tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-73950380390663343652024-03-17T23:01:23.201-04:00A Liberal Point of ViewI am a liberal and proud of it. But don't be afraid, you can keep your guns and religion. I would just like to share my opinions and hope you will do the same.JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.comBlogger580125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-53020921869965204832024-03-17T15:43:00.000-04:002024-03-17T15:43:06.541-04:00Philanthropy <span style="font-size: large;">A few weeks ago, my wife and I watched a documentary called The Greatest Night in Pop which detailed how music's biggest stars came together to record "We Are the World." If you haven't seen it, and are either interested in music history, or remember how many musicians came together in the 1980's to perform at concerts for specific causes, or to raise money to address the problems of the day, I highly recommend you watch this Netflix show.</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Towards the topic of philanthropy, I checked my blog only to find three posts under the heading, all from 2015. Thinking that in itself revealed a problem, I decided to comment on the topic in this post. In addition, I have enclosed a link to those past posts which I thoroughly enjoyed rereading today. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/philanthropy.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/philanthropy.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-philanthropy.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-philanthropy.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/almsgiving-charity-assistance.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/almsgiving-charity-assistance.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">For those of you who were young adults in the 80's, Live Aid and Farm Aid, both which occurred in 1985, might be considered the apex of benefit concerts. The most renowned musical artists of the day performed at those two shows, and hundreds of millions of dollars were raised outright, in addition to the millions of dollars of food that was donated by various western nation governments and non government agencies to help alleviate starvation in Africa.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And while it is certainly true that these concerts were blockbusters, the concept began in 1971 when George Harrison lent his name for the Concert for Bangladesh. This event not only set the precedent for benefit concerts, but helped to inspire Bob Geldorf and Midge Ure's song "Do They Know It's Christmas" and then Geldorf's organization of the aforementioned "We Are the World" song and Live Aid extravaganza.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In addition to these more well known spectacles, there has also been the thirty plus year Secret Policemen's Ball shows which raised money for Amnesty International, the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea in 1979, the Freddy Mercury Tribute Concert for AIDS Awareness in 1992, the Tibetan Freedom Concert in 1996, and the Concert for New York City in 2001 after the horrific events of 9/11.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">While I am sure there are benefits being held by entertainers now, I am struck by the thought that what is being done today seems to pale in comparison to the global awareness concerts which I detail above. It's not like there aren't crisis galore as we speak. The war in Ukraine is two years old, why hasn't there been a Concert for Ukraine in America yet? Is it just that one of the major party's presidential candidates prefers the invading nation over the invaded? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Or how about a benefit concert to raise money for both the victims of the Hamas attack into Israel last October as well as the humanitarian crisis that exists for the almost two million Palestinians as a result of the war in Gaza? Is it not possible for people to come together to mourn both the victims of the slaughter which initiated the war and the victims of the war itself? Is holding the idea in one's head that both acts were and are inhumane, not possible in our hyper partisan world?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And, perhaps it is too soon, or just that most people would rather forget, even though seven million people have died so far, but why wasn't there ever a concert for COVID? We lost over 1.2 million Americans to COVID, far more than any World War, more even than the loss of soldiers on both sides of the Civil War. Imagine that, the deadliest evedisaster in American history, and not only did it not bring us together to combat its spread and mourn our losses, it has driven us apart due to the politicization of the origin of the disease as well as the strategies (and vaccines) employed to limit the spread of the disease and reduce the deaths.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Is this one of the factors as to why benefit concerts, and more importantly, philanthropy and charity are in decline? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">First, it is unclear if charitable giving is truly in decline, or if there has just been a temporary dip. When I googled "is charitable giving in decline?", I found evidence that from 2021 to 2022 there was a significant reduction in giving in America. While you may still deduct your donations if you itemize (rather than use the standard deduction) on your taxes, the doubling of the standard deduction that occurred in 2017 has drastically reduced the percentage of filers who can take advantage of this deduction. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly, in one of my 2015 posts, I posed the question of how much charitable giving might decrease if the tax deduction was removed. Again, there is not enough data to point the blame for the 2021-22 decline on this tax deduction change, as many economists point to the uncertain economic times as a bigger factor. Still, one might wonder if individual tax payers who no longer gain a tax advantage for charitable donations, in conjunction with the higher costs of living, might reduce their giving. I guess as the economy improves, more light will be shed on this topic.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I know that since our children left the nest, my wife and I have increased our charitable giving. Even now that we are both mostly retired (we each work part time, 12-20 hours a week), we have increased both the number and amount we give to charity. Perhaps, in the short term, charitable giving in America will actually increase despite the two reasons I list above, because baby boomers in the whole will have more disposable money than previous generations did. If that turns out to be true, it will at least bring from back a step or two from the cliff in my overall estimation of the baby boomer generation.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Philanthropy. Charity. Awareness that many others have less than oneself, and conversely, that many of us are very fortunate, privileged one might even say.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If we are indeed headed into a trend where people take to heart that often misinterpreted quote, charity begins at home, and America experiences a decline in everyday household charitable giving, will it simply be another indication that for all the talk about America being a Christian nation, we are all talk, no action? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Not to put too much pressure on such short term decisions, but if we continue to ignore the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and fail to provide the Ukrainian people with the weapons and money they need to withstand the secession of their land and identity, while pretending that our weapons and monies aren't being used to slaughter women and children in Gaza, then we will be complicent, not only in two human tragedies, but in the surrendering of our "Christianity" to a much more powerful attribute and the exact opposite of charity; selfishness.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-73102145886686116102024-03-09T16:09:00.004-05:002024-03-10T14:56:05.349-04:00Shame on You Supreme Court Justices 2<p><span style="font-size: large;">Before beginning this post, I reread the one I composed almost a month ago. In that one I chastised the Justices for their apparent bias against allowing Colorado to remove Trump from their primary ballot. It wasn't just this obvious bias that concerned me but what I called their ivory tower approach to the oral questioning, and the absurdity of their seemingly offhand dismissal of the actual basis for Colorado's Supreme Court decision, that Trump engaged in insurrection. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It can certainly be debated whether Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen, his pressure campaign to convince certain state officials to alter or misreport vote totals and to create "alternate" slates of electors, not to mention his relentless attacks on Mike Pence to "do the right thing", and his apparent glee as the rioters attacked the Capitol building, rise to the level of insurrection, but the fact that all those things occurred (and more), should at least have been a part of the debate as to whether Colorado, or Maine, after digesting these facts, had the right to disqualify Trump. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To completely disregard this aspect of the decision, seems to indicate that either the Justices are purposefully ignoring it, or have decided not to take responsibility (as the final judicial word on any legal matter), for upholding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/shame-on-you-supreme-court-justices.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/shame-on-you-supreme-court-justices.html</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, as a result of their decision to rule on the extent of presidential immunity as being claimed by the ex-president, it seems that ignoring Trump's actions isn't the case anymore, they are actually going to discuss whether he can actually do whatever he wants as president along as his party doesn't impeach him. Hard to believe I would ever look upon Nixon with a bit of wistfulness, as even he knew that his own party might impeach him for his actions, and that he wasn't above the law, while Trump has always acted as if laws are for everyone else, while his grip on the GOP is impenetrable.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This whole situation is the perfect storm of inconceivable actions which the founders could have never predicted. A wanna be dictator with an iron grip on his party along with a Supreme Court more worried about technical legal issues than the fight to save our democracy.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As someone far more insightful that I have said, most great nations fall from within.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What galls me is not just that SCOTUS chose to elucidate their opinion on presidential immunity (an amazing fact in itself, that after 250 years of presidents, it is only now, with Trump, that the issue has to be adjudicated), but that they put a stay on the federal trial to determine Trump's responsibility for January 6th. They certainly could have allowed the trial to move forward, knowing that even if they didn't take oral arguments until late April (and why so much delay for that process is another bad omen), and didn't decide until late May or early June, the trial would still be in progress, since they knew that the judge in the case had already promised over two months to the Trump team to prepare for the trial. Now, if they don't issue their decision until late May or early June, the trial can't begin until late summer. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As I have heard a number of times, it appears that the Justices have given Trump a de facto escape from accountability, both because of the prep time I mentioned above, and also because of the tradition of the DOJ not to get involved in a judicial case involving a presidential election within 60 days of that election. Two months prior to November is September which is damned close to the possible trial start date of an early June SCOTUS decision plus that seventy plus days for trial prep.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Is this a clear case of SCOTUS prejudice for a political candidate who either actually nominated them or shares their ideology? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While I can't possibly know the answer to that question, I can speculate that Judge Thomas, whose wife actively lobbied people in Trump's inner circle to do whatever it took to keep him in power, is biased. I also have no doubt that Alito was instrumental in pushing for the Supreme Court to take this case. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As for the three justices that Trump appointed, I would wager that at least two of them were down with ruling on presidential immunity, especially Kavanaugh, who has a history of supporting extensive presidential powers. I am not sure if I prefer to find out that Chief Justice Roberts was in on the push for taking the case because if he wasn't that leaves us with the dangerous realization that all three of Trump's appointments appear to be on his side, or as Trump would put it, are doing the "right thing". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Certainly it will be interesting to see if there is some kind of details released on how SCOTUS determined to hear this case. Was there a unanimous decision to hear the case, but some dissent as to putting the election interference trial on hold? Did the three liberal justices find themselves outnumbered by the six conservative justices on both the question to take the case and the decision to grant the stay to delay the trial? Remember, allegedly, a stay is generally only issued if there is a reasonable chance that the requesting party, in this case Trump, has a reasonable chance to win the case. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Really? There are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America that believe that a president of the United States of America has immunity to do whatever he wants while president? There are enough justices that actually believe that the founders who fought for independence from the dictates of the King of England, would be down for an American King?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We have already seen some dissent when it came to the Colorado decision, as the three liberal justices were joined by Justice Coney Barrett in disagreeing with the extent of the majority when they seemed to rewrite the 14th Amendment with their decision that indicated that states can only get involved in state elections when using the insurrectionist clause, despite the fact that the original intent of the amendment was to keep those who fought against the Union out of the Untied States Congress. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So again I say, shame on you Supreme Court Justices! Perhaps you believe that you shouldn't have a hand in presidential elections which is why you negated Colorado's decision. Unfortunately, you effectively have changed the course of the November election by not allowing the Court of Appeals 3-0 decision to stand, by not allowing the election interference trial to continue while you debated the extent of presidential immunity, and by scheduling oral arguments two months in the future, rather than in a much more aggressive expedited fashion. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What is truly mind boggling, is that this Supreme Court thinks that should Trump win in November, they might be a backstop for some of his more outrageous policies, as if he will follow the law as they rule. We already see the Republican Governor of Texas thumbing his nose at their decision that only the federal government has authority concerning immigration, already see multiple GOP Congressmen and Governors advising Abbott to ignore that ruling. Do they really think that Trump will care what they say should they rule against one of his executive decisions, do they really believe his MAGA supporters will side with them or Trump?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While Biden engages with NATO countries leaders, Trump hosts the dictator from Hungary at his Florida home. The authoritarian playbook is open and in progress, yet the Justices think Trump will obey any ruling they make with which he disagrees. Again, ivory tower thinking.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A Trump victory in November, that can be blamed, even in part, because the American electorate is denied access to the details of how Trump and his team tried to negate the votes of over 80 million Americans, will add the Supreme Court Justices to the list of enablers which includes those who deny what they saw on TV on January 6th, refuse to evaluate the reams of evidence placing Trump at the head of a conspiracy to thwart the peaceful transfer of power, and ignore all the signs that Trump does not care about democracy or America, never has, never will. </span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-1399980320791494632024-03-07T16:17:00.002-05:002024-03-07T16:17:17.002-05:00The Key to November's Presidential Election<span style="font-size: large;">Before beginning this post, I reread my Nikki Haley for President post from January. Here is a link.</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/nikki-haley-for-president.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/nikki-haley-for-president.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In that post, I made a case for Nikki to win in November, and that it might be better for America if she did, certainly better than a Trump victory, and perhaps better than a Biden win. Unfortunately, as of now this will not be the case, as Haley recently suspended her campaign. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I am not sure if the word suspended was used purposefully, meaning that she could reanimate her campaign should something occur that would make it viable again, perhaps, oh I don't know, maybe Trump being convicted of a felony, but for now she is out of the race. While it will be curious to see how many votes she gets in the next few GOP primaries, as no less than twelve states are still set to hold primaries this month, and I would imagine she will appear on many, if not most of those ballots, Trump is the presumptive nominee and will continue to be so until at least the summer when it is possible that one of the DOJ cases against him go to trial.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Which brings me to the title of this post, the Key to November's Election. Drum roll please......</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Nikki Haley!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I don't know if she understands this, don't know if she is cognizant of the power she now possesses, but Nikki Haley can make or break either candidate with her endorsement. Should she capitulate, as virtually every other Republican in Congress has done, and endorse Trump, that may be enough to sway some of the over two and a half million Republican voters who have already cast their vote for her so far in the primaries, to hold their nose and vote for Trump in November. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But if she withholds her endorsement, or actually endorses Biden, those same Haley voters might follow her lead and vote for Biden even though they may disagree with many of his policies. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, if Haley and those who chose her over Trump in the primaries put America first and either leave the president section blank, or actually choose Biden, that could be the difference in the outcome.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">One might say that life is nothing if not ironic, so, as I stated in my post Accountability Finally? 2, from early February, wouldn't it be ironic if, as has already been started by strong women, the final die is case on Trump by another strong woman.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/accountability-finally-2.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/accountability-finally-2.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">At this point, only Nikki Haley knows what she will do. I would like to think that she is considering her decision very carefully. I acknowledge that choosing no endorsement for either candidate, or openly rejecting Trump, will mark the end of her political career as a Republican. But if she chooses to emulate Liz Cheney, should she choose the United States over her personal ambition to be president, that choice in itself could not only save our democracy so that she can run for president again in four years, but also might catapult her to a position of strength in 2028 should the democrats not find a unifying candidate for that race. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I imagine that I will go to my grave and never fully understand the allure of Trump, and why so many millions of Americans would knowingly vote to elect him president despite being convicted of sexual assault, convicted of fraud in his business dealings, been impeached for attempting to extort a foreign leader by dangling military weapons for dirt on a political rival, been caught with classified documents after lying about returning them, and most egregiously, lied about the results of the 2020 presidential election, then incited a mob to attack the United States Capitol while surreptitiously pressuring state and federal officials to "find" votes or just make up electors. Not to mention "jokingly" suggesting he would be a dictator only for one day.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Still, compared to how Nikki Haley may be viewed by future historians who attempt to understand her eventual decision about who to endorse in the 2024 presidential election, I can envision my eventual forgiveness for those in the Trump cult. We are all gullible to some extent, we all fall victim to the occasional scam, we all sometimes sacrifice logic, ignore the obvious, fail to research, or just plain become lazy, especially when the topic is as complicated as democracy.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But Nikki knows better. She knows the danger Trump represents. Knows his demand for loyalty to himself above all, and how that requirement in itself, does not bode well for America. I can only hope that she does not follow the path of most of the men in her party, men who have chosen political relevance over America, men who prefer to gain the crumbs which an autocrat like Trump will drop their way as opposed to the freedom that democracy, messy as it is, offers.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Let's hope Nikki is better than the Ted Cruzes and Mitch McConnells of the world. If not, and Trump is narrowly elected, in part due to her head down, eyes averted compliance to either some sort of party loyalty, or actual deference to Trump to gain some cabinet position, I expect that history may judge her no better than the other myriad enablers who lack the backbone to stand for America and to stand against a dictator wannabe. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-71205121009127344112024-02-24T15:56:00.001-05:002024-02-24T15:56:48.746-05:00Another Step Towards Theocracy<p><span style="font-size: large;">I have written dozens of stories in my life. Futuristic, based on real life experiences, and some with social lessons and commentary, among other categories. But I must confess, I never conceived of a story in which a great shift in a society towards a more religious interpretation of laws would be initiated through the election of a twice divorced man who cheated on all three of his wives, claims "for better or worse" famous men are allowed to grab women by their private parts, who more than once commented on how "hot" his daughter was, and is a convicted sex offender.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Life is stranger than fiction, you betcha!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Theocracy, is defined in a number of ways. Some define it as a nation ruled by religious leaders or one in which the leaders claim to be divinely appointed, deriving their power from god. I imagine if pressed for an answer, many Americans would define theocracy as the kind of government Iran has while also expressing their displeasure with such a government.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">However, as more and more laws are being passed by (mostly) red state legislatures, and more and more judicial opinions are emanating from right leaning judges, it is now clear that what irks many Americans about Iran's version of theocracy is the religion it adopts, not the form of government itself.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Jefferson is the most quoted founder in reference to the separation of church and state. While the founders, in general, shared a Judeo-Christian ethos, they also made clear their opinion about religious influence within the government in the very First Amendment, via the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses which basically state that the government shall not establish a religion nor restrict the worship of the people in whatever religion they choose.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Yet, as the non-fiction story reference above indicates, we are in the throes of a movement, which featured the seduction of the evangelical community by the orange Jesus to make abortion illegal, resulted in the Dobbs decision (thanks to the 3 Supreme Court Justices placed on the bench during the Trump Administration), and is now in full swing in dozens of red states, despite the actual wishes of the electorate of those very same states. (See Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Montana.) </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is a movement driven by a vocal minority which has decided that its religious beliefs should rule the day, literally.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Which brings us to the atrocious decision by the Alabama Supreme Court last week, which ruled that embryos which are the key to IVF treatments which allow couples with fertility issues become parents, are children. Not potential children, actual children! As a result, the accidental destruction of some embryos at fertility clinic has been interpreted as murder, as justified by the interpretation of various biblical (not legal) quotes. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I know, shocking that in 2024, a panel of justices who represent the most respected legal thinkers in the state of Alabama, (assuming that is not a contradiction in terms) would actually equate a batch of cells in a test tube to a person. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, you see, that was the goal all along of the anti-abortion crowd, to establish the legal precedent that personhood begins at conception, which then allows the state to control the most personal, intimate situations of its citizens lives, everything from who to love and marry, to birth control and when and how to start a family. You know, the most repressive form of government based on the tenets of one, established national religion. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Around and around go the bodies of our founders in their graves!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I posted under the title Separation of Church and State twice before, once in 2022, and the other time ten years previously. Here are links to those two posts.</span></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/one-step-forward-for-american-theocracy.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/one-step-forward-for-american-theocracy.html</span></a></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/02/contraception-controversy.html" style="font-size: x-large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/02/contraception-controversy.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What is truly alarming about this movement is that is didn't just appear in the last decade. For those of you who haven't heard of the Seven Mountain Mandate, and I was one of you, there will be plenty of opportunity to research and learn about its philosophy in the coming months, and perhaps years, as the Chief Justice of Alabama, Tom Parker, believes whole heartily in its tenets. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a nutshell, it is an ism which traces its origins to Revelations, verse 9, which identifies the seven spheres of influence that must be penetrated by the righteous; family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. Once those areas of influence are dominated by these true believers, the prophesy of I</span><span style="font-size: large;">saiah 2:2 can be fulfilled, bringing about the end times. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When Trump talks retribution, I thought he only meant punishment for those who disagree with him, I didn't realize he was talking world wide retribution! Of course, I am sure he doesn't believe any of this, but can certainly spot such an easy to manipulate group of people from a mile away.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In addition to Parker, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has exhibited leanings in this direction, not to mention some other prominent GOP leaders and influencers. While there are some who believe that Trump himself shares this belief, I know better; he has no moral or religious foundation, but will certainly use those who do to be king or dictator or whatever it is that his damaged psyche needs to feel like a real person.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, gird your loins as the saying goes. We are in for quite a ride through the remainder of 2024, and in the next few years. Whether we actually adopt some of these religious zealot dogmas at a national level remains to be seen, but remember, it won't matter if the majority of people are against such measures. Ideologues like this aren't concerned with what the majority think. They have their holy book, their narrow interpretations, and the sheer belief that God is on their side, the electorate or the constitution be damned. </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-9822168684284850042024-02-11T18:11:00.002-05:002024-03-09T14:50:39.344-05:00Shame on You, Supreme Court Justices<span style="font-size: large;">This past Tuesday, I listened to portions of the oral arguments (perhaps some day the Supreme Court of the United States will allow cameras in their court so the American people can see their work in progress). I caught some of the questions put to Trump's lawyer (Jonathan Mitchell), then left the house for a while, only to return to hear some of the questions put to the lawyer representing Colorado (Jason Murray).</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I commented previously on the topic of Trump being disqualified from the ballot for his insurrectionist activities. (See link below)<br /></span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/colorado-georgia-maine-oh-my.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/colorado-georgia-maine-oh-my.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Based on what I heard that day, the tone and nature of the questions, and the comments delivered by various legal experts since then, it is clear that SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado ruling (and negate Maine's decision as the Secretary of State of Maine has indicated she will follow the SCOTUS decision).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">While this is not unexpected, I said as much in the post referenced above, I am extremely disappointed with the process I listened to last week. And, while I expected that certain conservative justices might be reluctant to entertain the disqualification of Trump, I am especially disheartened by the liberal judges who also appeared to have already made up their minds before oral arguments commenced.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">What was particularly galling was the seriousness of the questions and answers surrounding the concept that the president (and vice president) were not officers of the United States, and that therefore the 14th amendment did not apply to Trump. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, I understand that at the time of the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was ratified, focus was on the Congress, and to a lesser extent, those electors who chose who would be on the party's presidential ticket. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was of paramount importance to prevent those who engaged in insurrection (in other words, the Civil War), from either serving in Congress or choosing those who would serve (at the time, Senators were not voted on by the electorate, but were chosen by state legislators) in Congress or in the White House.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But, and this is a BIG BUT, when pressed for why the amendment didn't mention the president or vice president, there is historical evidence that those positions were assumed in the words "or hold any office", and that the concept that an insurrectionist would be tolerated on a presidential ballot after such a horrific and devastating war was ridiculous. Certainly, anyone who actually thinks about it, would conclude that the creators of the 14th amendment would want to make sure that anyone who actively fought against America would be prevented from running our country, none more so than the two offices at the top of the pyramid.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So, while we don't know precisely why the offices were not specifically mentioned, I find it hard to believe that the advocates of the 14th Amendment would have been against an insurrectionist in Congress but not in the White House. Isn't that common sense, or am I missing something?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">This is just another in a myriad of examples of Donald Trump finding loopholes in our Constitution and our other laws and norms, to excuse his aberrant behavior. He pushes the limits of the spirit of our laws with impudence, lies incessantly because we allow our politicians to do so, and uses intimidation to bully those who disagree without actually threatening violence.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And, at least in this case, the justices of the Supreme Court will most likely allow him to get away without accountability, again!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I at least hope that, when the ruling comes down, they at least acknowledge that an insurrectionist should be disqualified from running for president. Perhaps they might rule that only Congress can determine an insurrectionist, or that one must be convicted of such to be disqualified, thereby taking the task from the hands of individual states, and placing it in the hands of the judicial system or entire Congress.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Should they, however, rule that the 14th Amendment, article 3 does not apply to the presidency, I believe that will mark this court, Robert's court, as a failure by future historians, to preserve our constitution and our democracy.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Speaking of democracy, why wasn't Mitchell asked if his client acknowledges that he lost the 2020 election, since one of the other parts of the disqualification clauses of the constitution is that no one shall be elected to the presidency three times? They should have pushed the issue to counter Trump's claim that he won "in a landslide" in 2020, so that the American electorate can begin to discount that obsession, and so that, should he and his acolytes try to press for a third term if he wins in November, they will have it on record.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">This also gets to the point of denying election results. To me, anyone who claims that they only honor an election when they win, should be disqualified as a candidate, for any office. Again, it is one of the foundations of our democracy, the peaceful transition of power between presidents, and another of the unspoken rules that Trump trampled upon after the 2020 election. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It is one thing to be a sore loser, to refuse to congratulate the victor when one loses, but another when you spend the next 3 years travelling around the country spreading lies about our country's elections. Lies that led to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, lies that resulted in Fox Business paying Dominion Voting Machines almost three quarters of a billion (that's billion) dollars, lies that resulted in a libel decision against Rudy Giuliani for $148 million, lies that have convinced more than half of Republican voters that President Biden is illegitimate, enabling GOP reps in Congress to justify not working with him to solve our nation's problems. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It seems to me that SCOTUS completely missed that point, instead focusing on technical details, placing their ivory tower opinions over the reality of Trumps threat to democracy. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Finally, there was the point made by one of the justices, one which I made in the post I've mentioned already, that should Colorado's decision to remove Trump from their ballot, might that not cause other states to remove Biden from their ballots? A situation that might result in a handful of states determining the results of the 2024 presidential election. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but that is already the case in America, due to the electoral college. Just look at the last two elections. The results in five states decided the outcome, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Biden won those five states in 2024, Clinton lost them in 2020. All the other states, that's 45 out of 50, were won by the same party in each election and had literally no effect on the outcome of either of those elections.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So, in effect, the terrible possibility proffered as a reason not to allow Colorado remove Trump from the ballot, is the reality of our elections at this very moment. There is every reason to believe that whomever wins those 5 states this November, or four of the five, or perhaps even three of the five, if those three happen to be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, will win the 2024 election. So much for worrying about disenfranchising voters!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If we assume that we don't want a handful of states to decide future presidential elections, perhaps we should be having a serious discussion about eliminating the electoral college? </span></div><div><br /></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Finally, there also seems to be an assumed reluctance for this court to take positions that would change the course of our country, that those kind of choices should be up to the legislative and executive branches. That a decision to remove Trump might possibly lead to strife in our streets even though that didn't seem to stop SCOTUS from removing a right for the first time in history. (The Dobbs decision).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Well, perhaps it is time for the court to show some balls, the female justices included. When the Warren Court overruled Plessy in the Brown vs Board of Education rulings, finding the sanctioned segregation of our public school systems as unconstitutional, all hell broke loose, to use a phrase. Federal troops had to be sent to multiple southern states to escort frightened African American children into desegregated schools, to the outrage of certain racist Americans. Talk about having balls!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Clearly, the Roberts Court will have whiffed on this one, if the consensus is correct as to how they will rule. Perhaps they will do better in the immunity case, should they agree to hear it. Should they fall short on that one as well, I expect that historians will have even more evidence of this court's failure to defend our democracy. </span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-16990778852885576462024-02-03T16:08:00.002-05:002024-02-03T16:08:17.098-05:00Accountability Finally? 2<div><span style="font-size: large;">About nine months ago, I posted the following concerning the possibility of accountability finally coming to Donald Trump for all his horrible actions, although I also state at the end that I only believe true accountability will come when the grim reaper visits him. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/04/accountability-finally.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/04/accountability-finally.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Still, I reread it to see what may have changed in those intervening months and was both gladdened and saddened.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">At the time, Ron DeSantis was the GOP candidate expected to pose a possible challenge to Trump. As it turned out, he, along with all the other men who entered the race have dropped out, most, only to endorse Trump. Of course, other than Chris Christie, those other male candidates were obviously not serious about challenging Trump, rarely, if ever, attacking Trump on any of the many topics available to them. Can you say gutless?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Also, we didn't know just how many felony indictments would be forthcoming, ninety-one, as it turned out. I am old enough to remember when a politician could be forced out of a presidential race for admitting having mental health therapy in the past, or having extra-marital affairs. And when a candidate who may have smoked pot in his past, had to explain it away.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But now we have a candidate with millions of supporters who (among many other things) stoked a mob to ransack the Capitol building in the attempt to thwart the peaceful transition of power (and perhaps kill or hang a few in the process), stole national secrets, then lied about having them and about returning them all, and has continued to lie about the results of the 2020 presidential election. Oh, and believes that as president he should have complete immunity from prosecution even if he should order the assassination of a political rival. Can you say cult?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">History is a curious thing. In hindsight, there are often obvious inflection points that historians can cite as the time or place when a sea change had occurred. Perhaps it is a specific battle of a war, or a speech made by an influential person, or an invention. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But in real time, as life is happening, it is rare indeed to identify such a point when everything that comes after is different from everything that came before.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">My hope with this post is to predict a possible turning point in the life of Donald Trump, and our country.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">A while back I published a post concerning which gender is the weaker sex and how we might redefine masculinity to allow for the social changes that have occurred in the last hundred years, changes which have reduced the dominance of (white) men while providing for an immense increase in opportunities in education, business, politics, etc for women and minorities.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-weaker-sex.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/the-weaker-sex.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Which brings me back to accountability for Trump.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I would like to think that in 5 years, perhaps even less, the events of 2024 will be designated as the beginning of the end for Trump's influence. Not perhaps the end of such influence, but the beginning of the waning of such influence.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And, as indicated in The Weaker Sex post, should that be true it will be women who have demonstrates their strength, specific women and the gender as a whole who were able to create that slow slide towards irrelevance.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As mentioned before, a lot has changed in nine months. While we already knew about Cassidy and Liz, we now have other women leading the charge to shine light on the Donald.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Two women prosecutors, Fani Willis and Tish James are leading strong cases against Trump which demonstrate his past lies about his finances to obtain preferential loans, and the conspiracy he led to subvert the will of the American electorate to disenfranchise Georgia's voters.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">E Jean Carroll, and her female lawyers, Roberta Kaplan and Shawn Crowley, have successfully won a jury verdict which not only found Trump guilty of sexual assault and libel in the first trial, but won additional monetary awards for defamation, injury to her reputation and punitive damages to the tune of $83.3, that second jury trial which resulted from Trump's inability to keep his mouth shut. Can you say lack of self control?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And then there is Nikki Haley. Now, I was very disappointed in Nikki's early debate performance, especially her willingness to pardon Trump should she win the presidency, not because I would not be opposed to such a move should he <u>admit to wrong doing,</u> but we all know he won't admit to doing anything wrong, so Nikki should have prefaced her decision to pardon him with the caveat that he admit wrongdoing, and ask for a pardon. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But, now that it is mano e mano (so to speak), she is pulling out all the stops and is beginning to point out, not just the obvious, that other than 2016, he (and the GOP in his image) has lost every other election; 2018 midterms when the GOP lost the house, 2020 presidential election when they lost the White House and Senate, and even in 2022 when the red wave was more like a trickle, but also his lack of clarity, his penchant for dictators and bully tactics, and his obvious misogyny.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Can she win the nomination? She has survived the primary to date, besting all the other male candidates, so anything can happen as the trials begin and those republicans who are paying attention see his childish behavior, continued all caps temper tantrums, and the testimony of those who previously voted for and served in his administration. As I said in my last post, I believe it is more likely that she could beat Biden in the November general election than Trump, a prospect that I do not embrace, but one which I can't for the life of me understand why the republican party doesn't realize.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So then, will women be the ultimate force behind Trump's fading away? Specific women, as I have mentioned in past posts, and women voters in general? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If there is still irony left in the universe, that would certainly be the purest example, for a misogynist, women private parts grabber, thrice married philanderer, to be relegated to the trash bin of American history by the very gender which he treated with disdain and contempt.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-50892467864848991302024-02-01T15:49:00.000-05:002024-02-01T15:49:11.249-05:00The Monarch Butterfly and Selflessness<span style="font-size: large;">Wonderful article in the January edition of National Geographic about the monarch butterfly. Another tremendous example of why this magazine is so invaluable, why learning about our environment is crucial not to just the survival of the hundreds of species that are currently under enormous stress but to humanity as well.</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Most people probably know something about the monarch butterfly. Many can even recognize one by sight, despite the myriad of categories of butterflies that exist.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps the most amazing fact about these delicate creatures, their migration cycle, is also known to most people, in general terms. I know that I was aware of the prodigious nature of their travels, from points as far north as southern Canada to central Mexico. Unfortunately, what I didn't know about them was far more than I thought I knew,</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">First, and most important, it is a generational journey that the monarchs take each year. What that means is that the monarchs that we might see in our backyards during the summer, are not the monarchs that left Mexico in the spring, and they are most likely not the monarchs that will travel back to Mexico in the fall. The yearly cycle takes at least three, and as many as five generations of monarchs to complete.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Also, those monarchs that are born in southern Canada and America, never see Mexico. They are non-migratory, and tend to have smaller wings than their migratory ancestors and descendants. They are born of the monarchs that left Mexico, survive between two and five weeks, then pass along their DNA to the next generation, eventually producing the one that does the heavy flying, back to Mexico. Those that represent the 4th and 5th generation can live up to a few months, in addition to being bigger than their progenitors.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Yet, amazingly, they know when to depart and where to go, despite never having been there before. Perhaps, due to having very little knowledge of etymology, I assumed that, like birds, monarchs were led by the senior members of their group, at least for one round trip, thereby imparting the migratory cycle through experience. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But no, those that make the return trip have never been there before. Considering my own tendency to easily lose my car in a large parking lot, or get turned around when approaching a familiar destination from a different angle, it is a remarkable achievement.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Last year, my wonderful wife decided to realize a dream of hers by creating a wildflower garden in our backyard. In our previous home with its postage size backyard, she had, over the years, eliminated most of the grass, replacing it with flower gardens and plants and bushes of many types. By the time we moved in 2020, I was able to mow the lawn with a weed wacker.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But it was very small, as I said, so when we were searching for a new home, we prioritized a larger yard, which we were lucky enough to have found. Consequently, last May, we contracted to have about 900 square feet of lawn removed down to the soil, whereupon she distributed wild flower seeds, like the proverbial Joanna Appleseed.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, if you recall, it was very dry in late May and early June last year. And so, three weeks into the experiment, we were looking at dry ground with a few random pieces of grass struggling towards the sky. To be honest, there were a few days when we wondered what madness made us scrape off such a huge swath of land.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But June's dry spell was replaced with rain, and by mid-July we had a host of wildflowers growing, followed by all sorts of bees, bugs, and butterflies. I can't say we saw any monarchs, but the colors and smells and plethora of nature eliminated the doubt we had experienced for those first few weeks. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Or, in monarch time, it took one generation for our garden to prosper.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Needless to say, the wildflower garden is here to stay, and will most likely get expanded, in hopes that a generation of monarchs will find a home, if only for a short time, in our modest back yard.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Selflessness.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Without falling to far down the rabbit hole of anthropomorphism, wouldn't it be nice if humans showed even a tincture of the selflessness that those generations of monarchs display which never leave America. Their only function is to procreate the next generations, eventually leading to those monarchs who travel back to Mexico to spend the winter, only to migrate up north where the cycle begins again.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, in some ways, we do behave in such a way when we become parents. A little bit of sacrifice here, some nods to the future there, and hopes that by providing roots and wings, our children will have the confidence to pursue happiness, wherever it may take them.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We also act as those monarchs who live so the next generations can migrate, when we discuss the problems of the day, and when we fashion solutions to address those issues. While politics has always been partisan, there has also been a generous amount of compromise and bipartisanship at various times, even in our recent past. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There is a lot of evidence to suggest that all the stimulus money distributed by both the Trump and Biden Administrations during the pandemic, while adding a certain percentage to the ugly rise in inflation, also provided the foundation for millions of American families to weather the storm of lock downs and unemployment, enabling America to emerge much stronger than most of the world's other western nations. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So yes, while the hand wringing associated with the ever growing national debt is justified, the understanding that it could have been much worse, that those at the bottom of the economic ladder may have fallen completely through, that recession and perhaps worse was avoided by temporarily increasing our debt is a strong counter to such worries.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">That doesn't mean we should not act to reduce the debt moving forward, but is also doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the end results. After all, if we were honest with ourselves, compared to the past when we took actions that substantially increased our debt, World War One and Two, the Cold War, the war on terror which began in 2001, and the massive bailouts of the banks and other financial institutions in 2008, at least the funds causing this rise in debt went to everyday Americans, not the military industrial complex or the bankers and hedge fund managers.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Will we act communally to address this debt, will we demonstrate some selflessness? Will those with the most (have you read about Elon Musk's $58 billion pay package that is being challenged in court) act as those monarch generations who are content with never migrating? Will we begin to understand that fair distribution of our great nation's considerable resources is the only true way to guarantee that the generations to follow will be able to prosper? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">A few years ago, I posted the following concerning personal happiness and global anxiety. While the topic is only loosely associated with this post, it does address the idea that it is possible to be happy with one's own life, maybe even one's position in the migratory cycle, while worrying about the bigger picture, about whether our progeny will be able to create a future better than today, or make it to Mexico.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/09/personal-happiness-vs-global-anxiety.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/09/personal-happiness-vs-global-anxiety.html</a> </span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-24961241276107250132024-01-27T16:52:00.001-05:002024-01-27T16:52:25.188-05:00Utopia and The Future<div><span style="font-size: large;">An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a book called <u>Utopia For Realists</u> by Rutger Bregman. I finished reading it last night.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Bregman is a popular Dutch author and historian, who has written other books about the future, utopia and creating a better world. In Utopia.. he makes the case for how the three concepts he advocates for the most, a 15 hour workweek, universal basic income, and open borders, could create a world without poverty, with much less crime, and with far more productivity than we have currently.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I reread a few of the posts I created along the lines of The Future, and have provided links to two of them.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-future.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-future.html</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/09/another-look-at-future.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/09/another-look-at-future.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Utopia and the future.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I must confess, I have allowed my outlook to degrade in the past few years. I say this because I found a number of past posts I had written with forward looking, positive outlooks for the world, humanity, but far less with such an optimistic viewpoint in the more recent past. I often remark that I believe that some of the negative attitudes emanating from people in their 50's and above, are the (natural) result of nostalgic thinking that is so easy to revert to as we age, as well as the obvious but often ignored fact that death is much closer than we want to admit.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Whether this generalized outlook has also effected the tone of my posts, is certainly debatable. The phrase, just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean there aren't those out to get them, may be appropriate in regards to the recognition that sad and angry making news seems to attract more viewers, more clicks, more attention, so perhaps I have begun to succumb to that trend as well, even while I remain happy in my life, although more sad in regards to the world around us.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">While I have certainly begun to believe that our democracy is already dead, is it simply because I am avoiding the obvious, that I am closer to death than birth, or just a reflection of the awful politics that is prevalent at this point in time?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><u>Utopia For Realists</u>, offered me a chance to put aside the cheerlessness of such thoughts, and to read about a perspective that not only believes in the progression (for the better) of humanity, but offers ideas as to how to accelerate that trajectory.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">A few times in the past, I have discussed with friends, the concept that many women who stayed at home to raise tomorrow's adults, fulfilling what has traditionally been the ultimate goal and purpose of a woman as wife and mother, were sold a bill of goods that has proved detrimental to their later adult lives. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Whether through divorce or death, there are far too many women in their 50's and above, who find themselves with far too few resources, especially in the form of their social security checks, because they did not earn any money outside of the home during those years when they were performing the most noble of tasks, raising and caring for their children. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">When discussing the problem of older women who live in poverty, my standard reaction is that, recognizing this issue, we should develop a program whereby women (and men) who stay at home with their kids are credited with an amount of money towards their future social security earnings. This amount could reflect the average cost of daycare in the state where one resides, or the income which equates to the poverty level for one person. Regardless of the metric, women would at least have an extra safety net to counter events that force them to sell their homes, or take menial jobs to make ends meet, when their only crime was staying at home to raise their children. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Bregman takes this concept to the next level however, proposing a universal basic income for all people. It is an idea that, while certainly not mainstream, is actually being discussed in reasonable tones, and is being experimented with in various iterations in a few countries, and especially as a way to end homelessness. Bregman cites all kinds of studies which demonstrate that giving people cash is far more effective than any of the standard, traditional methods of assisting those in need.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As part of this argument, Bregman agrees with those who rail against the various "helping" programs that exist, not because he believes we should only advocate for "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" which he finds immoral and inhumane, but because there is not enough proof behind the efficacy of so many of our current attempts to address the ills of poverty and homelessness, and that too much of the resources applied to the problem are wasted on administrative costs related to oversight and evaluation and fraud prevention. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Whether universal basic income is actually the norm in 25 or 50 years, it has been documented again and again that giving people in need an infusion of cash, especially the homeless, propels them to correcting their situation, and saves future expenditures related to policing, prison, and welfare. It is an investment that almost always returns more than it costs.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The 15 hour work week, on the face of it, seems unrealistic. How can the wheels of industry continue to turn if people only work 15 hours a week, and, what will people do with all that free time? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The latter question has always been offered as a reason by employers and other institutions as to why people need to work. And, frankly, given the rise in suicides and drug overdoses that occurred during the lock downs related to the pandemic, I can see why most people would shrug off such a concept. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But, using a situational instance such as the pandemic is not a good evaluation of a program, since we were thrust into the changes that marked our attempts to save lives, whereas working towards a 15 hour work week would entail a progression of steps to get us there, not a sudden change. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Also, there is something to be said for the belief that it is the very nature of our workaday world, the financial stress of always seeming to be just a bit behind, the jobs that provide little or no fulfillment, the pressures of holding ones tongue when presented with abusive co-workers or supervisors, that contributes heavily to high drug use and suicide rates. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Don't get me wrong, I am not convinced even after reading the book, but if there is a way to reduce the sheer number of unhappy people who kill themselves, or drown their sorrows in alcohol, then I am willing to try a new way. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Since Bregman's book was written in 2014, and re-released in 2017, there has been a real sea change in how we work as indicated by the meteoric rise in at-home work. Of course, there has been push back from some business owners, CEO's, certain politicians, but there is also growing data that people are more productive when working from home even if they put in less than the traditional 40 hours, since they work without the stress of a commute or the hovering of a supervisor in a safe, comfortable environment. Is this an indication that moving towards a 15 hour week is already upon us, or at least, less crazy a concept that even just five years ago?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The last concept in the book is open borders. Again, this was written before the demonization strategy of a certain politician who brainwashed a significant percentage of Americans that immigrants were evil people. I can't even begin to imagine any politician from any party or ideology, advocating in public for an open border today.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As it is, I see the phrase open border used in conjunction with Biden multiple times every day, even though that is far from the truth. An open border is not defined as detaining and returning to their home country hundreds of thousands of people every year. The very existence of ICE and other border patrol agencies, the existence of an asylum program for those escaping religious and political persecution, and the need for agents, lawyers and judges to operate those various programs, belie the daily use of the term open border.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Ironically, many of the ancestors of those very same people most vocal about open borders, came to America when we truly had an open border policy. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As far as I know, the Pilgrims were not detained at Plymouth Rock when they arrived. While, perhaps, the indigenous people of the time should have required references, or proof of a skill, or familiarity with the prevalent culture, from the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620, there was an open border to the "New World". </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and most of the founders took advantage of the open border of the day, and, maintained that concept during the infancy of the United States. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the first restrictive immigration bill was enacted as a way to restrict Chinese immigrants to America. Racist? Certainly. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It wasn't until 1924 that the United States initiated immigration restrictions that were not prejudiced, at least not on its face. That law restricted to 2% the number of visas issued for each nationality as reflected by their population from the 1890 census. We can debate the latent prejudice involved in the use of the 1890 census as opposed to the more recent 1910, or even 1900 census, but suffice it to say that the influx of immigrants from certain countries between 1890 and 1910, inspired the use of that 1890 census so that the 2% number was far less, meaning less of "those" people would be allowed to immigrate. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">So, in other words, the United States indeed had an open border for the first 150 years before its founding, and then another 150 years after its declaration of independence. Only in the last 100 year has there been restrictions on immigrants, and those have always been based on prejudice.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Bregman, again using all kinds of statistics, attempts to prove, that, once again, our current methods of addressing immigration by providing support for the country of origin of those wishing to come here, has not been proven to be effective, whereas allowing those people to come here, unencumbered, will be better for them as well as the country at large. I would recommend you read that section for yourself to test his logic and points.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly, Bregman reminds us in this section of the book, that goods and ideas are allowed to migrate from country to country, across borders without checkpoints. Of course, it is no surprise that most people are for free trade, as it is a staple of the entire capitalist system. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But think about ideas. Is there anything more dangerous than ideas that counter the norms and rules of society? We have a history of labeling certain thoughts as dangerous, sometimes using the phrases immoral or anti-social, and we obviously discourage ideas that are associated with communism and socialism, yet we generally allow discussions of those concepts in the name of free speech.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Yet, a poor immigrant mother who walks hundreds of miles with her children are denied entry to America because she is some kind of threat to our way of life.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I have said it before, and will say it again. America is as great as it is precisely because we have accepted people from all over the world, because we enjoy the diversity of culture and experiences, and because we seek equity in opportunity for all people, those who did nothing to earn the blessings of our country other than being born here, and those who take great risk, leave everything they know, and come here for a better life.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Frankly, if you even pretend to believe in the phrase "all men are created equal", working towards more reasonable immigration laws which recognize the humanity of those seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while providing a process that provides a safe, legal pathway for them while easing the anxiety of those natives who worry about how their country might change, should be of the highest priority. Anything short of that, any words such as vermin and invasion when talking about immigration are not only saturated with prejudice, but fly in the face of what has made our country great. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Whether Bregman's advice for us to return to the open border policies of our past which created the foundation of our country is followed, remains to be seen.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-59941137716855256092024-01-25T15:06:00.003-05:002024-01-25T15:06:46.552-05:00Nikki Haley for President<p><span style="font-size: large;">First, I want to publicly thank Donald Trump for saving us from nuclear holocaust, as he claimed in one of his depositions which was recently made public. Thank you sir!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Also, I would like to thank Barack Obama for also saving us from nuclear holocaust during his 8 years in office, as well as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhauer, and, so far, Joe Biden. All those men served as president of the United States since the development of the nuclear bomb, and, since there was not a nuclear holocaust during any of their terms in office they deserve our thanks. Of course, I don't recall any of those men citing, under oath during a deposition concerning possible criminal activity, this achievement, but they did accomplish it nevertheless.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">-------</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After watching the results of the New Hampshire primary this past week, and then parts of Nikki Haley's post election speech, along with a few snippets of Trump's post election victory tantrum, it dawned on me that perhaps Nikki is our best bet for unity in America. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, don't get me wrong, I support President Biden. Despite the constant criticisms leveled at him for the last 3+ years, he has done a remarkable job. Remember, when Biden took office in January 2021, about 500,000 people had already died from Covid, with another half a million still to come. Yet starting in the Spring of 2021, millions of doses of vaccines were rolled out and placed in the arms of those willing to join in the fight to combat the virus. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Whereas Trump did a great job with Operation Warp Speed to get the vaccines developed, he failed to quell the conspiratorial stories about the danger of the vaccines, thereby contributing to a reluctance among his followers to get vaccinated. Strangely, the numbers show that a disproportionate number of those very same people died, as did those living in the red states where governors also ignored the science. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But Biden didn't differentiate red from blue states; he made sure that all the states had access to the vaccine, and, as time passed, the mortality rate declined. I have no doubt that history will praise Biden and his team for saving tens of thousands of lives by making those vaccines available.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Then, as a result of the pandemic, there were supply chain issues, amplified by the invasion of Ukraine and the boycott of Russian oil in those countries who condemned that behavior (and subsequent, and continued slaughter of the Ukrainian people). Soon, prices began to rise, and inflation plagued both America and much of the globe. In addition, the pandemic monetary assistance for those most vulnerable to the loss of jobs, flowed freely, adding to an artificial ability for everyday people to pay their bills, buy food, maintain their homes. So, while some of Biden's monetary decisions added to the inflationary pressures related to supply chain problems and the rise of fuel, it also saved millions of people from foreclosure, food insecurity, and the choice between medicine and food.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, compared to most western countries, inflation in the United States is lower, unemployment is still under 4%, two of the three market indexes are at all time highs, and 401K balances are up. By almost any metric, America is in as strong a position as any country, and Americans, while certainly stressed from the shock of inflation rates not seen since Carter and Reagan, are also starting to gain purchasing power due to increases in wages.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Frankly, if Trump were president today, he would be crowing about how he saved us all, would be bragging about those same facts listed above, and Fox News would be full of positive stories about America's great comeback from Covid, instead of their relentless attacks on Biden. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, why title this Nikki Haley for President? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While it is clear that Trump has a stranglehold on the GOP voter, Nikki's strength in New Hampshire was among first time voters, those registered as independent, and the few remaining Republicans who believe that Trump's bullying, his constant skirting of the law, his lack of respect for the American electorate, not to mention the felony charges he is facing, make him unfit to lead.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Nikki is certainly going to lose big in her home state of South Carolina, but there are many other states with constituencies similar to New Hampshire. Trump can and will win the GOP nomination, but the demographics of America are more like New Hampshire than Iowa and South Carolina. It is the soccer moms of the suburbs, young voters who are leery of two old men as their choice for the next president, and the over 45% of Republicans who did not vote for Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire, who, may or may not support him in November, but have certainly indicated by their votes that they are OK with moving on from him as well. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, and this is a gigantic possibly pie-in-the-sky but, Nikki would need to soften her position on abortion to at least support states being able to decide themselves, but certainly no national ban, would have to emphasize her plans to strengthen the border without pushing to deport the 11 million undocumented people already in America, and, the biggest of all, have Donald Trump withdraw from the nomination and endorse her.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, I know what you are thinking, did you recently hit your head Joe? Donald Trump will never abdicate (I use that word purposefully) his eventual nomination. He loves himself far more than his party or his country. He is not a quitter. I am sure there are many other arguments that can be made for him to not withdraw from the race, although the recent one I heard uttered by one of his supporters in New Hampshire, that he was divinely sent to save us, I discount as one which only those fully down the rabbit hole of his cult would posit.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Still, I think only Nikki can unite America at this point. Trump will never be seen as anything more than a dictator wanna be to 52% of the people (perhaps more if he is convicted of any of the felony indictments he is facing, and likely even more when, after losing his ludicrous request for total immunity, he launches into another one of his ALL CAPS tirades about the courts and how they need to be dissolved). Biden had no choice but to call out the MAGA crowd who believe that the 2020 election was stolen, and who are OK with storming the Capitol and killing elected officials to prevent the transfer of power to Biden. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Nikki, on the other hand, has the ability to walk that fine line between side stepping the truly crazy aspects of the MAGA movement while still talking about making America great again. By adopting and co-opting the beliefs that drive people towards Trump she can seem palatable to them (as compared to Biden) while also appealing to the independents and center left democrats that are unhappy with how inflation has hurt their finances (even though, as I said, it was a global event, and ultimately handled much better in America than most places), and are alarmed about the influx of immigrants, not because they see them as a threat or consider it an invasion, but because our system is not designed to handle such a large influx. In other words, we need to control it better, both for our benefit as Americans, and for those who risk their lives to come here outside the legitimate pathways. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Clearly, I won't be betting my house, or even next week's garbage, on this scenario to happen. Sadly, I believe that even if convicted, Trump will still be the nominee, which will drive his people to be even more loyal while spurring even more independents to vote for Biden.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In essence, Nikki is the only hope the GOP has of winning back the White House, yet their blind loyalty to and, let's be honest, fear of Trump, is stronger than their desire to win in November, and ultimately, stronger than their desire to address our nation's problems.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a past post, I asked Donald Trump to resign the presidency rather than allow our country's divisions to multiply. He ignored me at that time. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, rather than being deterred, I ask him again. Mr Trump, be the great man who you wish to be. Do what's best for America, as you claim you desire. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Withdraw from the presidential race, throw your full support behind Nikki Haley, help her win the White House, and then accept her pardon with grace. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Just think of the legacy that will create!</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-70031679469197785362024-01-21T16:32:00.004-05:002024-01-21T16:32:44.626-05:00The Big Chiller<span style="font-size: large;">Twice in the past month or so, I have stumbled upon the movie "The Big Chill" on TV, last night being the second time. I knew I had commented on this movie once before, so I reread that post before starting this one. Here is a link to that one, from 2010.</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/big-chilling.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/big-chilling.html</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It dawned on me as I started this post that I had never researched the reasoning behind the title of this movie. A quick google revealed that the Temptations created a song called The Big Chill Motown Medley which accounted for part of the answer as to its origin.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Additionally, Lawrence Kasdan, one of the co-writers, once referred to a physical chill that would pass through his body when encountering certain people in the film industry, and in life. The way he described it was not complimentary.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As it relates to the movie, however, it seems clear that the first reference, music, applies much more than the second one, although there are a few scenes between the girlfriend, Chloe, (played by Meg Tilly) of the newly deceased friend and one of the long time friends, Michael (Jeff Goldblum), that might remind one of the way certain men may be considered by a woman who recognize the intent of their attention, but is more repelled than attracted.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">When I wrote that first reference post in 2010, I mentioned that those I considered my Big Chill friends were not drawn together at a college setting as in the movie. In fact, truth be told, it was at the McDonalds in Horsham, Pa, where we all met and began our friendship. While the movie friends were pursuing an education as part of their rebellious youth, we were making a living to fund our parties. The future for us was that night or the next weekend, or the next rock concert. Living for the moment. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">This is not to say that the characters in the movie didn't enjoy their time in similar pursuits. At one point, Harold (Kevin Kline) remarks something about "how much sex, fun and friendship can one man take", in reference to their time at Ann Arbor.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But there is a number of reference in the movie to idealism and commitment, as if the friends believed in something bigger than their shared good times. The friend (Alex) who has killed himself, the funeral being the reason for their reunion, seems universally considered the smartest of the group, yet apparently, one of the least successful in terms of societal norms. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In fact, there is a scene in which Meg (Mary Kay Place) is riding in a car with Nick (William Hurt) where she recounts that the last time she spoke to their mutual friend, they argued, Meg telling him that he was wasting his life. Nick's comment, "that is probably why he killed himself", aside, her opinion reflects a theme that runs through the movie concerning lost idealism, and the compromises we make for material comforts.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In another scene, the character Sarah (Glenn Close) worries if their past idealism and beliefs were just "fashion." This is extremely poignant in that Sarah had a brief affair with Alex, yet was married to Harold who is far and away the most successful of the group. Before we get to know Sarah in more depth, there is a scene in which she is crying in the shower the night after the funeral. Is it just Alex she is crying for, or also the loss of her true soul mate? A man she did not marry, in favor of one who was able to provide her with children and the ideal comforts of the American dream.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">There is also the words of Harold at the funeral. Just before he breaks down and is led away by the minister, he alludes to the belief that Alex was too good for the world. That, in combination with a news clip the friends find in Alex's possessions which recounts how he turned down a prestigious opportunity as a promising physicist, again leads us to think that Alex was not able to remove his ideals from the direction of his life.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And then there is the scene in the kitchen with Nick, Sam (Tom Berenger) and the husband of Karen (JoBeth Williams). It is clear that Karen and her husband are not exactly passionate lovers at this point in their marriage. We find out during the movie that Karen openly admits she was drawn to her husband as a reaction to what she alludes to as a difficult childhood, ostensibly due to her father's infidelity. Her husband is solid, loyal, provides a good life for her and her children. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">When he comments to Nick and Sam that perhaps the problem with Alex, the reason he decided to take his life, is because he was unable to make all the compromises to "set his priorities straight." And, lastly, that "no one ever said it would be fun, at least, no one ever said it to me." </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As a side note, I had a serious crush on JoBeth in my youth. Seeing her in this movie reminded me of that, and helped counter the idea that in the movie, The Big Year, she plays a grandmother. Yikes!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In some ways, the Big Chill fascinates me in that most of the friends, baby boomers who "experienced" the social upheavals of the 1960's, whose generation promised to change the world, are financially secure, have well respected careers. Meg is a lawyer, Harold a businessman, Sarah a doctor, Michael a writer, Sam a famous actor. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Whether their ideals were fashion or not, almost all of them made choices that allowed them to live comfortably. While I can't go so far to say that my Big Chill friends and myself were far less successful, most of us are living comfortably, we are far less accomplished as the characters in the movie. Was that done purposefully, to present in stark contrast what Alex could have done if he "set his priorities straight" or stopped "wasting his life?"</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">While there was not a suicide in my group, there was a friend who lost himself at some point. His death created our group's Big Chill moment which I discuss in a post from September 2022.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/a-friends-death.html">https://wurdsfrom</a></span><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/a-friends-death.html">theburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/a-friends-death.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Idealism. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It certainly seems true that we jettison the ideals of our youth as the realities of life swarm upon us. We can't just quit a job that doesn't challenge or fulfill us, if we have a mortgage or a family. Must sometimes hold our tongue in the face of unfairness when it occurs at work. Worry less about a company's ethics or practices and more about their dividends. Identify with a politician who tells us who to blame rather than challenging us to make the world better for everyone, not just those who resemble us in their beliefs.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps no other generation faced such difficult decisions, in terms of maintaining one's ideals, than the boomers. Frankly, as I have said before, I don't feel we did such a good job. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">At the end of The Big Chill, the friends promise to stay in touch more regularly than they had in the recent past. Nick decides to live nearby Sarah and Harold, with Chloe, in the house that she and Alex were working on. One might say that they realized who their real friends were, who was the most important people of their lives, even if they never fully resolve their doubt as to whether they abandoned their ideals. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">For us in the real world, continuing to turn our back on the ideals related to promoting the building of character over portfolio, and to gauging ourselves and our society with a yardstick that is less material and more spiritual, is far more important than celluloid friends who lament, for a weekend, that they may have compromised those ideals. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But at least films like The Big Chill presents us with a chance to look at ourselves in the mirror while reminding us of the times of our youth when it was all in front of us.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-80292692569203031932024-01-09T17:44:00.003-05:002024-02-03T15:24:51.754-05:00The Weaker Sex<div><span style="font-size: large;">In my last post, I lamented at its end that I have crossed the line into believing that we have lost our democracy in America. (See link below)</span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/colorado-georgia-maine-oh-my.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/colorado-georgia-maine-oh-my.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In this post, I will backtrack ever so slightly from that opinion, but only slightly in that I will offer a reason why we may yet extend the life of our democracy, although extend is not necessarily the same as saving our democracy.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">First though, I did some research concerning the topic of the decline of masculinity by entering the google search "decline of masculinity". The range of opinions defining and offering solutions to this problem was astounding. As was the fact that lamenting about the loss of masculinity, or should I say the battle of defining male masculinity, has been with us since the birth of our country. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">While I hesitate to assert that any of the articles I perused struck me as the most enlightening, or the most accurate, I did enjoy the one I read in Politico. Here is a link to that article from July, 2023.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/14/josh-hawley-masculinity-crisis-00105436">https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/07/14/josh-hawley-masculinity-crisis-00105436</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If we assume then, that the crisis of male masculinity has been ongoing for as long as America has existed, and perhaps as long as men and women have existed, is there anything special about the current anxiety concerning the loss of masculinity? Or put another way, what factors that exist today are different from those that were cited by those mourning the decline of the male gender in the past?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The one that jumped out at me was education, and the effect that education has on a person's ability to alter his/her life. Obviously, at the start of our nation, education was almost exclusively for white, males, specifically, white males of certain households. While a very few women from families of means were "allowed" to be educated, everyday men and women were rarely represented in institutions of higher learning, and certainly not people of color. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As education became more universal, women, sons and daughters of the working class, immigrants, and minorities were now exposed to advanced learning, which in turn, allowed them to pursue occupations that provided higher incomes, and access to business and government jobs that altered the demographics of who was making the rules, and consequently, who was benefiting from those rules. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If one were to assume that being the breadwinner for a family was one of the definitions of what it meant to be a man, it is clear that as the percentage of women attaining 4 year and graduate degrees increases, then the percentage of families with the male as sole or primary breadwinner will decline. Today, while the male is still the sole breadwinner for a family a little over half of the time, almost 30% of households feature an equal income level between the man and woman, while 15% of the time, the women makes more money. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And, since the percentage of women enrolled in higher education is well past the 50% mark and pushing 60%, it is certainly not inconceivable that 50% of or more of women may earn as much money as their husband sometime in the near future, which will put quite a dent in the concept of masculinity being tied to supporting one's family through a higher outside income.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Assuming that construct is less than satisfying in the chase for a definition of masculinity, and since there are female executives at the highest levels of the business world, and a host of women presidents and political leaders in the world, what does that leave for men to claim as their own domain?</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It has only been about 30 years since the term "man cave" was coined. Ah, the man cave. Often the basement or the garage, but generally the least hospitable place of the home which men were allowed to decorate as desired, get as big a TV as would fit, and hang out with their buddies watching sports and drinking beer. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Not necessarily a horrible existence, and certainly a great place to yell at poor sporting performances by the home team's group of men, and the referees who are supposed to render fair judgments, but a far cry from dominating the halls of business and government.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If I were prone to a particular kind of conspiracy theory, I might conclude that the man cave was a clever way for women to throw their husbands a bone.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But I digress.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">One area where men still statistically dominate women is suicide rate. Men kill themselves at almost 4 times the rate of women. Drug use is also higher among men than women, and, since there is some evidence that women seek treatment at a higher rate than men, the actual difference may be higher than is documented. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And of course, men die by violence, especially gun violence, at a much higher rate than women, but even worse, men are responsible for an overwhelming percentage of violent deaths, both against other men, and women as well.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, aggression in men has long been assumed to be genetic, part of our heritage as the physically larger gender, and entwined with our hunter gatherer past. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If dominance in business and government, and at home in terms of income, are less a part of the definition of masculinity, does that leave only the physical manifestations of a gender with higher testosterone levels?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Clearly, as has happened multiple times since America was founded, and in fact throughout history, the definition of masculinity is changing, has changed. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But be clear, so has the definition of femininity! Is it any less challenging to be a women in today's society than a man? And, is the focus on masculinity just another manifestation of the patriarchal nature of our society? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Frankly, I can't imagine that the role and definition of what it means to be a woman, hasn't changed at least as much, if not more so, than what it means to be a man. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The Weaker Sex. What is my point?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Currently, we have a presidential candidate who has smashed through all the norms of our political discourse. Someone who refused to graciously congratulate the winner of a presidential election that he lost. Someone who ignored his constitutional duties to provide a peaceful transition of power to the next administration. Someone who suggested that if his vice president, a man who steadfastly defended him throughout his four year term, did not do the "right" thing by illegally ignoring the state electors chosen by the American people he would be disappointed, and then tacitly agreed with the rioters on January 6th who chanted Hang Mike Pence. Someone who joked about being a dictator for only one day.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">What is amazing to me is that the republicans who are standing up to him are almost exclusively women, not withstanding Adam Kinzinger. It was Cassidy Hutchinson who was the star witness of the January 6th committee hearings, not Mark Meadows who was by Trump's side far more often than Hutchinson. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It was Liz Cheney who sacrificed her political career to serve on the January 6th committee and objectively evaluate the evidence uncovered while a host of her mostly male GOP counterparts first condemned the actions of the mob on January 6th, then kissed the ring of the Mar a Lago resident, and began a process of rewriting history to pretend that Trump didn't ignite the mob with his words then watch gleefully on TV when they ransacked the Capitol.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It appears, at least in this one topic, that it is men who are the weaker sex, as they allow their desire for power and influence to overcome their duty to their country and fellow citizens. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps then, a new definition of masculinity should include a resistance to the absolute powers of a dictator, and an understanding that their position as the only educated gender, the only leaders in business and government has passed. But that doesn't mean they are less important. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">On the contrary.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Acknowledging that power and influence and rule making and following the rules makes everyone stronger when it is shared might be a good start to redefining masculinity. That America is greater because of the diversity of its leaders, economic and political, and that the household is greater when everyone under the roof has equal opportunity, might be a good trait of that definition.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The realization that it is not a zero sum game where sharing in the benefits of our society means men get less if women get more, or when white men lose influence because women and minorities now have a say in the direction and future of our country might be a far better standard to gauge a man's masculinity.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Which brings me back to my claim that there still may be a way to temporarily extend our democracy. Our only hope is that women, who make up about 52% of the electorate, will continue to be the stronger sex and vote for candidates who accept the results of elections, and who believe that women should be treated as first class citizens, and not merely baby factories subject to (usually) male generated restrictions concerning their bodies and their health care.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Anything short of a resounding victory in November for these principles will not bode well for America. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-89681628655438878402024-01-06T16:21:00.005-05:002024-01-09T14:26:28.537-05:00Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Oh My<p><span style="font-size: large;">It's snowing today. Normally, snow in the winter months in eastern Pennsylvania would not necessitate a comment, but there are parts of southeastern PA that haven't had snow in over 700 days. Without waxing nostalgic, I have many memories of huge snow piles created by snow plows in the parking lot behind our Mt Airy home in the 1960's, as well as similar scenes at our home in Horsham during the 1970's. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, as a child, snow meant much more than the inconvenience of shoveling, and having enough food in the house for a few days. So when my wife and I moved to Perkasie in the late 1980's, we experienced snow events as both adults and through the eyes of our children once we began our family in the 1990's. One of our favorite pictures depicts our son and daughter and a neighbor child bundled up against the cold, surrounded all around (and above) by huge piles of snow. I also, to this day, remember seeing my daughter's face, flush against the lower window of our front door, breath fogging the window as she peered out at me shoveling off the front porch. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We were unfortunate to have street parking during those years, so every snow fall meant a neighborhood effort to dig out the cars and clear the sidewalks. While I certainly don't miss the snow, the neighborhood camaraderie was priceless. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">-----</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">My last post discussed the immunity question being debated in the courts concerning Donald Trump. While the Supreme Court decided not to address it yet, it is conventional wisdom that once the DC District Court makes its decision, an appeal to the Supreme Court</span><span style="font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span>will follow. Here is a link to that post.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/12/scotus-decision-on-trump-immunity.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/12/scotus-decision-on-trump-immunity.html</a> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">However, since that post, decisions from Colorado and Maine concerning Trump's presence on the Republican Primary ballot have occurred. While the process for each was different, the result was the same; the removal of Trump from the ballot.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In Colorado, after a judicial process in which a suit was filed by voters in that state to determine if Trump was eligible to run for president based on section 3 of the 14th amendment which says, and I am paraphrasing, that no person shall be an officer of the United States if they have previously taken an oath to support the Constitution but have engaged in or provided aid to those who participate in an insurrection. In Maine, the Secretary of State was the person who determined Trump should be removed, in this case after a trial in which proof of his action surrounding the 2020 presidential election and all the ways he tried to illegally stay in power proved he was an insurrectionist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This amendment was created and established immediately following the Civil War as a way to prevent anyone who fought for the Confederacy against the US Government from taking office. Seems kind of obvious, except that since so many of those who served in the Confederate Army were the leaders of the southern states, both political and military, the creators of that amendment knew that the voters of those states might look to those same leaders to represent them in Congress, and so they felt it necessary to make it illegal for those very same people who actively fought against the United States to then become lawmakers.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is no real middle ground here. People who engage in insurrection against the United States should not be allowed to run for office. The specious arguments that the Presidency is not an office of the government, or that Trump, as president did not take an oath to support that Constitution (the exact words he stated, hand on bible, were to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution which sound even stronger than support, to me) should be dismissed out of hand. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The real question is, does engage in insurrection require conviction of said crime. And, of course, is Trump guilty of such.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In both Colorado and Maine, a judicial process occurred with witnesses and testimony as a result of Republican voters wanting to know if they would be wasting their vote for Trump in a primary, then only to have him be disqualified for the general election. In Maine, the secretary of state was empowered to make that decision, while in Colorado, when a judge ruled that Trump did engage in insurrection but that should not disqualify him, the appeal went the Colorado Supreme Court, and a 4-3 vote resulted in the decision that the original judge was wrong not to disqualify him.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I present these details as a reminder that every state has different rules for running its elections. That, in fact, states rights in the area of voting rules has long been controversial, which is why states have different early voting rules, mail-in voting procedures, voter registration requirements and rules, etc. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While the right for every American citizen to vote is, at best, assumed by the founders, it is various amendments to the Constitution that have delineated who is a citizen, and who is allowed to vote. It took an Amendment to grant citizenship to anyone born on American soil (before that Blacks/slave were not considered citizens, and therefore not allowed to vote), it took an Amendment to give women the right to vote, it took an amendment to allow 18 year old citizens to vote.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, the founders assumed American citizens should be allowed to vote, but their definition did not include at lease half of the population (women), and certainly did not include children of slaves who were born here. In fact, originally, common men did not vote for president. In the beginning, a bunch of presidents were chosen by Congress as the founders, as a group, did not trust the everyday, working men of the day to be able to make a correct choice for someone as important as president.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, should the current Justices of the United States Supreme Court continue to lean into their strict literal interpretation of the Constitution and the belief that anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution as being the purview of the federal government should therefore be controlled by the states (see recent abortion decision), it is possible that they could rule that Colorado and Maine have every right to remove a candidate from the ballot. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That being said, I don't think this will happen for any of a number of reasons, foremost being that by allowing states to use an interpretation of the 14th amendment as it applies to an insurrection, without a precise definition of whether engaging in an insurrection requires conviction, and whether gleefully watching on TV for hours while the Capitol is attacked by "your" people, and then promising to pardon those convicted of various crimes related to an attempt to subvert the peaceful transition of power, equates to providing aid and comfort qualify as reasons for disqualification, could be disastrous. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that should SCOTUS uphold either states' decision, it will only be a matter of days until Texas or Florida or some other state with Trump devotees, rules that Biden should be removed from their state ballots based on their definition of this section of the 14th amendment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, assuming they rule that Colorado and Maine and any other state cannot remove a candidate under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, does that mean that section is now null and void? Clearly, SCOTUS will not be willing to alter the Constitution in that way. My guess is that they will uphold the intent of Section 3, but will rule that Congress must flesh out the meaning of this section when it comes to national elections. In other words, if a state court rules that a candidate for an in-state election should be removed from a ballot for Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, fine. But only Congress can determine specifics for eliminating candidates at the national level. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Personally, I believe Donald J Trump is an insurrectionist. I believe that a president has even more responsibility to uphold the Constitution, so the bar for eliminating a presidential candidate from running for such an important office should be lower than for other local and state elections. Because remember, those people who fought with Capitol police, smashed windows, threatened various legislators including the Vice President, did so because Trump told them to. Because he lied about the election being stolen, lied about massive election fraud. Because courts have determined that Fox News was guilty of libel to the tune of $785 million to Dominion Voting Systems for promoting guests on their shows who also lied about election fraud. Because Rudy Giuliani was found guilty of libel against the two poll workers from Georgia who he (and the president) publicly accused of voter fraud without evidence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But even more than all of this, who on planet Earth believes that Trump will accept the results of the 2024 presidential election should he lose again? He has no respect for democratically held elections, and frankly, no respect for the American electorate. When asked in 2020 if he would honor the results of that upcoming election, his response, live, on TV, was, we'll see. In other words, if I win, I accept the results, if I lose I cry fraud.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why do we want candidates for any public service position, whether dog catcher or president, to say that only when I win, will I accept an election result. Election deniers have no business appearing on any ballot in the United States of America, not because there is a rule or law or "norm", but because it is what we should demand, as voters, of our candidates. The fact that millions of Trump supporters don't get this very basic fact is the primary reason why, sadly, I believe we have already lost our democracy. And why, regardless of how SCOTUS rules on this or the immunity question, history will mark these times, the effect of Donald Trump, and his ability to convince Americans to turn away from the foundations of our republic, as the beginning of when another great country collapsed from within, like so many have in the past.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-64841970119436316972023-12-17T13:34:00.001-05:002023-12-17T13:35:31.426-05:00SCOTUS decision on Trump Immunity <p><span style="font-size: large;">Despite Donald Trump's constant claims that Jack Smith is deranged, it is clear the Smith outmaneuvered Trump and his legal team again, this time by requesting that the Supreme Court rule if a president is immune from criminal prosecution from acts committed while he/she is in office.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I say outmaneuvered because anyone following any of the four criminal cases that are ongoing against Trump know that his main focus is to delay as much as possible until after the November 2024 election. What is curious about this tactic is that it assumes that should Trump win the next presidential election, he will be able to either pardon himself should he is convicted of anything, or squelch any ongoing federal investigation by commanding his attorney general to do so. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, he will pervert our judicial and executive branches because, well, because that is what a king or dictator or whatever word he would prefer to use, does.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Whether the Supreme Court might stand against him will become apparent in the next few weeks once they decide on this immunity case.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I recently expressed my opinion on Trump's First Amendment defense. Here is a link to that post.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/08/trump-and-first-amendment.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/08/trump-and-first-amendment.html</a></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">To return to my initial assertion about Jack Smith, he knew that should the Court of Appeals rule against Trump, he would immediately file an appeal to the Supreme Court, so jumping right to that august body was extremely clever. While it remains to be seen if the March 4th trial date is viable, at least this temporary pause to allow SCOTUS to weigh in, should enable the trial to take place sometime close to March 4th, as this should be the last vestige of hope for anymore delays.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As for what the nine members of the Supreme Court will decide, I truly believe that they will act as a strong guardrail for democracy, and reject the notion that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed while serving the people.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I use the phrase "serving the people" because this is the concept that eludes Trump. A president is our most important public servant. His duty above all, is to uphold the constitution. More than anyone we elect, his actions should be for the good of the country, never for himself. It is a concept that Trump has flouted over and over again, both before, during and after his term as president. He is as completely self centered as anyone you will meet, which is blatantly obvious in as simple a thing as his propensity to take credit for anything good, and deflect blame for anything that doesn't work out.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">However, that reasoning is not based on the law. If it were as obvious to the millions of Americas who continue to support Trump as it is to me, this post would not be required, as Trump would have already slithered off to some balmy tropical island somewhere to live out his life in disgrace. Sadly, that is not the case.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So legally, how will SCOTUS adjudicate this situation. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If precedent is any indicator, the SCOTUS decision during the Nixon presidency which forced then president Nixon to release the tapes that provided proof of his complicity in the Watergate scandal, provides some insight. Of course, this current iteration of SCOTUS has already shown some inclination to reject precedent (see Dobbs decsion). </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Still, I find it almost unfathomable to believe that the nine most important judges of the United States of America, will rule that a president can break any law he/she wants and be immune from prosecution. And I especially believe that these particular nine judges, a number of whom claim to be constitutional originalists, will decide that the founding fathers thought that an American President should not, cannot, be granted the powers of a king, immune from the ramifications of any criminal activity. Those signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights didn't think King George should be granted such power, so certainly didn't think any future president of America would be empowered in such a way either.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Remember, the Supreme Court justices are not deciding guilt or innocence of the charges, just that it is constitutional to bring those charges because a sitting president can not do anything they like, such as being free to "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue " without ramifications. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Frankly, I believe that SCOTUS should rule 9-0 in this instance, and allow the judicial process to play out. Perhaps it is enough that Trump thought he was acting as president to actively plot to subvert the peaceful transition of power because he truly thought the election had been stolen, an assertion that I discuss in the already alluded to post above, but that is the reason for a trial. To lay out the facts of his guilt and to allow a defense of why he is not guilty. Short circuiting this process by ruling that Trump shouldn't even be put on trial, denies the foundations of our twin tenets, that no one is above the law, and that American democracy is our country's most important trait.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That being said, I have no doubt that justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson will vote to allow the trial. I also believe that the three justices that Trump appointed, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will not bend the knee, as Trump believes they should, and will also vote to allow the process to play out. And, I firmly believe that Chief Justice Roberts will also side with the idea that no man is above the law. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As for Justice Thomas, I would prefer that he not recuse himself as many Democrats have requested. I would like him to prove to the American people that he is able to make a legal decision based on the oath he took to uphold the constitution, and not kowtow to the whims of his wife, or the influence of the billionaires who have illegally lined his pockets with gifts and privileges. Of course, there is a chance he will agree but file a side opinion that softens his vote, or even that he will file a dissenting opinion and vote to allow Trump to act above the law in the past (and then, most certainly in the future), but it is a chance I am willing to take.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As for Justice Alito, I have no real positive belief that he will vote with his colleagues to call the bluff of someone trying to be the first American dictator, but again, prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt that he values our democracy, but more importantly perhaps to him, any legacy he might have in terms of a respected jurist, above his recent tendency to jettison any interpretation of our founding documents that is not rooted in white male dominance and superiority.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Should however, my opinion be proven wrong, and the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, rule that Donald Trump, as president, is immune to criminal prosecution for anything he did while president, then we may be lost. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I already know that Trump will claim victory next November regardless of how the electorate votes, and that Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House will do everything in his power to subvert the counting of the electors per Trump's bidding, but should SCOTUS rule that Trump, as president, is king, then any future challenge to the next attempt to steal the presidential election will be mute.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let's hope that respect for the law, respect for our democracy, and respect for the founders and the documents they created, win the day, at least fo</span><span style="font-size: large;">r now.</span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-53176534835582221752023-12-14T13:56:00.000-05:002023-12-14T13:56:07.808-05:00Abortion disgrace in Texas<div><span style="font-size: large;">So, for all those Independent voters and perhaps center left Democrats and center right Republicans who thought that sending abortion back to the states was a reasonable compromise, and that those (generally GOP controlled states) would fashion abortion guidelines that allowed for women to access this medical care when their doctors' thought it medically necessary, the truth has now been revealed in stark reality. At least in Texas, legislators and one odious Attorney General, it is crystal clear that they are not interested in women's health or even the well being of a fetus.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It is all about controlling women and treating them as second class citizens, good only for their capacity to make babies. Period.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">For those of you who have not followed the case of Kate Cox, she is a married woman, mother of two children who went to court to seek approval for an abortion, as her pregnancy had passed the six week restriction that is current Texas law. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">You see, Texas legislators had demonstrated their lack of knowledge about a woman's reproductive system (many women don't know they are pregnant within six weeks), or the modern state of maternal medicine which is able to identify fetal anomalies (but which can not be done until 14 to 18 weeks into the pregnancy), when they passed their draconian six week ban. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In Kate's case, fetal testing had determined that her baby has a fatal condition that would result in death either during the pregnancy, or very soon after birth. There was no scenario in which the child would live. In addition, the pregnancy was negatively effecting her health causing her to be admitted to a hospital emergency room multiple times. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As a result, her doctors recommended an abortion. Unfortunately, there was some trepidation on the doctor's part as the medical necessity to save the life of the mother exception written into the Texas abortion ban, did not clarify this point. Kate's doctors knew that her life was not necessarily at immediate risk, and, since the Texas abortion ban included severe penalties against any hospital or doctor who participated in an abortion, they were hesitant to authorize one, instead recommending that she go out of state for her medical care. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Think about that for a second. Doctors who knew the risk of Kate's continuing pregnancy for her life and future ability to have a child (her past birth experiences were by cesarean section), advised her to leave her home state to get the medically necessary care she required out of fear that if they provided such care, their personal lives could be subject to harm via loss of license, loss of hospital affiliation and significant fines. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But Kate wanted her care to occur in her home town where she could have the support network of her family as well as the familiarity of the doctors with whom she has been associated during her child bearing years, so she went to court to ask for approval for the abortion.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The presiding judge, upon hearing of the details of Kate's situation, granted the request, even though the state's lawyers fought against granting the exception.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">(As a side note, there is already a case in Texas court where a number of women are suing the state to revise the abortion ban to detail when the exception clause can be exercised. The Texas state defense in that case is centered on those women not having "standing", which means they are not currently pregnant so shouldn't have the right to sue.)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, Kate seemed to be the perfect candidate to challenge the law since she is pregnant. Or was pregnant.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately, as soon as the judge granted the exception, that aforementioned attorney general, appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, as well as issuing threatening letters to Kate's doctors and the hospitals where they practiced. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As a result, Kate went out of state for her medical care which was fortunate as the Texas Supreme Court, after waiting almost 3 days, summarily ruled in favor of the state and disallowed the exception as granted by the lower court. The court ruled that the fetal anomaly did not qualify for an abortion as specified in the law as Kate's condition was not immediately life threatening.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In essence, a woman in Texas, and a number of other states, needs to be inches from death until an abortion can be granted, and even then, if an Attorney General disagrees with the "immediate possibility of death" diagnosis, or can find one doctor to contest that diagnosis, the women, her doctor and the hospital where the abortion is performed, may still be held criminally liable for murder. In America!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">What is truly sad is that as we speak, women are dying in America from childbirth. We are dead last in maternal death rates when compared to the other "modern" countries. In fact, the United States maternal death rate is four times or more higher than such a long list of countries, it would make you vomit, if you were actually pro-life. Here is one such source for this info. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/maternal-mortality-ratio/country-comparison/"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/maternal-mortality-ratio/country-comparison/</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Unfortunately, it will now get worse as doctors will be forced to wait until the very least moment to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother in a number of states due to their misogynist abortion bans.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I have used the label Abortion on four posts since the Dobbs decision was rendered. Links are below if interested.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/abortion.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/abortion.html</a></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/more-on-abortion.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/more-on-abortion.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/one-last-thought-for-now-on-abortion.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/one-last-thought-for-now-on-abortion.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/pro-fetus.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/pro-fetus.html</span></a></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In one of them, I suggested that we need to voice our demand for the return of the right to an abortion at the ballot box, and since then, every single referendum which sought to create a state constitutional right to an abortion has overwhelmingly been approved by the voters, even in red states like Ohio and Kansas. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Bur we can't stop there. I am generally not a fan of the one issue voter. I believe that it is virtually impossible to agree with any candidate on every issue (if you do you are either a sycophant or just uninformed), but rather you must prioritize the issues in terms of importance to you, as well as look at the overall record of opinions by any candidate to determine percentage of common perspective.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">However, I am waving this requirement as of now. Please, regardless of viewpoints on the other critical issues of the day, I implore all voters, especially women, and men with daughters, nieces, grand daughters or female cousins, to gauge your voting choice on whether a candidate supports a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, in consultation with her family and doctors, without government interference.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Until we elect public servants who legislate in this manner, we will continue to hear stories like Kate's, and worse, stories concerning women who lack the means to go out of state for their health care, but instead die in emergency rooms from complications that could have been prevented, and stories about babies born with fetal anomalies that result in their painful deaths soon after birth.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Pro-life my ass!</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-60032500833602631472023-12-09T19:52:00.001-05:002023-12-09T19:52:43.367-05:00The Ahistorical Bunch<p><span style="font-size: large;">A few days ago, I heard a commentator on a TV opinion show use the word ahistorical. She was referring to a specific group of Americans but also was in reference to others throughout the globe. The topic was a discussion about a recent statement by one of the presidential candidates who said that he would only be a dictator on day one to accomplish two specific goals, and then would stop. She thought the fact that he was cheered lustily by the in-person event attendees demonstrated people who were demonstrating their ahistorical perspective.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have labelled three other post under the heading Perspective in the past, and thought it might be interesting to read them again. If you believe that as well, here are links to those posts. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-night-sky.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-night-sky.html</a></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/08/luck-and-perspective.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/08/luck-and-perspective.html</a></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/06/widening-perspective.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/06/widening-perspective.html</a></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There have been all kinds of warnings from various thinkers and social commentators on the dangers of not studying or attempting to understand history, the most well known, something to the effect that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When we heard that women's sad reference to what she perceived as people who were ignoring the danger of a dictator ruling our country, my wife and I almost simultaneously turned to each other in understanding of this commentator's lament, but also both blamed our education system for not instilling an interest in history.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Is it too late to alter the way history is taught from the boring memorization of people and dates in time about events that seem so long ago, to a deeper understanding of why those people and events were important, and how those people and events have influenced us today? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Certainly, there is an ability question to address. Advanced concepts can not be taught to children that have not developed the ability to think critically and understand complex concepts. Still, so many children have already been turned off by history once they have that ability, that they only take a history course because it is mandatory, and value passing the class only so far as that it checks off a box that moves them closer to their degree. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Does this mean that everyone should be a historian? Obviously not, but perhaps as is true with many people who spend their lives studying one particular subject, we should at least respect their opinion when they offer it. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That is one of the biggest problems that I see in America today, the point of this post. There is a growing segment of people who have been told to distrust a variety of people who have spent their lives researching certain topics, especially in the sciences.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And, what is truly scary, is that much of that mistrust is being sewn by educated people who have realized that the average person doesn't always know where to turn for their information, or even what information they should seek. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Manipulators, con men, political aspirants, and just plain power hungry individuals seem to have gained the upper hand in their ability to mislead and misinform. Worse, as I am fond of saying, they start with a kernel of truth so as to fool those without the time or ability to pursue its validity, and take it to a place that is beyond true.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I recently saw an article about some GOP party members who are upset about RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel, and her inability to get out the vote for GOP candidates, citing their losses in 2018, 2020, 2022 (a much less red wave than expected) and even this past November in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the abortion question in Ohio. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Well, when the leader of the party has spent the last 7 years telling voters that voting by mail is fraudulent and voting by machine is rigged, then how exactly is McDaniel supposed to encourage voting? Is there some fraud within our elections? Of course, voters are people, and people sometimes cheat. But is it rampant? No. Were there hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in 2020? No. Yet a certain losing candidate has taken a kernel of truth, there is some fraud in our election system, and convinced millions of Americans that our elections are rigged!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Casting doubt on our institutions, our elections, our justice system, the FBI, our scientists and other experts in their fields, is exactly how a dictator erodes confidence in the foundations of a country. Once no one can be trusted to fix our problems, the dictator has an open door to absolute power. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Of course being ahistorical precludes understanding this playbook, but be assured, the tyrant knows it, front cover to back cover.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-52091142952604802272023-12-03T15:00:00.000-05:002023-12-03T15:00:03.214-05:00Countering Rising CO2 levels<p><span style="font-size: large;">Great article in the November edition of National Geographic concerning the new technologies being developed to counter the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">What I especially enjoyed about the article is that it explained the issues concerning both the problem itself, and the attempts to counter it, in words that were easily understood, despite the complexity of the overall problem. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Most people understand the overreaching situation, that since the breakthroughs of the industrial revolution that enabled incredible advances in energy extraction, transportation and distribution, improvements that powered an amazing array of enhancements to the lives of all people, there has also been a substantial increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. In other words, the very thing that has been a major factor in drivng the breakthroughs of our modern times, has also created a scenario that is producing as much or more negative consequences as those positive ones to date.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are two general approaches to addressing the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, slowing the accumulation, and removing what has already been added. Remember, data suggests that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been at or below 280 parts per million for thousands of years, but since the mid 19th century has risen to 450 parts per million, an increase of more than 50 percent. As this number has risen, the added carbon traps more and more heat, resulting in an increase in the temperature of the Earth.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I won't go into all the negative ramifications of rising temperatures. Suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence that this problem needs to be addressed, and that the issue is, if not completely man-made, being exacerbated by human activity.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, humans are nothing if not adaptable, and there is no reason to believe that the same intelligence and innovation that was at play to create the advancements of the industrial revolution cannot be applied to reversing the process.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, reducing our carbon emissions is first level. As greener sources of energy have become more cost effective and efficient, we have made major inroads into producing energy without fossil fuels. Unfortunately, our global energy requirements continue to spiral upwards, offsetting much of the gain we are making in generating green energy. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That fact is why carbon capture and carbon removal advocates have become more vocal. Perhaps a few decades ago we could have focused more aggressively on reducing emissions while investing in greener technologies, but now we need to address the issue from both ends.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Carbon capture refers to processes that capture the carbon dioxide being emitted at the point of its creation in the industrial process, whereas carbon removal focuses on taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Regardless of which technology being described in the article, and there are many companies, and a number of nations that have made great strides in these areas, there is a range of approaches that promise low to high potential at low to high expense. Of course, all new technologies are expensive at first, see computers and smart phones, but like all burgeoning industries, carbon removal requires huge investments, private and public, now, in hopes that as the cost reduces, more money will flow, more advances will be made, and so on. As more than one entrepreneur who was quoted in the article stated, it is the classic chicken and egg conundrum, in that you need lots of money at the precise time when return is at its lowest.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After reading the article, I am very encouraged that, not only does the technology already exist, but the passion and intelligence of those seeking solutions will produce even better answers. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, with most of our shared problems, I worry that we don't have the will to do so. From an underlining distrust in science that certain forces selfishly choose to embolden, to the profit motive of the fossil fuel industry that has prevented the cost of climate change to be applied to those creating the problem, to our public servants who either choose to ignore the science or prefer to accept donations from those responsible for the ongoing calamity, thereby eschewing their responsibility to enact laws to protect their constituents, I see more obstacles to turning the tide towards reducing carbon in our atmosphere than aids.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Let's hope I am wrong, and the scientists and business people who were detailed in the article win the day for all of us. </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-54770776359107671492023-11-24T17:24:00.000-05:002023-11-24T17:24:02.779-05:00Rosalynn and Jimmy<p><span style="font-size: large;">It was with great sadness that I received the news that Rosalynn Carter died last week. While never achieving the popularity of Jackie or Michelle, Rosalynn was as avid an advocate for the everyday American citizen as any first lady, especially in the area of access to mental health support. And, of course, along with her husband, she helped create and run the Carter Foundation, as well as working with and expanding the reach of Habitat for Humanity.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Her life story, and Jimmy's as well, demonstrates that success does not preclude service, for both of them placed service above grasping for money or power or influence. Their lives and example are in stark contrast to those we see splayed out on the internet, on Tic Toc, on X, on virtually every media outlet where clicks and hits are far more important that improving the lives of others.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have written twice in the past about former president Jimmy Carter, but never mentioned Rosalynn in those posts. (See links below).</span></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/jimmy-carter.html" style="font-size: x-large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/jimmy-carter.html</a></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/jimmy-carter-and-donald-trump.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/jimmy-carter-and-donald-trump.html</a></span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Why? Certainly not because Jimmy didn't say over and over again how Rosalynn and her were a team, and that she was an equal partner in all he did. More likely because she stayed in the background, sacrificing any personal acclaim, knowing that Jimmy's success were hers as well. And, of course, like most men, we rarely acknowledge the contributions a wife makes for a successful man. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since February when it was announced that Jimmy went into hospice, I thought it gratifying that he was still alive. Once or twice, I even thought it odd that he was still with us, as my own experience with people entering hospice resulted in those loved ones passing fairly quickly. Now, with the passing of his dear wife Rosalynn, I understand why he did not leave us right away. He didn't want her to be alone. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While Jimmy certainly didn't want to experience life without his beloved wife, he knew it would be harder for her, especially in light of the dementia diagnosis that was just made public. He sacrificed his own upcoming loneliness to spare her from even a second of time without him by her side.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sacrifice.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is not a very popular word these days. Not a concept that is taught all that much, nor displayed by our leaders, whether they be political, social or economical. Ask what you can do for your country seems to have been replaced by ask what is in it for me. With the passing of people like Rosalynn Carter, and, with his life partner gone, soon to be Jimmy Carter, our world will have two less examples of what it means to be an elected official, and what it means to be a Christian. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sadly, their lives, while they will be remembered, and even praised in the weeks following their passing, will also be forgotten far too soon, and emulated far too in frequently.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">They say that talk is cheap, and perhaps so too are the words that have preceded. I am far from selfless, far from having lived my life in the service of others. One might even say that it is worse to know better but not do better, than not to know better at all, and so do worse. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If, on Judgement Day, there is a simple tally displayed, random acts of kindness on one side of the ledger, acts of cruelty or simple neglect on the other, I have no doubt that Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter's tally will be very one sided, and that they will be welcomed with open arms.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am less sure about myself, although I have been holding more doors open for those behind me, reaching for groceries for people who find them just out of reach, waving other drivers to go first at intersections with 4-way stop signs, and other such small acts of kindness. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I know those ticks on the positive side of my ledger are small, but small ticks on the positive are better than no ticks at all. And, like all muscles, as we execute even the smallest of helpful acts, as we work our sacrifice muscle more and more, and as it grows stronger and more confident, bigger and bolder acts of kindness will result, and our ledgers will begin to tilt even more to the plus.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Just imagine how much more peace, how much less suffering there would be if we all began to work on our own ledgers, if we all looked to Rosalynn and Jimmy for how act human, and humane.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-33151501452723255442023-11-09T15:33:00.001-05:002023-11-09T15:33:26.972-05:00Elections 2023<p><span style="font-size: large;">In case you missed it, there were elections in America earlier this week. I say in case you missed it, because voter turnout was light. Most races produced turnout in the 30-40% range, which is the percentage of registered voters who voted, not the percentage of the voting age population (VAP). The percentage of VAP is usually 10-15% higher. In other words, a 30-40% turnout is another 4-6% lower when one considers the actual number of people who could vote.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I had an interesting conversation with one such person, someone who does not vote, does not even pay attention to elections, or so he claimed. I suppressed my desire to berate him for his nonchalant attitude, instead describing to him my interpretation of the shenanigans that were involved in the lead up to Tuesday's Ohio vote to enshrine reproductive rights in that state's constitution. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">This was all news to him, so I tried to impartially convey how there had been a vote during the summer for Ohioans to change the rules for amending the constitution from 50% plus 1, to a 60% level. Now, it was common knowledge that the hope of those sponsoring this change was that by raising the threshhold, it would effect the ultimate vote on abortion that was scheduled a few months later, since they figured that while pro-choice voters would be able to achieve the 50% plus 1 level, they might not make 60%.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Fortunately, enough voters saw through this trick, and voted down the measure to increase the percentage needed to pass a constitutional amendment. As a result, the amendment to guarantee reproductive rights for women in Ohio passed, 56.3% to 43.7%. One its face, the vote was fairly definitive, yet indicates just how insidious was the summer vote to raise the level to 60%. Had that vote gone the other way, reproductive rights would not be the law <u>despite</u> the majority of voters preferring it. Can you say tyranny of the minority?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But I digress.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Today, leaving the grocery store, I saw a headline on the front page of one the newspapers displayed at the exit, asking the question, what is the next move for the GOP on abortion.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large;">I</span><span style="font-size: large;">sn't it obvious?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The party needs to abandon its unpopular attempts to ban abortion. Regardless of how it is phrased, telling women, who make up a bit over 50% of the electorate, that they must cede control of their bodies to the state, will never be a winning strategy, not to mention going against the GOP long held beliefs of less government intervention in citizens lives. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Interestingly, the second issue on the Ohio ballot was to legalize recreational marijuana for those over 21. That passed 56.8% to 43.2%. It too would not have passed had the summer vote to raise the threshold not been rejected. And, again, reflects the GOP contradiction about government involvement in our lives. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">(In case you haven't noticed, the GOP ONLY cares about getting government out of our lives when it has to do with guns and money.)</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Other proofs that abortion restrictions are a losing platform for the GOP, occurred in the Kentucky governor race, and the judicial races in my home state of Pennsylvania.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In Kentucky, Andy Beshear, the Democrat incumbent governor, won reelection, partly due to his differentiation of his approach to abortion compared to that of his rival who advocated for a 6 week ban. Add to his win, in a very red state, with the Ohio abortion vote, also a very red state, plus the rejection of abortion restrictions in previous state wide elections in Kansas and Montana, and the trend is clear.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And not just for referendums. In Pennsylvania, every state judicial race on the ballot was won by a Democrat, most who referenced the possibility that a judge from the GOP would rule against reproductive freedom, especially the race for PA's vacant Supreme Court position where the majority was in the balance.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have categorized this post under the heading Politics and Religion, as I firmly believe that these attempts to restrict freedom is the result of a certain brand of religious people who prefer a theocracy to a democracy. Who advocate for their religious beliefs to be the law of the land. Who gain power by dehumanizing certain groups of Americans, then couch their prejudice in righteous words and cherry picked phrases from out of date religious tomes.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">You also see this in action with the recent anti-trans legislation that is flourishing in certain areas of our country, along with the push to ban books by Nazi-like groups such as Moms for Liberty. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Fortunately, at least in this past week's election, the voters are seeing through these attempts to deny freedom, and have booted out those who fooled them with their fake support of parents' rights and protecting children. When one parent has the power to decide who is safe at school, and which books all children can read, it reflects a desire for power and control. And who to ostracize from society.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Towards that end, I was happy to see the candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty lose in my current school district, and the one from which we moved a few years ago, and in which my children attended. Fortunately, the aphorism, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, did not hold for those who voted in those school districts. Now, all the parents and children in those two school districts will have school district leaders who believe in advocating for all parents and students, not just those who agree with their far-right agenda.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I last posted under the banner Politics and Religion in 2019. Here are links to those two posts.</span></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-christian-american-patriot.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-christian-american-patriot.html</a></span></p><p><br /></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/more-on-christian-patriot.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/more-on-christian-patriot.html</span></a><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-31021098785110338632023-11-04T14:59:00.001-04:002023-11-04T14:59:39.762-04:00Original Sin<div><span style="font-size: large;">Something I read in "The Dawn of Everything" book I mentioned in a previous post, reminded me that a few times in my writing past I had a tickle of an idea concerning original sin. I say tickling, because I can recall thinking about it, perhaps while driving, or in the shower, but hadn't pursued composing a post about it. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But, as I said, something about reading a perspective of history that attempts to explode all the interpretations that have been so thoroughly interwoven within our shared beliefs about humanity, has prodded me to embark on this post.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If you google "original sin", you will see many variations of the same theme. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Webster defines it by referring to it from a Christian perspective:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The meaning of original sin is the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human being as a result of Adam's fall.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">This is basically what I was taught in the 8 years I spent in Catholic elementary school. Of course, there is the part about how Eve ate from the apple first after being tempted by Satan, then tempted Adam to do the same. I always considered that the ultimate blame-someone-else excuse for poor behavior, but, over time, have associated that part of the story with the misogyny that is embedded in Catholic teachings.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But I digress.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Researching the concept of original sin, is not an easy, or straightforward endeavor. Some assign its creation to St. Augustine of Hippo, who was born about 350 years after Christ, after Augustine's conversion to Christianity. Some disagree with the idea that original sin is solely associated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but just reflects man's tendency to do wrong. Others reject the concept of original sin, preferring to acknowledge that we are born imperfect, with a tendency to sin, but that we did not inherit the sin committed by Adam.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Then of course, there are other non-Christian religions that do not believe in the concept at all.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It is hard for me to imagine not having learned and been indoctrinated by the belief that man is sinful, and so needs saving from his indiscretions, and that Jesus was born to die for our sins so we can have the chance to live in heaven with God. The whole idea is almost like breathing itself, it is so much a part of what I was taught. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I recently had a conversation with a work colleague who was adamant in her belief that she was saved due to her belief in the redemption of Christ. She was openly aghast at my having turned away from the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. She quoted the bible as proof that her beliefs were right, which, of course, didn't prove anything to me since she was also convinced by her faith that none of the other great spiritually advanced beings from history provided that door to heaven that she believed was hers through the sacrifice of Jesus. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Of course, I respect her beliefs, am glad that she believes she is saved. I mentioned the short group of essays that I combined in <u>An Atheist</u> <u>for Christ</u>, but she just made a face and didn't really want to pursue that topic. Here is a link to the post containing information about that effort if you are interested.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-atheist-for-christ.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-atheist-for-christ.html</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">After thinking about Augustine, and original sin, I wonder if perhaps, Augustine felt that he needed to create a narrative whereby people would be compelled to believe in the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps he thought that just teaching that we should emulate Christ might not sway people to be kind to others, but by tying Christ's sacrifice to the concept that humanity needs a way to earn eternal life due to our fall from grace, our original sin, Augustine felt more secure that Christ's teachings would be followed. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Maybe Augustine was just being realistic, or perhaps honest in his evaluation that men needed the stick as much as the carrot. He may have concluded, perhaps rightly so, that without the threat of eternal damnation, humanity wouldn't be motivated enough just to follow the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount. So he linked Christ's death on the cross to our imperfect nature, thereby giving us all the chance to spend eternity with God. It's a nice, tight circle. Man is born pure, becomes stained, God sends his son to provide redemption, man is "saved". And all we have to do is have faith in the story.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But what if we sever that link by eliminating the need for redemption? Does that change the need for us to listen to those who are more spiritually advanced? Does that change the importance of the message of Jesus, to love one another? </span><span style="font-size: large;">Can someone live their life following the lessons of Christ, without believing he was the Son of God? Again, that is the thinking behind my compilation <u>An Atheist for Christ</u>.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If we assume that literally millions, if not billions of people have been born, are alive, will be born sometime in the future, and have never, or will never be instructed about the life of Christ, yet will have </span><span style="font-size: large;">been, or will be taught lessons very similar to those taught by Christ, are we to also assume that those who spend their lives in words and actions that resemble Christ's, while never having recognized that He died for their sins, will be denied entrance to heaven? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Or perhaps it is all relative, those who live spiritual lives will go wherever it is they believe reflects the reward they have earned, whether it is heaven, nirvana, or just a place with a warm bed, an interesting book, and a nice soft light to read by.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I have always struggled with the possessive nature of organized religions, the belief that their dogma and structure is the one and only way to a return to God's grace. It seems steeped in arrogance. As if the Creator would spend eternity thinking about creation, providing us with an incredibly diverse range of plants and animals, enabling us to think and feel and imagine, and then would tie it all together with a restriction that there is only one way to feel Her presence. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And then there is the phrase religious war, as ridiculous a concept ever created, yet the driving force behind so much pain, suffering, and death in our history, not the least of which is the ongoing violence between Israel and Hamas.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It all sounds like control, not love. Original sin, the need for salvation, the quest for the one true path. Control, not by the Creator, but by men over other men. After all, what stronger foundation for controlling the thoughts and actions of humanity is there than to link it to a divine origin?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">If, at the end of the day, the only reason for one's compassion towards others, </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span>or the only justification for following a specific ideology,</span><span> is to avoid eternal damnation, perhaps the true intent is being missed. Perhaps the message of all the advanced spiritual beings that have spent time on earth is being lost in a morass of rules created less to help achieve happiness, eternal or otherwise, and more to advance the ability of people who seek power and control over the masses.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We all have vices, faults, weaknesses which result in actions that hurt others. I would be fine with the concept of original sin were it to be a concept that helped us acknowledge our imperfections. Perhaps even to point out that despite our flaws, we are still capable of wondrous acts of kindness and compassion. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But when the concept focuses on our need for salvation, followed by a need to believe in a specific set of doctrines and dogma to attain that salvation, followed by the declaration that anyone who does not follow that specific set of beliefs is not saved, cannot expect eternal happiness, I turn away. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Again, it all seems more like men controlling other men, and it makes me seriously wonder if Augustine (or whomever created the concept of original sin) was wrong to link the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus to our need for salvation. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I have discussed religion in a number of past posts. Here are links to three of them.</span></div><div><div class="MjjYud" style="background-color: white;"><div class="g Ww4FFb vt6azd tF2Cxc asEBEc" data-hveid="CEIQAA" data-ved="2ahUKEwi3oeGA64KCAxXctIkEHc0-BQEQFSgAegQIQhAA" jsaction="QyLbLe:OMITjf;ewaord:qsYrDe;xd28Mb:A6j43c" jscontroller="SC7lYd" lang="en" style="border-radius: 0px; line-height: 1.58; margin: 0px 0px 30px; position: relative; width: 600px;"><div class="N54PNb BToiNc cvP2Ce" data-snc="ih6Jnb_LCPybb" style="-webkit-box-direction: normal; -webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-box-pack: start; contain: layout paint; display: flex; flex-direction: column; justify-content: start; overflow: hidden; position: relative;"><div class="kb0PBd cvP2Ce" data-sncf="1" data-snf="nke7rc" style="contain: layout paint; flex: 0 0 auto; overflow: hidden;"><div class="VwiC3b yXK7lf lyLwlc yDYNvb W8l4ac lEBKkf" style="-webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-line-clamp: 2; color: #4d5156; display: -webkit-box; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div class="VwiC3b yXK7lf lyLwlc yDYNvb W8l4ac lEBKkf" style="-webkit-box-orient: vertical; -webkit-line-clamp: 2; color: #4d5156; display: -webkit-box; font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; margin-bottom: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding-top: 0px;"><span style="background-color: transparent; font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-intermixing-of-religion.html" style="background-color: transparent;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-intermixing-of-religion.html</a></span></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/gay-catholics-and-other-odd-labels.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/gay-catholics-and-other-odd-labels.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html</span></a></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-30639676144395732782023-11-02T16:26:00.001-04:002023-11-02T16:26:42.302-04:00Nature's Beauty and Longevity<span style="font-size: large;">Earlier this year, Nora and I were invited to my niece's wedding in Mesa, Arizona. We had missed the wedding of her older sister, due to Covid, so we thought we might attend this one. And, since we would be flying there, we thought it might be nice to visit some national parks in the area. After some debate, we began planning a few months ago, and using the itinerary of a good friend who went west last year, we hammered out the details. </span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We just returned this past Monday.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">After staying at an airport hotel the night before, where we left our car for the next seven days, we flew to Las Vegas last Tuesday. Upon arrival we immediately picked up our rental car, then drove to Virgin, Utah which is near the Zion National Park. We spent a wonderful day hiking in Zion, stayed at the same hotel that night, then drove to Tropic, Utah which is near Bryce Canyon National Park.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">After another full day of awe-inspiring sights at Bryce, we drove to Page, Arizona that night so we would be nearby the Lower Antelope Canyon for our pre-booked tour the next morning. Again, magnificent! After the tour, we drove the 15 minutes to Horseshoe Bend National Park, walked around a bit, succumbed to the exhaustion that the previous days hiking had created, then, after a nap, drove to the Glen Canyon Dam, which, while human created, was still impressive.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The next day we drove to Gilbert, Arizona by way of Montezuma National Park, relaxed a bit once we arrived at the hotel, then met the family for the rehearsal dinner. The next day we found a local preserve to walk through, an amazing place which seemed to house all the waterfowl that could possibly live in such a dry state as Arizona. Finally, the happy occasion, a beautiful ceremony, good food, nice toasts to the happy couple, and much conversation.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">The week ended with the flight back to Philly, then the ride home with a stop at a local restaurant for some dinner.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In the movie, </span><u style="font-size: x-large;">French Kiss,</u><span style="font-size: large;"> the main female character played by Meg Ryan, is riding on a train through France, and while looking out the window at the magnificent scenery, waves her hand and says "Gorgeous!"</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Nora and I found ourselves waving our hands and saying gorgeous so many times last week, that it became a joke as, wherever we went, around every turn, the vista was other worldly, magnificent, truly inspiring. Nature's work at its best.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Yet it is important to remember that canyons such as in Bryce, soaring cliffs such as in Zion, incredibly colored rocks such as in the Lower Antelope Canyon, were all created over thousands of years. Natural processes such as erosion and tectonic movements need time as one of the ingredients to create such impressive sights.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It is a lesson that humanity needs to be reminded of, often, as it certainly seems that we are far more driven by short term, immediate gratifications. Perhaps it is the natural reaction to the fact that we only have, individually, 80 to 90 years at our behest. Certainly that is a fraction of the time that a river has to carve out a canyon. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Still, do we not think of future generations, when we imagine a better world? Do we not want the legacy for our children and grandchildren to be one of hope and opportunity? </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">One the flight out to Vegas, I engaged in a lively conversation with my seat mates. At one point, I repeated my lament that the promise of the baby boomers, of which I am one, did not transpire. We were given all kinds of advantage yet have fallen far short in improving the world. As it turns out, make love, not war, was just a slogan to make ourselves feel better, not a true way of life. We became just like the leaders whom we protested against, trading our aspirations for a better world for large 401K balances, gated communities, and, worse, disdain for our children who call us on our hypocrisy but whom we label spoiled, or lazy. As if children don't emulate their parents.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I previously mentioned that we stopped at the Montezuma National Park on the way to Mesa. This park houses some rock formations that were the homes of the people who lived in that area centuries ago. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We are generally very dismissive about the true natives of our great country, preferring to glorify the Europeans who came here in the 15th and 16th century, but p</span><span style="font-size: large;">eople lived on the lands now called America for hundreds of generations, before being "discovered" by Columbus and his contemporaries. We ignore their accomplishments, their harmonious relationship with nature and the environment. Even the name of the national park, Montezuma, reflects our ignorance of the people who lived there. Montezuma was just the European's lazy connection between all "natives" regardless of where or when they lived. Montezuma never lived in the area of this castle, but that didn't stop those invaders who came there from naming the area for him. After all, weren't all those savages the same anyway?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span>It makes me wonder how differently we might be treating the land and our environment if our ancestors didn't exterminate the original Americans, makes me wonder if we would have maintained the link between nature and the environment which existed for thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans. Perhaps if less conquering and more listening had occurred, we wouldn't need to be reminded that </span><span>there is nothing that can't be accomplished with time and effort. Wouldn't need to visit national parks to see how nature reminds us of this when we visit a place of natural wonders. </span><span> </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I am saving this post under the title Environment, a label I use for all posts that refer to reflections about nature. Before creating this post, I read a few of my past entries; here are links to three of them.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/seeing-forests-and-trees.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/seeing-forests-and-trees.html</a> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-ozone-layer-and-other-environmental.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-ozone-layer-and-other-environmental.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/cost-of-harming-nature.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/cost-of-harming-nature.html</span></a></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-22534311166837901742023-10-15T15:02:00.003-04:002023-10-15T15:03:03.405-04:00Israel, Palestinians and Hamas<p><span style="font-size: large;">I have been thinking of this post for a few days now, both in terms of whether to compose one, and, if so, what to write. At this point, I would be negligent to not comment, as this story is the most compelling situation in the world today, and may remain so for the foreseeable future.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">First, as most people have done, it is clear that the actions by Hamas need to be condemned in the strongest terms. Regardless of any perceived justification, purposefully slaughtering families in their homes, and revelers at a music festival is horrific. It not only confirms the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, but it does severe harm to the Palestinian people themselves, who may be lumped together with Hamas by those who do not understand the complexity of the their situation, and/or prefer the knee jerk reaction of revenge.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is extremely difficult to understand how this kind if atrocity can be be perceived by the leaders of Hamas as anything other than a huge step backwards, a PR blunder of the highest order. Perhaps in the bubble of Arab hatred towards the Jewish people, there may be some rejoicing, but, as so many people who prefer to only listen to those who echo their own sentiments eventually discover, to attain sympathy and non-partial support for one's perspective, you must first listen to and acknowledge that not everyone thinks alike.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As is usual in this type disastrous action, thousands of innocent people will suffer. First, of course, all the Israeli (and other nationalities) people who lived in proximity to Gaza, those on the front lines of the brutality which played out last weekend. Followed by the thousands, probably tens of thousands, of Palestinians who will die during the upcoming ground war.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Will Hamas be eliminated from the Earth as is the stated goal of the IDF? It has been tried before, although not with the expected ferocity of the impending onslaught. But, while it is certain that the Hamas leadership will suffer great losses, the hatred which fuels their group will not be extinguished. If anything, should the Israelis kill as many Palestinians as I believe they will, hatred will only increase, on both sides, as the bodies of dead Jewish soldiers are returned to Israel, and as the bodies of Palestinian women and children pile up in Gaza.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There will be no winners, only losers. And, sadly, the cycle of hate will go on.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In the meantime, in America, I have read many reactions that demand that we side with Israel. Now, clearly, siding with Hamas is not going to result in much agreement, but it is important to separate Hamas from the Palestinians. In other words, to hold two thoughts in one's head, outrage at Hamas, support for the effort to recover hostages, and root out Hamas leadership, while also expressing support for the 2.2 million people who are now taking the brunt of the Israeli response.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are those who might say that the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent their interests, and so they should have known better than to associate with such a hate filled group. That they should bear the brunt of what their ill advised electoral choice has spawned. Perhaps. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But for those who think this, I doubt if they are willing to assign blame to the Israeli citizens who knowingly chose to live so close to Gaza, who made their electoral choice clear last year and when they chose the hard right Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Some have theorized that Hamas chose this moment to invade due to the instability present in Israel this past year, due to Netanyahu's attempt to weaken the judiciary (giving himself more power), in addition to his support of continued oppression of the Palestinians while advocating for further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">If it is true that the Palestinians should have known the Hamas was a poor leadership choice, then is it as true that the Israelis should have thought the same of Netanyahu? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I certainly can not claim to be anymore knowledgeable of the decades long animosity between those living in Israel and Palestine as the average American. Their mutual hatred seems to be part religion, part territorial, part cultural. An endless cycle of fear, killing and revenge. But I certainly do know that if violence is the only acceptable reaction to violence, then this conflict will never end. Especially when the hatred that is so evident in this situation translates so easily into the dehumanization of those on the other side of the fence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Is there some kind of resolution, or a path to mutual tolerance, if not acceptance?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When my son was in elementary school, he was fortunate enough to participate in the People to People Student Ambassador Program, an organization founded during the Eisenhower Administration in 1956. The goal of this, and other similar exchange programs, is to provide young people with immersive, educational travel experiences so as to broaden their world view and, hopefully, learn tolerance of other people and their cultures.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">History is replete with examples of individuals who, sometimes by choice, sometimes by unforeseen circumstance, find themselves living with people with completely different lifestyles and traditions. Most often, those people not only learn about others, they learn about themselves as well.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">There is a New Testament quote that questions why so many people can see the splinter in the eye of others but not the wooden beam in one's own eye. In other words, why can we not see our own faults when we seem so sure of others?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The point of seeing life through the experience of someone else, especially someone whose beliefs are different from your own, is not just to understand that our creator has given us the chance for a life experience full of diversity. It is also to realize what restrictions we place on our own lives when we do not reflect on the beliefs which we cling to, and often use as an excuse to mistreat those who are not like us. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have commented in more than one previous post, that it can be very difficult, very uncomfortable to go outside one's own realm. That fear of others may in fact, have been part of the human condition that allowed us to survive in those first thousands of years. But it seems clear now, that this preexisting condition, if you will, is waning. Some humans seek out new experiences with people of different backgrounds, seemingly from birth. Others learn by doing, or getting the chance to do so as we provided to my son.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Are there such active programs between Israel and Gaza? I tried to find some examples and did see a few mentions, so at least there are some people trying, but clearly not enough. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I stopped writing at this point as we had old friends to dinner. Before returning to my computer to finish, I read an article from the current edition of the Smithsonian, an article which I did not know was in the magazine until this morning when I opened to it.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is called "Songs of Survival" and it recounts a small part of the history of the Terezin concentration camp in Poland. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this camp, I would suggest you do some research on your own, or at least read the article. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In a nutshell, Terezin was a stopping off point for thousands of Jews, a place where they were sent before being transported to the death camps. In other words, the Nazis used places like Terezin to store Jews who were forced from their homes, before sending them off to die. The concept is almost as evil as the end result.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It also happened to be that most of Europe's Jewish artists, musicians and intellectuals were sent to Terezin. The point of the article is that while there, these prisoners tried to maintain the slimmest of connections to their humanity by engaging in painting, writing and composing. And, fortunately for us, </span><span style="font-size: large;">some of those efforts, specifically some of the music which was composed, were salvaged. And, are being performed today. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It is an inspiring story, one which reminds us that the human spirit is capable of surviving unspeakable horrors.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But incredibly sad as well when thought of in the context of what is lost when humans choose to dehumanize "others". It is easy to imagine the wondrous music and art that was not completed due to the slaughter of Jewish artists, writers and composers during the Holocaust. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But is it any less horrible, when we consider the possible accomplishments that will not be achieved due to the indiscriminate murders which occurred at the hands of Hamas terrorists, and the loss and destruction that is about to occur as the IDF begins its ground war in Gaza?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Is it always necessary to enact revenge when we are wronged? Clearly there are examples of individuals who have chosen forgiveness to break the cycle of violence begetting violence.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here is a link to an article about 10 everyday people who experienced horrible loss yet chose to forgive those who committed the acts.</span></p><p><a href="https://listverse.com/2013/10/31/10-extraordinary-examples-of-forgiveness/"><span style="font-size: large;">https://listverse.com/2013/10/31/10-extraordinary-examples-of-forgiveness/</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And of course, a very famous quote by someone who died an excruciating death on a cross:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I am posting this entry under the heading War and Forgiveness. I previously posted something under that title about 9 years ago. In that post I mention an event which was going on in the Middle East although I am not specific about it, although the point of the article was about Jackie Robinson, how he was treated, and how he responded. Still, it would not be hard to conjecture that the Middle East reference was related to the current crisis, as this situation has been with us for decades. Here is that link.</span></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/42-and-hopefully-counting.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/42-and-hopefully-counting.html</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Revenge stories are as old as written history. When I googled greatest stories of revenge in history, there was no lack of response. It seems as if multiple people and organizations had compiled their own lists of horrific examples of revenge. Perhaps some day, it will just be as easy to find a plethora of examples of the greatest acts of forgiveness in history. Wouldn't it be inspiring if in 20 years, Israeli forgiveness of Hamas brutality, were on the list? </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><br /></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-6842905381941779242023-10-07T14:05:00.002-04:002023-10-07T14:05:47.915-04:00The Irish and the Choctaw<p><span style="font-size: large;">As I stated in my last post, there are many facts that we have been taught that, while true, are not truly presented. One of those is the famine that occurred in Ireland between 1845 and 1852. I remember learning about the Irish Famine in school. A potato blight was generally blamed, potatoes being the food staple of the rural Irish of the time. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I don't recall ever asking the obvious question "why couldn't they eat something else", although I wonder if the answer might have been that while the potato was the food mostly effected, other crops also failed, an answer I probably would have accepted. After all, why would a poor harvest of one crop cause over 1.5 million people to die?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Anyone who has spent any time researching this disaster knows a significantly different truth, unfortunately. It was that truth which was referred to in an article I just read in the September/October edition of the Smithsonian Magazine.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The Irish famine was not caused by <u style="font-style: italic;">just</u> a potato blight. As I stated above, how could a poor harvest of one crop cause so many people to starve? You see, the Irish farmers of the time grew many other crops, mostly to sell to pay rent, buy clothes, etc. The potato was the staple of their diet because it was easy to grow and so could provide the basis for their meals. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Remember, at the time, Ireland was a British possession. To that extent, most Irish farmers did not own the land they farmed, they rented that land from their (mostly) English landlords, who then sold the foodstuffs produced by these tenants. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, the real truth is that the Irish famine was not caused by a lack of potatoes, but a lack of <b>food</b>. Food that was readily being produced by those same farmers but was turned over (sometimes at gun point) to be sold by the landowners from whom they rented.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How awful, you might say. I guess it is no surprise that this inconvenient fact was left out of the history lesson taught to elementary and middle school students. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How could so many people be left to die when there was actually food available? Well, when you do not consider certain people human, when you have been indoctrinated all your life, your parents life, your grandparents life, etc, to consider the Irish farmer as not worth considering, then their death, even of their children, does not register. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">When empathy for other is lost, all sorts of disasters and travesties follow. One might even say that a lack of empathy, whether from an overt refusal or merely a lack of reflection, is the cause of all of the genocides that humans have perpetrated upon each other.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">It always begins with code words like "them", or "others", or perhaps we label them as barbaric or illegals or lacking in adoration of a certain deity, but in the end, once we dehumanize a person or group of people, horrific treatment follows.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Sadly, we are are not immune to our own versions of this behavior. The story of a certain Florida governor who tricked immigrants from Texas into boarding planes so he could make some sick kind of political point, is one such example. And, the fact that more than one TV personality on that "news" channel that rhymes with Pox, laughed about it and thought it was a great ploy to own the libs, or whatever crazy justification they posited, makes it even sadder, because whether the pundits agreed with treating other humans so shabbily or not, they knew that their audience would applaud such an action, never even considering how they would feel if someone treated them with such callousness.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Or those who stand behind the American flag and decry providing arms and money to the Ukrainians in their fight against an invading army. So what if civilians, children, the elderly, pregnant women, are being killed, we should take care of our own first. As if working against bullies who try to take whatever they want is not a shared belief that makes us human, makes us "great". </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">For all those who revere the greatest generation for defeating Hitler, sounds like they are ignorant to what makes a generation or country great.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Which brings me back to the Smithsonian article. You see, its focus wasn't about the real causes of the Irish Famine. It was about a little known story about how the Choctaw nation, upon hearing about the starvation in Ireland, sent money to the impoverished people to assist. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Talk about self sacrifice! The Choctaw themselves lived in poverty, having been forced to leave their land via the Trail of Tears. They barely had enough for themselves, yet donated precious money to help another people, people they had absolutely no connection to. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, add this little tidbit to the history that most people don't know about.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps it is better that we not know how horribly we have treated the indigenous people who were here before the arrival of the Europeans, or how we enslaved generations of Black people to work our plantations. That way it is easier for us to consider suggestions about rounding up immigrants who have come here for a better life, and expelling them, violently, if need be. Or even better, arm American citizens and line the border, shooting anyone who tries to cross.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">After all, once we cross the line of dehumanization, there is nothing we can't due to "those" people. Once we have jettisoned all aspects of empathy, no inhumane treatment is off the board.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The truly incredible thing about our current immigration morass, is that so many of those who are the loudest about the dangers of these "others", are very recent descendants of those who were the others in the late 19th and early 20th century. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Unlike the Choctaw and the Irish people who still celebrate the incredible gift that was sent to Ireland when they were in such terrible need, far too many Americans have forgotten their own personal history, as well as our national history so well stated on the Statue of Liberty.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">"</span><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: rgba(80, 151, 255, 0.18); color: #040c28;">Give me your tired, your poor,</span><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;"> </span><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: rgba(80, 151, 255, 0.18); color: #040c28;">Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,</span><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;"> </span><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: rgba(80, 151, 255, 0.18); color: #040c28;">The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As emblematic of the meaning of empathy as anything I could conceive of or write.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here are four other posts discussing Empathy. </span></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></p><p><b><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/bo-knowsempathy.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/bo-knowsempathy.html</a></span></b></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/10/empathy-and-evolution.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/10/empathy-and-evolution.html</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7395038039066334365/4086742329331846297?hl=en"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7395038039066334365/4086742329331846297?hl=en</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/farewell-peewee.html"><span style="font-size: large;"><span>https://wurd</span>sfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/farewell-peewee.html</span></a></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-60699644371354401102023-10-05T20:25:00.001-04:002023-10-05T20:26:06.534-04:00Life Changing Events<div><span style="font-size: large;">First, some house keeping. I had my best month ever in September, in terms of "hits" to my blog. Over 8100, which exceeded my previous best by 1500. The vast, vast majority were from Singapore, as I have previously mentioned. So, again, please feel free anyone from that country to leave me a comment telling me why the interest.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">As this will be a philosophical post, I checked some that I have written before. Here are links to four that I thought might generate some interest.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/idealism-vs-realism.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/idealism-vs-realism.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/04/opinions.html"><span style="font-size: large;">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/04/opinions.html</span></a></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><a href="https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/atlas-shrugged.html">https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/atlas-shrugged.html</a></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Most people, when asked to retell events which they recall as life changing, can come up with a few. Perhaps the day they met their spouse, or their wedding day. The birth of a child or their children. Maybe graduation from high school or college, the purchase of their first home, a special trip. For some, world events such as D-Day, 9/11, the assassination of a world leader, or world influener. Perhaps even the day of a particularly exciting sporting event.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I commented once, many years ago, that discovering Laphams Quarterly was one such day. Not that I can recall the actual day, but the fact that this wonderful magazine existed without me having the least inkling. It was life changing, in that in the intervening years I have read and been exposed to ideas, concepts, opinions, and facts (this is especially important) that have altered my perception of the world and its workings.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I recently began reading a book that is replicating this feeling. A book whose title I found in that wonderful 2021 Christmas gift from my daughter who filled a glass jar with 100 titles in order to provide me with new reading material. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">"The Dawn of Everything; A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber and David Wengrow is the title.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">At this point, I am about two thirds of the way through it. I find I can only read so much at a time so as to absorb its mind blowing words, but I also don't read it everyday because I don't want to finish it. As if, by putting it down, and away, I will lose the importance of its meaning over time, as I read other works, and as I am bombarded with the endless nonsense that we must wade through, nonsense that so easily passes for news, so easily is thrust upon us as if the world of data and information is experiencing a massive bout of diarrhea, with no end in sight.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">It is hard to summarize what I have read so far. The 2 Davids, as I like to refer to them, are relentless in demolishing virtually everything I have been taught throughout my life. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">For instance, there is a lot of interest in aliens right now. Not just as to whether they are with us in secret today, but how many times they have visited in the past and which of the unexplained man made wonders of ancient times must they have built. Since we can't seem to build a house or a road to last more than a few decades, how could pre-industrial man have built the pyramids, etc, which have lasted thousands of years? Must have been aliens!</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now, the 2 Davids don't necessarily address this phenomenon, at least not yet, as again, I still have many pages to go. But what they do address is the idea that men who lived thousands of years ago couldn't have accomplished these tasks alone. That they weren't smart enough, or didn't have the right tools, or the right math. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">And it isn't just the building of great architectural structures that they address, but philosophical concepts of equality, social structures, gender relations, government, justice and fairness. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, this book takes on the entire sphere of propaganda that we have been taught via all our current institutions, religious, political, national, social, cultural, etc, and turns them all on their proverbial heads. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">But don't get me wrong. I don't view the author's purpose in a negative light. They are not anarchists trying to upend our very existence, or back to nature freaks who think we should go back to living in caves. I view them more as educators trying to explain that its the <i style="text-decoration-line: underline;">conclusions</i> that we have been taught about history, especially humanity's progression from hunter gatherers to farmers and city dwellers, that is off base. And, that this progression should be considered with less of a value judgement (ancient men were less smart, more barbaric and violent, not capable of complex thoughts about life, for instance) and certainly not as a function of inevitable evolution where today's version of man is "better" than previous ones. </span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Or not worse for that matter. Just different.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">We have been indoctrinated (a loaded word in today's 24 hour news cycle) to believe all sorts of "facts" about how men lived before the miracle of modern technologies, how men interacted with each other, how the genders valued each other. But regardless of the teacher (religious, political, cultural, national), we are always taught that we are evolving towards a more egalitarian existence. That we are becoming more enlightened in terms of recognizing the value of diversity in man, as well as the environment.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Well perhaps that is too strong, but that certainly, we are more kind to each other than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago were to each other. That concepts like democracy and freedom and equality didn't exist before the Europeans crossed the oceans to "civilize" the barbarians they "discovered".</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Graeber and Wengrow address these kind of conclusions, and attempt (successfully, so far, for me) to provide some different conclusions that fit the facts just as well, even better in some instances.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Pick up the book, if you can. I will share more thoughts about it when I have finished. </span></div>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-40734460004743920622023-09-24T16:35:00.002-04:002023-09-24T16:36:09.308-04:00Reagan vs Biden<p><span style="font-size: large;">I recently saw a Facebook post from one of my acquaintances which portrayed a man with a shovel approaching the grave of Ronald Reagan. When asked why he would want to dig up the ex-president, he replied something like, "even dead, he is better than what we have now."</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since my friend is of similar age as myself, I wondered if he remembered that all these statistics about inflation and mortgage interest rates that reveal 40 year highs, reference the early 1980's when, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan was president. In other words, it was during Reagan's two terms, from 1980 to 1988, that these new high numbers are being compared. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So, assuming that their may be other interesting facts, as opposed to rose colored glasses memories, I thought I would research some economic data, comparing Biden's current term to Reagan's first term and the overall administration from 1981 to 1988. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Here is what I found.</span></p><p><a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span>Since 1960, inflation exceeded 10% only 4 times; 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981 with rates of 11.05%, 11.25%, 13.55%, 10.33% respectively. Nixon was president in 1974 (he resigned in August of that year), Carter in 1979 and 1980, Reagan (elected in Nov 1980) in 1981. The 1970's. as a decade, featured horrendous inflation, averaging 7% <b>per year</b> during that decade.</span><span> In comparison, from 2010 to 2019, inflation averaged less than 2% (about 1.8%) each year. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since 2020, inflation has increased, 1.23% in 2020, 4.7% in 2021, and 8% in 2022. Now, we can debate how much influence Biden's policies had on rising inflation. Certainly, injecting lots of money into the economy to keep average people afloat during the pandemic, and afterwards, was a factor. But, considering that high inflation was not specific to the US these last two years, then clearly outside factors, supply chain disruptions, war in Ukraine, among just two, also led to higher inflation world wide not just here. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like Biden, Reagan inherited economic problems from his predecessor, high inflation being one of them. From that high of 13.55% in 1980, inflation under Reagan declined to 10.55% in 1981, 6.13% in 1982, 3.21% in 1983, then, other than 1986 when it was only 1.9%, inflation ran between a low of 3.55% in 1983 to a high of 4.3% in 1984, finishing at 4.08% in 1988. During Reagan's 8 years in office, 1981 to 1988, inflation averaged about 4.6%. A good achievement when compared to the 1970's 7% per year.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">We only have 2 years for Biden, 2021 and 2022 which have averaged over 6% each year. If 2023 comes in around 4%, that would equate to about 5.3% for the first 3 years. Comparable to inflation during Reagan's first 3 years which averaged about 6.4% but we must give Reagan a partial pass since he inherited such a high rate from Carter.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Using the same source, macrotrends, GDP growth for 1981 through 1983 (1982 was a negative year) averaged 1.7%. But, beginning in 1984, GDP growth averaged almost about 5.4%. Overall, GDP growth for the 8 terms for Reagan averaged around 3.5%. As comparison, GDP growth for Obama's 8 years averaged under 2% while during Clinton's 8 years GDP increased an average just under 3.9%. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Since Clinton's GDP growth was better than Reagan's and inflation only increased an average of 2.6% during those 8 years (compared to Reagan's 3.6%) perhaps that cartoon I referenced earlier should have shown the man asking Clinton to come back rather than digging ump Reagan...</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Again, with only 2 years of GDP growth for Biden, 5.95% and 2.06% which averages to about 4%, that is comparable to Reagan's 8 year average, much better than his first 3 year average but less than those last 5 years.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">How about unemployment?</span></p><p><a href="https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506"><span style="font-size: large;">https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506</span></a></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">While Reagan inherited high inflation and lowered it during his first term, unemployment, while high at 7.2% in 1980, increased during Reagan's first four years, averaging 8.725%. While it gradually came down during his 2nd term, the lowest rate was 5.3%, and the overall average unemployment during his 8 years was 7.43%.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As comparisons, unemployment averaged around 5% during Clinton's 8 years, about 5.5% during Bush 2's presidency. Even during Obama's 8 years which started with the 2008 economic meltdown, averaged less than Reagan's 2 terms, at just about 7.2%, although the last 3 years averaged only about 5%.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Under Trump, unemployment continued to drop, averaging only about 4.5% for his 4 years, even including the pandemic year of 2020. But again, with only 2 years data, unemployment under Biden has averaged below 4% which far outpaces Reagan's first 3 years (about 9% average). In fact, there has not been a presidential term with a higher unemployment rate that Reagan's 8 years average since the Great Depression years ending in 1941.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I wonder if that guy with the shovel would still want Reagan considering that data set?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">In 1980, having voted in my 2nd presidential election, I was not a home owner, not all that focused on economic issues. Hey, I was an irresponsible young man. But by 1989, I was married and looking for our first house. The only thing we qualified for, mortgage wise, was a variable rate negative amortization deal. In other words, the interest rate was to change yearly, and, even if it didn't go up or down, our payment was less than the actual interest which was accruing which meant our debt was increasing every month. As it turned out, the 11% interest rate gradually lessened, and we were able to begin increasing equity in the home within 2.5 years as opposed to the original 5 year estimate. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I don't need stats to know it was tough going then, and while home interest rates are over 7% now, after being under 3% for quite a while, they are not 11% as they were in the 1980's. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I have a theory that in 20 or 30 years, the Biden presidency may be compared to Reagan's. Both were considered too old when in office, both inherited a mess from the previous president, both came across as the steady, grandfatherly type, a form of stability needed in a time of turmoil. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Whether Biden's economic numbers fare well should we end up with 8 years to compare, is unknown, but I imagine that in terms of inflation and unemployment, I would favor Biden having the advantage. Should the economy break out after inflation gets back under 3%, he may end with a clean sweep in the three areas I have detailed. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">And then, who knows, perhaps a cartoon of a man with a shovel approaching Biden's grave will be circulating on the internet in 20 or 30 years with the caption, even a dead Biden is better than the current resident in the White House. Let's hope that the source of that cartoon has actual numbers to justify the sentiment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7395038039066334365.post-34931991387744075572023-09-12T15:19:00.002-04:002023-09-12T15:19:59.047-04:00What We Seem Willing to Give Up<p><span style="font-size: large;">First, a quick update concerning my last post, A Plan and a Plot. I received an encrypted message from the Genius whom I named in that post, in which two other topics were brought to my attention which I failed to mention.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The initial issue concerns book banning. Using the vaguely defined, and purposefully unspecific term "woke", the GOP is justifying the censorship of thought by associating the treatment all American citizens equally, with big government and establishment thinking. In their narrative, parents should have the right to ban books from their local schools and communities just because they don't want their children to read that particular book. It doesn't seem to matter if other parents prefer there be choice in the matter (freedom), or, in some cases, if the offended adults even have children attending the school district, their "parental rights" allow them to choose for everyone, even those parents who are OK with a particular book. What is clear is that what the majority thinks isn't the point, just that when a vocal, or even one might say, tyrannical minority, protests, all must follow their preferences. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The idea of telling their children they must not access a particular book, or even informing the school's librarian that they prefer their children not be exposed to a book (or idea, which is really the point), doesn't seem to occur to them. Just, I don't like it, therefore no one should. Arrogance in its highest form. And, of course, since there are many politicians who, lacking the ability to make strong leadership decisions, prefer to pander to the most vocal and visual, these "righteous" parents are successful in controlling the content that ALL children can access. After all, what do school librarians know about literature, and books, and what children like to read?</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But again, President Joe smiles, knowing that the growing majority of voters, those aged 30 to 50, who will be determining future elections, do not want one or two parents deciding what all children should read. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The other topic is guns and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA and GOP have successfully sold the idea that the 2nd Amendment is the only right that should never have restrictions. That possessing as many guns with as much firepower as you want, is a protected "God-given" right, (I don't recall Jesus packing a weapon during any of his sermons, but hey, perhaps he carried a big stick and we just were never told), and so any law that requires a background check to make sure the applicant doesn't have a history of violence, mental instability, etc, or requires a gun to be registered, or even places limits on guns which are only used to kill people, is somehow anti-American, or against the founders intent.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A friend of mine, who is a grammar geek, recently posted her review of using apostrophes, commas, etc. Well, perhaps her lesson should be mandatory for all citizens in respect to interpreting the 2nd Amendment, which says</span></p><p><span face=""Google Sans", Roboto, arial, sans-serif" style="background-color: rgba(80, 151, 255, 0.18); color: #040c28; font-size: 20px;">A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to <span jsaction="click:sKUsF" role="tooltip" style="outline: 0px;" tabindex="0"><g-bubble data-ci="" data-du="200" data-tp="5" jsaction="R9S7w:VqIRre;" jscontroller="QVaUhf" jsshadow=""><span class="c5aZPb" data-enable-toggle-animation="true" data-extra-container-classes="ZLo7Eb" data-hover-hide-delay="1000" data-hover-open-delay="500" data-send-open-event="true" data-theme="0" data-ved="2ahUKEwj9xL681qWBAxXsGFkFHetiAzUQmpgGegQIHBAD" data-width="250" jsaction="vQLyHf" jsname="d6wfac" jsslot="" role="button" style="cursor: pointer; outline: 0px;" tabindex="0"><span class="JPfdse" data-bubble-link="" data-segment-text="keep and bear Arms" jsname="ukx3I" style="border-bottom: 1px dashed rgba(4, 12, 40, 0.5);">keep and bear Arms</span></span></g-bubble></span>, shall not be infringed.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps I am missing something, but the comma after the word Militia, and described by the phrase "being necessary...", is the reference noun for the phrase that finishes the statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". It is the Militia that should be well armed, perhaps a national guard unit, or the actual US military which acts on behalf of the citizenry. Remember, those words were written when America was a fledgling country, trying to divorce itself from England, one of the most powerful nations on earth at the time. Everyone, or almost everyone, possessed a gun to hunt, or for personal protection, both in the colonies and in Europe. England did not care about personal muskets being owned by farmers, but they did care about organized community militias with semi-trained soldiers and stores of munitions. It was that scenario they wished to control, and it was that right that the founders were addressing, which is why they specifically referred to Militia, and not citizen, or the individual.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">So again, in face of the fact that death by gun violence is the number one killer of children, not disease or accidents, President Joe smiles when he hears GOP candidates rally around the flag in one voice against gun (I call it violence) control, because he knows, again, that the upcoming majority of voters, many of whom either personally experienced active shooter drills while in elementary school (yes, those same places where a book and its idea should be banned because it might make a child uncomfortable), or certainly know their children have, consider gun control measures a good thing, a logical thing, and not another example of government overreach. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">OK, so to today's post.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">A few weeks ago, my wife and I went to a Reading Phillies minor league baseball game. Very pleasant, a nice evening, reasonable prices, free parking, fireworks afterwards, and even a 4-3 victory. During the game, we couldn't help overhearing part of a conversation between the two women sitting behind us. They were most likely of our generation, 50+, but still working so probably not over 65. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">The conversation which struck us revealed that one of the women was not close to one or some of her children. She literally remarked that she didn't communicate with them very often, and was not only resigned to the fact that they were estranged, even seemed proud in that she was OK that if they didn't want to share their lives anymore, she was too old to care, or let that bother her anymore.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Now, I don't know the source of their problem. I do know that there have been many stories in the media about boomers who either do not, or rarely talk to their children. Certainly, our toxic politics is one reason, along with religion and economics, and I am sure that arguments about lifestyle, marriage choice, work life, how to raise the grand kids, etc, are also reasons for disagreement.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But for Nora and I, never seeing our kids, or not seeing (or communicating for years) seems unfathomable. No child (and certainly no parent) is perfect, everyone makes mistakes and poor choices, but to accept that those differences mean losing touch with your children is not only a shame, but indicative of how our society is crumbling. They say all great civilizations fall from within. I imagine that this must be a symptom of such a fall.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">I hope those reading this do not share this unfortunate circumstance, but if you do, I strongly recommend that, parent or child, you reach out to your family member, and do everything you can to find common ground, agree to disagree, forgive or apologize. I can't imagine a worse fate than to wake up one day an orphan or having lost a child, knowing you were not only not there for them at the end, but weren't there for them during life.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">On a lesser, yet almost as important, related note, there is an article in the September National Geographic about the disappearing bald cypress trees and the swamps in which they live. The truly alarming part of the story is the knowledge that bald cypress trees can live for 2,000 years and more, yet are being slowly wiped out from their native habitat by rising seas and other effects of climate change. In other words, another example of man's destruction of the natural world. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">But, it is even more than that. Because these trees tend to reside in swamps, it is a purposeful eradication. In our arrogance of what we believe to be important and valuable, swampland is down at the bottom of the list, forever considered worthless. Now, of course, we are beginning to realize the importance of these trees and this ecosystem, but it probably won't matter, as the decisions we have been making for the last hundred years may be too ingrained to reverse. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">As the coastal storms become more intense, the rising seas more invasive, the lack of natural barriers more obvious, eliminating the millions of hectares of swamp land for more housing developments and huge agricultural farms, may be one of those under the radar decisions that we regret the most.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Like accepting an estranged relationship with our children with a shrug and an oh well, we communally continue to hide our eyes from the destruction of our environment, as if there is a backup plan.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">Perhaps that is the true definition of a declining society, when we casually allow our relationships with our children to disintegrate while continuing our policies of environmental degradation so as to destroy the world in which our grandchildren and great grandchildren will have to live.</span></p>JOE PUGNETTIhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04353040217634054901noreply@blogger.com0