need to defeat Trump and Trumpism.

MOBILIZING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Some 7 million people took part in over 2,700 “No Kings” rallies in October. Millions and millions more were there in spirit and participating remotely by watching coverage on television or online. It was, remarkably, the largest single day of protest in American history.

Public Citizen played a central role in making it happen, as one of the core “No Kings” organizing groups. We did everything from identify and assist local protest leaders to recruit co-sponsoring organizations (nearly 300!). We helped develop the protest themes, drive turnout, manage logistics, and speak to the national media.

This was just one of more than a dozen national days of action we have helped lead, plan, and coordinate — including the two previous major nationwide mobilizations against Trump’s authoritarianism, “Hands Off” (in April) and the initial “No Kings” (in June).

We provided the organizational backbone for the July 17 “Good Trouble Lives On” actions on the anniversary of Rep. John Lewis’s death. More than 100,000 people participated in 1,600 events across the nation. We played similar roles for worker-led Labor Day actions, nationwide protests against Texas’s extreme gerrymandering, snap events around the country to support the demand for health care and an end to illegal impoundments in the government shutdown fight, and more.

In parallel, we are carrying out other organizing activities. These include a “Disappeared in America” campaign around people kidnapped by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, state-based efforts to win policies pushing back against Trump’s authoritarianism, and the mobilization of health workers.

As we look toward the coming year, we are coordinating with allies on nascent plans for new mobilizations that will demonstrate the growing power, energy, and reach of the anti-authoritarian movement.

We are also organizing to energize and mobilize diverse sectors of society in the fight against authoritarianism through all kinds of creative approaches. We have invested in a new campus organizing effort, with the objectives of massively increasing visible youth opposition to the Trump regime and of pressing universities not to capitulate to Trump’s authoritarian demands. We are coordinating with faith leaders, attorneys, veterans, farmers, and more to display their communities’ opposition to Trump.

Does all this organizing and protesting matter? You bet it does.

We know that organization and mobilization are crucial to building and expressing opposition to authoritarianism; to creating a sense of empowerment, hope, and solidarity; to pressing elected officials and civil society leaders to stand stronger against authoritarian encroachments.

With “No Kings” and other actions, the American people are showing that resistance to the Trump regime is coming from every corner of this great country. We are demonstrating our commitment to nonviolence, our patriotism, our anger at the needless harm Trump is inflicting on the nation, our rejection of his dictatorial ambitions, and — not least — our sense of humor.

The Trump regime wants to intimidate opponents and chill dissent. They want people to be scared and isolated. With “No Kings” and other actions, we join together to feel, and feed, our power — in overwhelming numbers.

Politicians pay attention. The nationwide demonstrations increasingly stiffen their spines to resist Trump. Even the politicians who kiss up to Trump are starting to have doubts, because they know the massive turnout and overwhelming energy demonstrates the growing rejection among the American people of Trump and the MAGA agenda.

Ultimately, mass mobilizations remind us of the power of solidarity and love. We have great challenges ahead to defeat Trump’s authoritarianism. But — animated by the spirit and energy of “No Kings” — we will prevail.

BUILDING MASSIVE NATIONWIDE COALITIONS

One of Public Citizen’s strengths is as a convening organization — we help bring together and spearhead literally dozens of coalitions, with the understanding that we build power when we join together. This has never been more important than it is right now.

We are one of the co-founders of the Not Above the Law coalition with 150-plus organizations. And we co-founded and house staff for the Declaration for American Democracy (DFAD) coalition, which comprises over 260 organizations. The Not Above the Law coalition brings together not only advocacy organizations and grassroots activists, but policy experts, legal minds, faith organizations, and others from across the political landscape to lead the charge against authoritarianism. DFAD is helping lead efforts against Trump’s schemes to subvert elections and is one of the key groups laying plans to win transformative democracy legislation.

We have helped to bring groups together to stand in solidarity against the Trump regime’s efforts to attack nonprofits that oppose authoritarianism. Under the guise of attacking “domestic terrorism” and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), the White House has issued presidential proclamations signaling plans to strip away tax-exempt status, cancel government grants, and even criminally prosecute organizations opposing it. In response, with other leading organizations, we created a solidarity statement that over 3,700 discrete organizations joined — demonstrating that nonprofit groups will stand together against threats from the regime. It stands in notable contrast — unfortunately — to the responses from some law firms, universities, and others.

Other examples of our coalition work include wide-ranging efforts to educate and organize allies around deregulatory plans of the administration; to coordinate among multiple tables opposing the tax and budget reconciliation bill; and to challenge an administration proposal to enable churches to participate directly in electoral politics.

As we move into the next year, and Trump’s authoritarianism intensifies, our coalitions will be more important than ever. We will invest in and strengthen these diverse coalitional efforts across and connecting multiple sectors. At a time when no organization alone can hope to do enough and when isolation equals vulnerability, these permanent and ad hoc coalitions and networks build civil society power and enable coordination and solidarity.

EXPOSING AND CONFRONTING CORRUPTION

Impeccable investigative research is a Public Citizen calling card. And there has never been more to investigate than there is now. Our research team is laser focused on administration conflicts of interest and corruption, as well as the soft treatment given to corporate wrongdoers. Our intent is to pierce Trump’s populist facade.

We’ve published cutting-edge investigative reports showing (just to list a few examples):

An unprecedented pullback of regulatory and criminal enforcement against Big Business. This includes more than 140 open investigations closed or suspended; the termination of enforcement at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; the announcement that anti-corruption laws will simply not be enforced; what may be the first-ever corporate pardon; and more.

More than 60 oil and gas executives, lobbyists, and lawyers with high official government positions are driving the administration’s energy policymaking.The far-reaching conflicts of interest of Attorney General Pam Bondi — who worked previously at a lobby firm on behalf of gambling, private prison, technology, and other corporate interests — with key issues before the Department of Justice she now runs.

The quackery and conflicted business interests of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who now leads the Department of Health and Human Services, and other key health officials in the Trump administration.

The corporate giveaways in Trump’s tax and budget reconciliation bill, including major handouts to dirty energy companies and Pentagon contractors.Many of the agencies slashed and burned by Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had been taking actions to hold assorted companies owned by Musk accountable for violations of the law. 

In November, we released a blockbuster report on the corporate and mega-wealthy “donors” to Trump’s ballroom bonanza. That report showed, among other things, that the 24 known corporate sponsors of the ballroom received a combined $279 billion in federal contracts in the previous five years. This was a front-page story in The Washington Post and reverberated nationwide.

The importance of these investigative efforts is that they illustrate the lie of the Trump administration (and authoritarians generally). Trump is not fighting for everyday Americans. He is advancing an agenda of cronyism and corruption, in service of himself and his super-rich donors.

AN AGENDA FOR EVERYDAY AMERICANS

Alongside our efforts to counter Trump’s authoritarianism, corruption, and cronyism, Public Citizen is zooming forward with our traditional, pre-Trump campaigns on issues like:

Making medicines more affordable.

Protecting workers from excessive heat and other dangerous conditions.

Challenging oil and gas exports that are supercharging corporate profits but skyrocketing consumers’ utility rates.Securing protections against creepy artificial intelligence technologies that put teens at risk.

Advocating to make billionaires and Big Business pay their fair share of taxes.Ensuring that people injured by corporations can have their day in court.

Keeping unsafe drugs off the market.Breaking up monopolistic corporations.Winning Medicare for All so that no American has to live without health coverage.And much, much more.We have detailed work plans in each one of these areas and dozens more.

Part of Trump’s appeal has been his claim that he understands people’s economic pain and sense of disempowerment. His remedies are a fraud, but he is tapping into a legitimate sense that the system is rigged against everyday Americans. We need to provide a real and heartfelt agenda — policies, tone, and messaging — that recognizes the pain and offers real solutions.

IN CONCLUSION

This is a moment with no parallel in American history. Not only are the stakes as high as they could possibly be, but there is also no proven script to follow. We hope this note helps you get a sense of our plans and our ongoing work, but of course we can only do so much in a single (very long) email.

Please know that our team is working relentlessly across more projects, on more issues, and in more coalitions than we can recount here. We face this moment humbly but also with a sense of gravity and recognition that Public Citizen — that’s the two of us, our staff, and some 1.5 million fellow Americans from all walks of life and every corner of this country — can make, and is making, a real difference.

What you and Public Citizen are doing together matters. What hundreds of other organizations, big and small, are doing matters. What millions upon millions of our fellow Americans are doing matters. We believe that to our core. We take solace in that. And we draw inspiration from that. We hope you do, too.

If you can, please donate today to support Public Citizen’s work standing up to the Trump regime.

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.citizen.org/about/