Visionairies, and Beeple

I didn't post something for Earth Day 2025 in April. I keep a list of topics that I intend to address, and fully intended to do an environmental entry on or around April 22, but I kept putting it off to comment on other topics.

I am glad, as I was able to get caught up on my reading, specifically the April edition of National Geographic, and the April-May edition of the Smithsonian Magazine, both which presented me with input and revised reasons to do a post with the label Environment.

And, of course, just last week was the birthday of Rachel Carson, famed environmentalist and author who was born on May 27, 1907 and whom some consider one of the original advocates for the environment.

First, Beeple.

If you haven't heard the term before, fret not. While I was not totally surprised by its use in the Smithsonian article called Born To Bee Wild, I had never seen it used so frequently, had never realized that so many people were proud to describe themselves as such.

In essence, the article details a few of these beeple, as they, generally anonymously, go about their lives studying and advocating for bees. Some do so within the nature of their occupation, perhaps as an employee of a state or federal agency involved in some type of environment related oversight or protection. 

But many consider their time spent researching and studying bees, whether in apiaries or in the wild as time spent on a hobby, or perhaps avocation might better explain it, as the best time of their lives.

What was especially inspiring is that these beeple, while recognizing the fact that bee colonies are failing at an alarming rate, were far more upbeat than I would have expected. 

Perhaps that is the beauty of getting involved in a topic that one feels strongly about. Doing something about a perceived problem results in meeting and working with people who share your concern but also have a plan to address it. Rather than the hopelessness that many feel about the overall climate catastrophe that seems to be steaming headlong towards us, they are tackling a part of the overall issue, if even only one aspect of the problem. 

The work to understand the plight of the bumblebee, so to speak, the process of developing a plan to counter the declines in bee populations, and then engaging, with others, in an attempt to at least lessen the fallout of our "dominion" over nature philosophy, provides a sort of communal gratification. 

The phrase "actions speak louder than words" are never so on mark when it is so easy to complain and be depressed at our seemingly gratuitous assault on the natural world. 

Getting involved may not immediately stem the tide, but it allows beeple to sleep just a little better at night knowing there are doing what they can.

Speaking of which, the April edition of the National Geographic identified 33 people who are striving to make the world a better place, most of whom I had not heard of before reading the magazine.

As is true with the April-May edition of the Smithsonian, it is far better for you to read the articles than for me to give you a superficial summary.

Suffice to say, I was thoroughly impressed by, in no particular order, the founder of the outdoor clothing company Patagonia, a hugely successful actress who uses her platform to address mental illness, the founder of a well known yogurt company, an actor who uses his platform to advocate for economic opportunity to assist those born in poorer environs to protect the environment while gaining economic independence, an entrepreneur whose company inspires sustainability and ethics in the spice trade, a couple whose building enterprise is finding a novel use for plastic waste, and a woman whose app addresses food waste by linking consumers looking for a good deal with food retailers who throw out unused food.

Again, people who are not satisfied with merely complaining about our shared global problems, but who are doing something to address them, one issue at a time.

And, while a number of them have attained success in their lives first, like most beeple, there are a number of them who fly under the radar in their efforts to make the world a better place.

Make the world a better place.

Such a simple phrase. I have often posited that if it is that simple, heaven for those who are successful in that endeavor, if even only for those they encounter during their life's path, hell for those who choose me first in all their dealings, I wonder what percentage would be allowed entry through the pearly gates.

And, in contemplating such a possibility, how difficult it will be for the most successful people, the most influential people, those who effect the biggest populations, to gain entry to everlasting life.

Is it possible that Jesus's dual quotes, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" and "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth", were referring to just such an eventuality?

Perhaps in attaining great wealth or great renown, one burns through too many chits to be able to make them up through good works afterwards. That in the long run, the world is not a better place despite using ones riches after the fact to improve others lives. 

And conversely, that it is much easier for the everyday person to make the world a better place for those in their much smaller circle of influence. A moral not unlike the yearly lesson we are taught at the holidays through "It's a Wonderful Life".

In the meantime, I encourage my readers to engage with magazines such as National Geographic and the Smithsonian, publications which present our shared global challenges, but which also describe ways to address those issues, and the people, beeple or not, who do their best to provide answers and solutions. 

---

I have posted using the topic Environment many times to date. Here are links to the last four of those posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/05/national-parks-conservation-and.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-monarch-butterfly-and-selflessness.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/12/countering-rising-co2-levels.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/natures-beauty-and-longevity.html 

 

 

The Atlantic and Anne Applebaum

After the SignalGate controversy broke, followed by an attack on the editor from the Atlantic magazine who was mistakenly added to the chat, I decided to subscribe to that organization for both daily news and opinion articles, and its monthly magazine.

Since then, I have been happily exposed to multiple, interesting articles, and writers with whom I was unfamiliar.

In particular, in the May edition of the magazine, I have read essays, in addition to a few concerning politics, about music, religion, Ringo Starr, how porn has changed America, Dwayne Wade and the AI company Nvidia. Can you say eclectic?

Each were extremely well written and informative. I was especially effected by the Ringo Starr article. To be honest, I was never a huge Beatles fan, only gaining an appreciation for the range and depth of their music during my newspaper delivering days when I listened to the multiple hour Breakfast with The Beatles which aired on the radio on Sunday mornings.

Ringo is 84 years old now, still performing, still flashing a peace sign as he repeats his idiosyncratic phrase, Peace and Love. I read the last quarter of the article fighting through wet eyes. 

Why was I teary eyed?

Perhaps because Ringo, for all his fame, retains a significant part of the boy who grew up in difficult circumstances, someone who acknowledges that luck blew against him as a child, then was at his back for much of his adulthood. 

Perhaps because Ringo was always considered the least talented of the Fab Four, but is considered by some, to have inspired the most people through his positive outlook, persistence in making music as he feels it, and connection with every day people.

Or perhaps simply because in the near future, Ringo will be gone from this world, and we will be the poorer for the loss of someone for whom Peace and Love was not just a fad.

In addition to all that, I was introduced to the writings of Anne Applebaum.

They say a silver lining can be found in all situations, no matter how horrible. For me, discovering Anne Applebaum as a writer is the silver lining in the SignalGate scandal.

So far, in addition to the various articles of hers that I have read in the Atlantic, I have read two of her books, Twilight of Democracy and Autocracy, Inc.  

Applebaum has been around for quite a while, describing her life at the turn of the 21st century in her books, as well as the people with whom she associated, and her understanding of the conservative, pro-democracy thinking that she feels is being betrayed by the current president.

It's funny how so many people who align with the MAGA movement, dismiss conservatives like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, David Frum, among others, who they view as disloyal to Trump, the GOP, and the conservative philosophy, completely missing the point that these people believe they are still conservative, just not aligned with Trump.

The two books I read by Applebaum do not paint a pretty picture of a world she believes has turned away from democracy, towards authoritarianism. And her extreme disappointment that she sees a similar turn in America today.

Her detailed knowledge and description of Hungary and how its authoritarian leader, Victor Orban, slowly turned a democratic nation to one in which he now controls the legislature, the courts, and who succeeds economically (and who doesn't), is revealing in light of the steps that Trump has taken since his inauguration.

What is clear to Applebaum, is that governments like the ones led by Orban, Putin, and their ilk, have never benefited the general populace. It is only through fealty to leaders such as they, that businesses prosper or not, and that freedoms are granted, or lost.

If nothing else, it is her prime lesson, for those that listen. Compliance and complacency might direct the dictator's wrath to another direction, temporarily, but leaders like that are never satisfied. Once the easy targets are defeated, the marginalized communities, immigrants, those that live, love, worship differently, new victims need to be found to maintain power, to reinforce the message of fear and submission.

So, while institutions like Harvard are resisting, so far, other universities, law firms, legislators, politicians, are bending the knee. Sadly, some are already discovering that once on your knees, there is no chance to stand again.

The good news is that the judicial branch is holding, so far. The new administration's multiple illegal executive orders and policies, are mostly being delayed. But justice can move awfully slow in a democracy. 

Our magnificent tradition of due process can play out in an excruciatingly protracted manner when it comes to determining the extent of executive power. It is a gambit that Trump and his allies depend on, all the while denying the same due process to people they have deemed enemies of the state. 

Sadly, for now, many Americans support some of these violations of our Constitution with the short sighted reasoning that those exemptions will only be applied to the "others". The fact that American citizens, even children, have already been deported because of their association with those "others", hasn't penetrated enough of the electorate for them to realize that anyone can be linked to an undesirable when absolute power is granted to one person, or one mindset.    

In the past, I have mentioned that when I first discovered the magazine Lapham's Quarterly, I was surprised and excited; surprised that I had never heard of such a wonderful literary magazine, and excited that I would now be able to read such an extraordinary publication. 

Sadly, one of the many victims of the pandemic, the magazine stopped publication a few years ago, and even more unfortunate, the impetus behind Lapham's, Harold Lapham, passed away last June. While there are plans to reactivate the magazine, in the meantime, I am very content with the newest addition to my monthly reading list, The Atlantic. 

I have written before under the topic of Media, as this post has been labelled. Here are links to four of those posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/07/newsoom-and-more-congressional-votes.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/02/truth-whole-half-or-none-at-all.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/03/news-facts-and-opinions.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/04/would-mr-rodgers-neighborhood-be-too.html

 

The Anti-Government Crowd revisited

I have mentioned in previous posts, that I am in the process of updating all of my posts with a larger font. My process is fairly simple. Whenever I log into my blog, I check the posts that have been "hit" in the last seven days, and I open them if they were created before January 2021, which was when I began creating my posts with the larger font.

Since I began this blog in March of 2010, I clearly have much work ahead of me. But I am enjoying the process, as I read the posts before I update them to the larger font. It is a revealing process, and one which I recently commented upon, as I now realize that the tone of my posts has become much less optimistic. 

Today, I encountered a post from June, 2012 called the Anti-Government Crowd. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/06/anti-government-crowd.html 

For anyone who might ask, Joe, our history is filled with people who predicted doomsday scenarios, the vast majority of whom were wrong, what makes you think this time is any different, I would respond with two points.

First, certainly I acknowledge that prognosticating catastrophe is practically a hobby of social commentators. Every major change whether it be the invention of the radio or the internet, the advances of instant hand held communication devices or machines with massive computational abilities, or even the granting of suffrage for women and minorities, inevitably creates both predictions of doom and a backlash to return to "the good old days." 

Combine that with the fact that, like our western societies as a whole, I am aging. Moving inexorably to my final days. If nothing else is true, we often project our deepest fears onto the issues that surround us. The boomer generation, of which I am part, is faced with the dual challenges of relinquishing control of the country, the world, while wishing that the promise of our youth, our ideals, had been better realized.

Second, I am sure that there were people in Germany and Italy who saw Hitler and Mussolini for who they were, who resisted the allure of nationalism, isolationism, tribalism, and every other ism that the authoritarian uses to gain power. Just as I know there were Americans who saw McCarthy as the real threat to democracy, not his overblown obsession with Communism.

In other words, there have been times when the worst was predicted, and that prognosis was on the mark.

So, while I prefer that in some future post I will be able to admit that I was wrong about our slide away from democracy, I truly believe that there are some dark times ahead.

In my original Anti-Government Crowd post, I quote a conservative of the time, David Frum, who was a well known advocate for conservative thought during the Reagan and Bush 1 years. He certainly promoted the reduction of the size of the government, although, as I said in that 2018 post, the actual number of federal workers had remained static since Reagan's presidency, only growing with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which emanated from the horrors of 9/11.

Frum, however, did not support a chainsaw approach to this effort. He acknowledged the need for our government to intervene when the business community abused consumers, when the environment was at risk from polluters, when disasters required a national response to both alleviate immediate pain and suffering, as well as prevent future destruction.

Now, seven years later, we see that Trump, Musk and his billionaire allies are bringing to fruition the years of propaganda that has laid the foundation for wrecking the federal workforce. 

They do not want to reform government, make it more efficient, root out waste. They want to eliminate it. Or to put it more directly, eliminate the structures that protect consumers, the sick, the elderly, the environment, anything that impedes their desire to create a new "gilded" age, as Trump often describes.

Because in the end, a government will still exist. But not a government that works for we, the people. But it will certainly work for people like Trump and Musk.

You only have to look at Russia and Hungary to see how altering the form of a government towards one which provides unchecked power to a particular party or person, does little to help the citizens of that country. 

It's almost comical when certain far right news outlets or commentators praise Putin and Orban. You don't see people flocking to immigrate to those countries. And how about North Korea, whose leader Trump has called a strong leader. Anyone you know talking about moving there? 

A strong leader lifts up the people of his country. North Korea ranks towards the bottom of virtually every category that matters in terms of quality of life. Kim Jung Un is far from a strong leader if your definition of strong is leading a country to prosperity. Same for Putin and Orban.

But that is the rub. Trump bases his definition of strong leader as someone who inspires fear among his citizens. Someone who is saluted as soldiers in tanks parade past him on his birthday. Someone who says Jump, and expects everyone to say How High.

This is the critical point of how the anti-government crowd, at least those who are the most vocal and influential, have changed. They are more anti-democratic than anti-government, because they know how powerful they can be with the resources of the government behind them. 

It is a far cry from the Reagan and Bush 1 philosophy but it has millions of Americans supporting it. Not because they truly want an authoritarian leader, well, maybe partially, but more because they have been sold a bill of goods about how intrusive and ineffective our government has been, so they are willing to try something different. 

Sadly, they are also missing the real motives behind Trump, a man who has nothing good to say about any democratic leader in the world, but is buddy buddy with all the autocrats. Even now, he is meeting with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, Qatar, all countries with repressive governments. Of course, Trump is only interested in a free airplane, and the promises of huge sums of money for him and his family in exchange for access to American resources.

Ever the transactionalist, he is more than willing to challenge our constitution (I am not sure I have to uphold it, he said during his recent ABC interview), ignore court orders, and govern through executive orders rather than in conjunction with the legislative branch, whatever it takes to gold plate the White House.

The signs are all there. Whether enough Americans wake up in time is still in question.

 

 

 

The Spetacular Success and Failure of DOGE

When the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was first proposed by the new president with Elon Musk spearheading the effort, there was some justifiable optimism that perhaps the richest person on the planet, as well as one of the brightest, might be able to tackle such a large job. Everyone was willing to concede that there can always be efficiencies to be found in any large government (or private) organization, and most voters believed that there was undoubtedly some fraud, waste and abuse embedded in the system.

In fact, finding fraud, waste and abuse was the mantra of every supporting political pundit and cheerleader of the effort. Why wouldn't all Americans support such an effort, was the reasoning.

Additionally, there were already people in government whose job was to do just that, so, in concert with those who already investigate fraud, waste and abuse, the various inspector generals and their staffs, bringing in some outstanding talent from the outside to revitalize the effort seemed like a great idea.

When Musk claimed that he would slash $2 trillion (that's trillion!) from our annual budget, the excitement was off the chart. While most people with knowledge of our national budget were highly skeptical, those who originally advocated for the endeavor, couldn't keep from predicting a resounding success was imminent.

We are now about three months into the process and Musk has halved  his predicted savings a number of times, but with incredible bravado, when we consder that every time he spoke of how much less money would be saved compared to his previous projection he was admitting he was wrong. The website which purported to document the savings, has been challenged and corrected multiple times. Savings that had decimal points in the wrong place, programs that had already been ended, dollar estimates based on possible expenditures rather than actual costs, suggested that Musk's team was not quite as brilliant as anticipated, and certainly not as transparent.

Not to mention the number of federal workers that were laid off or told not to come to work one day, then called back soon after when it was realized that the DOGEmen really didn't understand those workers jobs. 

At this point, it appears that Musk is stepping back from the project. Various reporting agencies have identified the savings, to date, as anywhere from $50 to $150 billion. And, since some of that savings includes salaries for workers no longer employed, it is quite true that a portion of that money will go to unemployment benefits, back pay should the various lawsuits still being adjudicated find that some of the federal workers were fired illegally, and the cost to hire contractors when it is discovered that those jobs really were necessary.

Should there actually be $100 billion saved, that would equate to 5% of the original amount Musk forecast. 

But there is good news. 

First, many Americans are starting to gain a new appreciation for the men and women who chose public service rather than (generally) higher paying private jobs. All the faceless people who make our government work for us turned out to be people who lived in our neighborhoods, went to our churches, were parents of the kids our kids played sports with, perhaps even were family members, nieces, nephews and cousins whose jobs we didn't understand.

The GOP has spent the last forty years telling Americans that our government is too big, not necessary, intrusive on our lives, didn't do anything positive for us, etc, so it was very easy for Trump and Musk to tell us they were lazy, stupid, even criminal. 

And for their part, the Democrats didn't do enough to explain to the electorate just what our taxes paid for, and just what our federal workers did, behind the scenes, day after day after day.

But the real success of the effort had nothing to do with fraud, waste and abuse. It was all about reducing the federal work force, as the GOP has always wanted, and about eliminating the regulators who keep the super rich from taking advantage of the everyday citizen.

That was why Musk went after the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) right from the start. Among other federal agencies, the CFPB has been a thorn in his attempts to enter the personal finance industry. 

Musk didn't invest $250 million into Trump's campaign solely because he leans right. He needed a way to counter the obstacles that prevent him from using his vast resources to do whatever he wants, to consumers, to workers, to his competition. 

Various labor entanglements? Go after the NLRB. 

Want to jump start Starlink? Push Verizon out of the picture to gain the inside track to providing communication systems to the government.

Want to dominate space? Threaten NASA to make sure that future contracts stay with SpaceX.

He even wrangled a free Tesla commercial at the White House when he "gave" a few cars to Trump. As if Don ever drives himself anywhere.

But Joe, hasn't Tesla stock tanked? Aren't Tesla sales down, not just in America, but worldwide? It seems like Musk lost money by attaching his cart to Trump.

Perhaps in the short run. But we all know, if nothing else, Musk is a visionary. He is always a step or three ahead of most people. He is still considered the richest man on Earth, despite his recent losses on paper. I expect that he will remove himself from Tesla in the next few years to concentrate on his next big moves, primarily his attempt to dominate communications from space via Starlink.

One step backwards, yards and yards of steps forward. And, just as the government helped him many times in the past when Tesla was struggling and SpaceX needed clients, his connection with Trump, and the current GOP leadership will provide him with the advantages he will most certainly use to solidify his control of the future of communications from space.

And by the way. Has anyone been charged with fraud for ripping off the American taxpayers? Anyone of the alleged millions of Americans who were taking Social Security payments for dead people? 

Again, Musk and his team, brilliant as they may be, had not a clue as to how the federal government worked, or what the vast amount of federal workers do. 

My guess is that they didn't care. Musk had a list of federal agencies he wanted neutered. Musk wanted access to confidential government information to help him execute his nefarious plans to reduce regulations which effect his business interests, and worst of all, Musk and Trump for that matter, don't believe it helping anyone, Americans or anyone else on our planet, unless there is something in it for them.

Aid to help improve economic opportunity for people who made the mistake of being born in the "third" world, forget it?

Programs to help improve sanitation or access to potable water, no way.

Projects that address children dying from disease or starvation, not a chance.

Unless any of those initiatives put money in the pocket of transactional people like Trump and Musk, break out the chainsaw!

It's pretty simple, really. Billionaires in charge of determining where to spend tax payer money, will always choose helping people who already have money so they can form their half-a-million-dollar-to-get-in clubs and laugh about how much richer they are getting.

All the while, everyday Americans who can't afford million dollar plate fundraisers have even less access, and receive even less benefits from the taxes they pay.

DOGE was a resounding failure if the goal was to find waste, fraud and abuse and reduce our national debt.

But a spectacular success for the co-presidents, who were allowed to gut programs that help the least fortunate while increasing the coffers of the super rich.

As if that couldn't be predicted. 

 

Take The Win 2

Back in early January, I posted a "letter" to President Elect Trump called "Take The Win". In it, I suggested that he continue telling the American people how great he governed the first time, and how wonderful everything is going now, and that he instruct those media outlets which bend the knee to air story after story to illustrate those points. 

I suggested that they show ICE agents arresting the worst of the worst of the convicted undocumented, perhaps even leading them out of American jails towards deportation planes. That he crow about the markets when stocks are breaking records, regardless of whether anything he has done could have made any difference.

That when the avian flu starts to subside, he take credit for falling egg prices. That any peace talk progress between Ukraine and Russia, Israel and Hamas be treated as proof of his strength. 

And, of course, that any drop in illegal crossings be chalked up to his brilliant immigration strategy.

Here is a link to that first post

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/01/dear-president-trump-take-win.html 

In some areas, Trump has done that. When the market was up in January and early February, he was first to claim it as his doing. Of course, when it dropped like a stone after his tariff announcements, he reverted to blaming Biden, but that is OK, as long as those media outlets that he controls stayed the course and repeated whatever he deemed real news.

And, while, as an actual grocery shopper and gasoline purchaser (I assume he hasn't done either in decades), I know that the price at the pump is a tad higher than on November 6th, or January 21st depending on your choice of start dates, and that eggs, while still much higher than before the avian flu kicked in, have dropped a bit, just keep repeating the lie that prices have dropped significantly. It doesn't matter than any change in the price of eggs is all about our ability to navigate and deal with the avian flu, he can take the win and pretend that he knows more about chickens and eggs than any farmer.

He even has the Secretary of Commerce repeating the nonsense of gas prices being below $2 a gallon, let alone the Press Secretary who gushes about his accomplishments like a Beatles groupie.

Shame on me though, I never expected the tariff policy disaster. While his minions continue to toggle between the justification that tariffs will reduce the flow of fentanyl, will raise enormous amounts of money, or will bring manufacturing back to our country, actual shipments into America are about to be halved, while exports which might previously have sent American made products overseas via contracts under USAID, and other government funded agencies, have been cancelled by DOGE. 

Fortunately, I see good news ahead.

Depending on the timing around possible shortages in our department and grocery stores, Trump will announce breathtakingly brilliant deals with China, the EU, etc which will soon amount to goods flowing into our country again. Like the arsonist who is first to blast water on a fire he set, Trump will then claim that he rescued America from food and merchandise shortages. It won't matter if at the end of the day, the new "deals" look very much like the old deals, or even if a deal here and there is actually worse for our country.

Take the win, hammer the message that his superior negotiating skills have once again saved the day, and move onto the next topic that can be twisted into a pretzel on purpose only to be straightened out afterwards.

Even better, invent a crisis, rather than causing one. Tell everyone of the next impending disaster, whether it exists or not, then solve it, just like his executive order on undocumented people voting. We know it is not a real problem, but should there actually be a midterm election, and it is proven that the number of voters who were undocumented was paltry, it won't matter that it always was paltry, it just matters that he made it so.

To be honest, it kind of surprises me that Trump is not following my advice/his original playbook of creating controversy (such as his original big lie, that Obama was not born in America), then capitalizing on the gullibility of his cult.

I mean, they believed that Haitians were eating the dogs and cats, why actually address a real issue when you can create one?

In this vein, he is already setting the stage for a "peace" in Ukraine. First he pretended that the United States would pull out of facilitating negotiations. Then he faked outrage that Putin kept slaughtering Ukrainians, as if the tens of thousands that have already been killed didn't matter. Eventually, hopefully soon, some form of reduced hostilities will occur, and Trump can take the win and proclaim that his threat to walk away pushed the combatants to the peace table.

In a similar way, he should return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US, then hold a sham trial and deport him again. I am sure he can find a judge who will ignore the evidence, (can you say Aileen Cannon) and rule as he wishes. Can you imagine the victory strut he could take when Garcia is deported by rule of law? Whether that rule of law is true to the term, won't matter, just that he can yell "told ya so".

He should also take the win by emphasizing other deportations of real criminals (we know there are many), and stop deporting people whose only crime was illegal entry, or American children who had the nerve to be born to an undocumented parent. Or kids with cancer.

He can even claim that because of his desire to protect women athletes from competing with men, there are now less than a dozen such trans athletes competing in the NCAA. It doesn't matter that the number was never more than that before, it just matters that he take credit for the small number now.

Another good story is to announce that fentanyl deaths are down due to his aggressive actions against Canada and Mexico. Now, of course, he may want to not repeat Attorney General Bondi's assertion that fentanyl seizures have saved 258 million American lives, that number being a tad over blown considering that she is suggesting that without Trump's leadership, roughly 75% of the people that you know, including infants and those over 80 years old, would have died in the past year.

Still, fentanyl deaths did decrease in the last reporting year, summer of 2023 to September 2024. It doesn't matter that Biden was president then, nor does it matter that one of the reasons for this decline is the availability of naloxone (Narcan) which has been distributed through various government programs into the hands of EMS personnel and into the neighborhoods where drug use is prevalent, nor does it matter that those very programs are under attack via DOGE and the president's recent budget proposal. All that matters is taking credit for the decline.

Take the win.

As I said in the first post, we know, above all, Trump likes to golf. The less he intervenes in trade policy, the less he attempts to bully institutions of higher learning, prestigious law firms, non-profit organizations that raise money for political parties and viewpoints he disagrees with, the more time he can spend on rallies and golf.

Take the win.

Tour the country telling your faithful followers how great you are by taking credit for whatever seems to be going well at the time, or even by making up things that were fine before. 

And golf like no other president has golfed before. Perhaps even combine the two and golf with "regular" folks who can then be interviewed on Fox and Friends and gush about Trump's golfing prowess, not to mention his brilliant mind and wonderful personality. 

Just stop governing. Let Congress actually work on laws as they are supposed to, if you believe in the Constitution. You can continue to sign stupid executive orders if it makes you feel important and powerful, just restrict them to idiotic things like declaring paper straws are back, and putting Columbus back in Columbus Day.

Of course, it is also possible that Trump will stick with his other tried and true playbook; continue to cause chaos while raking in millions of dollars selling access to the White House. Like a magician who makes the audience look away from the real trick, Trump may prefer throwing out inane proclamations (executive orders), or putting an AI generated picture of himself as pope, or just merely opening his mouth and verbalizing whatever moronic thought pops into his twisted mind.

All the while extorting money and favors from the stupidly and/or cowardly rich who have made the concept of selling out their country for even more money that they will never be able to spend in 1000 lives, into their new favorite hobby.

Or perhaps both. Take the win by continuing to direct his flock to think and believe whatever he tells them, and make a boat load of money to boot. After all, what is the point of being able to fool people if not to make lost of money.

Whatever permutation of this plan that he chooses, in addition to whatever other transactional scam he can concoct, I see a host of "how great is Trump" stories in our future.

Take the win, but at least leave us some money. Maybe even enough to buy four or five dolls and eight or ten pencils. 

 

 

 

A Tribute To Pope Francis

I was saddened to learn about the death of Pope Francis. While not a practicing Catholic, it is tragic when a spirit such as his is taken from us. While he may be gone, we should remain hopeful that his legacy will continue, and that his example will inspire both the clergy who are tasked with determining his replacement, and the faithful who continue to live and pray and believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I can't say I always agreed with Pope Francis. In some ways, he disappointed me in a similar fashion as Barrack Obama. Both represented significant firsts in history, Obama as the first African American President, Francis as the first Jesuit pope. And both held great promise to alter, for the good, the larger meaning of the office to which they were elected.

Don't get me wrong, I believe both changed their respective domains significantly, yet I feel that each fell short of the promise I held for them. Whether due to the sheer difficulty in altering the direction of such diverse entities, or the constant battle against the forces that defend the established status quo, I was not satisfied with the reality as compared to the hoped for vision. 

Of course, this is also a reflection of my personal demon, lack of patience at the pace of change. And further, my chagrin at the American electorate and the Catholic lay community, for their hesitancy, at best, fear, at worse, to embrace the change represented by the two leaders.   

In Pope Francis' case, his push to reach out to people often marginalized, if not outright ostracized and condemned, in an attempt to broaden the tent of the Catholic community, specifically the LGBTQ+ community, but also those Catholics who were divorced, marked a drastic change from his predecessors. Yet, he fell short of my hopes that he would bring the Catholic Church into the 21st century (or perhaps even just the 20th century) by altering its prohibition of birth control methods other than rhythm and withdrawal before ejaculation, allowing women a more active role in the sacraments, and stepping back from the belief that sex between members of the same sex are "acts of depravity."

Of course, even just considering such drastic changes to such a stagnant religion could be considered earth shattering. Problem is that it seems clear he was never going to take such steps, always falling short of real change.

Still, his more aggressive stance concerning the treatment of immigrants was laudable, especially his directness in calling the Trump administration's mass deportation plans not consistent with the teachings of Christ who emphasized treating all people with respect. While all popes advocated for immigrants, after all, wasn't Jesus an immigrant himself, Francis specifically called America's current treatment of immigrants to task, didn't just hide his disdain for those policies in generalities.

And certainly, Pope Francis seemed far more accessible to the masses by mingling with them at every opportunity. His final weekend, Easter weekend, was marked by ceremonially washing the feet of everyday people, not just cardinals or other members of the Church's hierarchy.

As is the case for President, I often wonder why someone would want to be pope. It is a no win situation in that whatever policies one adopts, whatever traditions one attempts to change, whatever direction one leads towards, half of the constituents, or flock, will embrace, and half will resist. 

While in the case of a presidency there is a chance for the populace to alter their choice, once chosen as pope, the job lasts until death. One might think that such knowledge, that only death can remove you from office, would embolden a pope to make changes with less regard to popularity or push back. Perhaps that is the attraction that America seems to be enthralled with currently, choosing a president who clearly prefers an unending term, who can then do whatever he likes without fear of accountability. 

While steering the ship of state, when the state encompasses a population as diverse as America's seems hard enough, imagine trying to do the same when the "electorate" lives all across the planet, and exceeds 1.3 billion people.

It surely takes a person with an advanced sense of self, or an advanced belief in their access to a divine influence, to lead with confidence when making changes that effect so many other humans. It is an enormous job, an enormous responsibility that can only be accomplished successfully by someone with great self esteem, as I mention above, but, paradoxically, someone who is humble enough to understand that even such great power pales when compared with the omniscience of the Creator. 

That is where Pope Francis far outpaces the likes or Trump or Putin or Orban or any of the myriad autocrats, dictators, and tyrants who recognize the power they wield but fail to understand the true purpose of such power, to make the world better for as many people as possible. 

Francis, through his belief in the spirit of his religion, his love for Jesus, his love for God, was conscious of that goal. So, even if, in my mind, he fell short of what I hoped he would accomplish, he knew that whatever he advocated for was achieved through the lens of that love of the Almighty, a lens that leaders like Trump don't have the least bit of a clue in understanding.

Francis was a leader in the only sense that matters, but still a human being with his own faults and shortcomings. So, while I might regret that he didn't do more, I know that he did the most he could do because he did it always aware of the source of the opportunity he was given. 

He believed in something bigger than himself and that is what a true leader, president or pope, should always remember.

Finally, let's hope that there is not a backsliding when the next pope is chosen. My fear is that we will see a more traditionalist being uplifted, rather than someone who might continue to work for changes that will expand the Church, rather than chase young people away. 

I have read a few articles detailing those men (sadly, only men) that are considered favorites to be presented after the white smoke appears. Will he be the first pope from Africa? Or an Italian pope chosen who will revert back to a more traditional papacy? Whoever emerges, let's hope that he can match Pope Francis' humility, connection to the people, and willingness to push the Church forward, not backwards.

---

Before starting this post, I searched previous entries to see when I had mentioned Pope Francis. I found just three, the most recent being from this past February.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/02/jd-vance-and-ordo-amoris.html 

 

The other two were not specifically about Pope Francis but I thought I would add links to them anyway.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/10/why-we-should-defund-planned-parenthood.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/gay-catholics-and-other-odd-labels.html

 

Also, like this post, I have a number of entries under the topic of religion. I read a few, and liked the following one the most.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html

Contact

I watched the movie "Contact" last week, in its entirety. It was not the first time I have seen it but it has certainly been quite a while. For those of you who have not seen it, or don't recall the plot, it is a fictional story about our first contact with beings from another world.

The lead, played by Jodie Foster, is, to say the least, obsessed with the stars and exploring and understanding the universe, and yes, potentially contacting other civilizations. Despite losing her mother who died giving her life, and her father when only nine years old, Ellie makes the most of her intelligence and drive. She eventually attains a job with SETI, the organization which focuses on the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence.

There are a number of twists to the story, not including the fact that the Foster character, Dr Eleanor Arroway, does detect a message from space, setting forth a world wide project to build the "machine" as per the blueprints sent by this alien culture. 

One of those side stories is her relationship with Palmer Joss, the character played by Matthew McConaughey. After a brief encounter in the beginning of the story, at a time when both are early in their careers, they meet again when Ellie is up for the "chair" in the machine, and Palmer is on the committee to choose who will occupy that seat. 

What is really interesting about their relationships is that Ellie is a true scientist who needs proof for everything, while Palmer is more interested in theology and God's place in our lives. A true example of opposites attracting.

In the meantime, there is the James Wood character who sees conspiracy and danger in everything, the Rob Lowe character who sees religion, his religion, in everything, and the Tom Skerritt character who, while also a scientist, knows that getting funding and being influential and successful, not to mention getting chosen for the chair, means telling people what they want to hear, regardless of sincerity.

Which means, of course, that he is chosen for the coveted seat on the machine. Unfortunately for him, the Jake Busey character, a religious zealot, blows up the machine killing the scientist in the process, and ending the attempt to contact those who sent the message.

But not totally, because the John Hurt character, who has already assisted Ellie in her career with funding, reveals that a second machine was being constructed, and that she has been chosen for the chair.

And so Ellie journeys to another solar system through a series of worm holes until she lands on a beach uncannily resembling the beach mentioned in a conversation between her and her father, who just as coincidentally shows up to greet her.

Not to be deterred, Ellie realizes that the aliens have accessed her memories and created this scene with her father to make her more comfortable. Think about that for a second. An alien culture with no ties to Earth, whisks a member of that planet to a far away destination with a focus on making her feel safe.

Wouldn't it be nice if we treated those people who come to our country, looking for opportunity and freedom with such compassion?

Anyway, when Ellie returns to Earth, she is alarmed to be told that she never left, that the pod she was in passed through the machine straight to the ocean below, and that the whole process took seconds, as opposed to the 18 hours that she experienced.

At this point, I am reluctant to reveal the ending as in some way it is disappointing, although typical of the thinking that seems to hold sway in certain types of government officials. 

Contact was released in 1997, almost thirty years ago. Despite the time distance to today, there is much relevance to the film, particularly in the areas of skepticism of science and the relegation of women and minorities to secondary roles in the world.

While the movie does not delve into the conflict between religion and science as represented by the Rob Lowe character, who is depicted as someone less interested in living his religion and more interested in using his religion to control people, and tell them who god hates, it is certainly illustrated in the Jack Busey character who kills himself while destroying the machine. 

Strange how, while he is clearly portrayed as an evil person, consumed by ideology and violence, he puts his money where his mouth is and dies for his beliefs. In the past I would have preferred hypocrisy over violence, but lately I have been wondering if people who pretend to be religious but spew hate are actually far worse than the zealot who uses violence to make his point.

Too bad we even have to think about that choice.

The other obvious relevance is the anti-science attitude that has engulfed many sections of society, from those who wish to jail the scientists who developed the strategies that reduced the spread of COVID, to those who actively spread misinformation about vaccines, to even the growing percentage of Americans who doubt our landing on the moon, or who think the Earth is flat.

In some ways, the anti-science attitudes demonstrated in Contact were represented as fringe, even comical. How have we regressed so much that today's conspiracy theories have such sway, even to the current head of the health department of our country, not to mention the occupant of the White House. Fringe has become mainstream.

As for inequality, the theme of Ellie being denied recognition for her talents, and even for her discovery, plays out a few times. The man for whom she has real affection, Palmer Joss, sabotages her chance at the chair by using his intimate knowledge of Ellie's disbelief in God during the hearing to select who will represent the world. At the end, he admits to her that he undermined her chance, not because he was concerned that someone with more faith should be selected, but because he loved her and didn't want to lose her. 

He puts his sense of happiness over hers.

At least the scientist who lies to the committee about how someone who believes in God should represent Earth, is transparent in his deception. 

Both men represent that age old theory that the man knows best, for himself and everyone else.

As for minority representation in the movie, there are few people of color other than the Angela Bassett character who represents the white house. (Bill Clinton is depicted as the president, with actual real statements from him which loosely refer to what is happening in the movie, without specifying contact with aliens.)

Unfortunately, she plays along with the James Wood character at the end when the truth of what happened is revealed. Can you say compromise yourself to be a part of the establishment?

For no other reason, Contact is worth seeing again, as it asks some questions without real answers. Makes you think without restricting any thoughts. Perhaps even inspires you to imagine that we might be just one of thousands of lifeforms in the universe and so, like two fleas fighting over who owns the dog, we might want to expand our sense of us and them, whereby us is every Earthling.

And maybe even seek leaders who embrace diversity, equity and inclusion knowing that without such characteristics, we will never be able to interact with extraterrestrials, let alone continue to thrive on this pinpoint of rock in the vast expanse of the universe.

----

I have posted under the label "Movies and Life" a number of times in the past, most recently with my post about the Bob Dylan biopic. Here are links to a few other movies I have discussed, their relevance to life, and the lessons I derived from them.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/lucy.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/08/easy-rider.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/06/everyday-workers-and-walter-mitty.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/05/a-film-about-man-called-otto.html

Another Oval Office Circus Act

I saw a few clips of the meeting today in the Oval Office with the El Salvadorean president. The highlight, or extremely low light, was when he joked that he couldn't return the man mistakenly sent to his death camp, "How would I do it, smuggle him in?" was the gist of his response.

And of course, he was smiling as he said this, as if the illegal imprisonment of a man was some kind of laughing matter. Not to be outdone, Trump sat right beside him with that disgusting smirk that he displays when he thinks he has outsmarted everyone.

Contrast that sad performance with his tongue lashing of the Ukrainian president about a month ago when Trump was appalled that Zelensky would dare to try to educate him about the history of Russia-Ukraine relations, about how Putin has violated every ceasefire agreement, and about who started the war in the first place.

But, as is all so clear, Trump only has one yardstick for his affections and respect. If you kiss his ass. Zelensky refused, while Bukele has learned from Putin that if you praise Trump, you can get anything you want. 

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so horrific.

Think about it. Bukele thumbed his nose at America and the Supreme Court of the United States, but Trump and his Nazi cow of an attorney general sat there, nodding that they were impotent to force this Central American wanna be dictator to return a prisoner America is paying him to house. That's right, the self proclaimed master negotiator can't figure out a way to broker the return of someone costing the American taxpayers money to stay in El Salvador!

I guess that whole waste, fraud and abuse only applies to programs that the billionaire co-president doesn't like.

Trump is a joke that is no longer funny. He is a danger to America, a threat to our rule of law, and, frankly, a threat to the world's economy with his "tariff is the most beautiful word in the dictionary" nonsense.

As I have said many times, I will never understand how any everyday, working class American thinks that this president cares about them, and doesn't see that everything he does is for the super rich class which is destroying democracy with their use of the historically horrendous Citizens United decision, or, in some cases, merely to stroke his own ego.

If it is still possible for him to get a boner, he must get one every time he changes course on tariffs and causes world wide markets to plunge and soar, knowing he did it! At least Melania is spared.

The truly sad part is that all the enablers, from Mitch McConnell who stole a Supreme Court seat from Obama for his party and ideology, damn the country, to Mike Johnson who pretends to be a constitutional lawyer only when it aligns with Trump's sordid vision, to all the MAGA voters who have been duped by a reality TV star into thinking he is some kind of expert businessman, will suffer in the end, as we all will, just like poor Mike Pence who defended him tooth and nail for four years only to be thrown under the bus when he wouldn't violate the Constitution for him to remain in power.

Even sadder, when their lives are in turmoil, they may still worship at his feet, being too far gone to climb out of that rabbit hole and admit their mistake. Or to admit that Trump, while not the cancer that is eating away at our collective soul, illustrates that very cancer with his every royal decree (executive order). 

What is even more amazing, is that there will be Fox opinion hosts, as well as the even further right people on NewsMax, etc, who will actually defend the belief that the great almighty United States of America, can't get a prisoner sent by mistake to a far smaller, far less powerful and influential country to be returned. Not even by the Art of the Deal author!

And so the decline continues.

 

One Trump Voter's Remorse

While I may have mentioned that I am working part time now, I don't believe I have provided any details about the work. I am employed at a small chain grocery store, stocking shelves with the thrice weekly deliveries of grocery products. I work with a reasonable diversity of people in terms of age and gender. And, perhaps unlike some work environments, we did discuss politics during the run up to the November election.

So, it came as a surprise when one of the young men I work with admitted to me a few weeks ago that he had voted for Trump. I say surprised because in our discussions last year, he did not express any particular attraction to Trump, and considering that he is a college student struggling to pay tuition while living on his own, perhaps due to my experience with my children and their friends, I had assumed he was leaning towards Harris. 

The good news is that he was willing to admit to me that he regretted his vote, partly, I hope, because he knew I would not lose it over his admission, but also because I gathered that he couldn't discuss his sense of remorse with all that many people. 

One of the reasons for his unhappiness with his vote and the direction of the new administration, was purely selfish. He had been interviewed for a post office job late last year, a job which would provide a substantial raise, and was told that he would be hired in the near future. At this point, given the fact that the USPS is laying off thousands of employees, he is far from sure that it will still occur.

Many people complain that their vote doesn't matter, or that no matter who is elected, it won't effect their lives. Yet for my work friend, he knew for a fact that his choice in November might lead directly to the loss of this job. 

There were other things that have transpired in these first few months that he didn't like, so his regret wasn't just for personal reasons.

When I asked him why he voted for Trump, I framed it as a request to know why he didn't vote for Harris, as, from my perspective, I think it important for democrats to understand the reasons why it wasn't obvious to other voters that Harris was the better option.

His answer was multi-leveled. He didn't know enough about Harris, which I accept as a legitimate answer. He wasn't happy with inflation which he blamed on Biden's policies, and then connected to Harris. Again understandable, if not the full truth of why inflation occurred.

But then he alluded to the fact that so many of his friends, male friends, were excited about Trump. He knew that some of Trump's bravado and pseudo-macho attraction was superficial, but was reluctant to not be "that guy" who went against the grain and voted for Harris. 

This was what surprised me, in that he was tacitly admitting that it was peer pressure that led to his ultimate voting decision, even though he wasn't fully on board with his friend's attraction to Trump's rhetoric. 

What is really ironic, is that this was his first presidential election. His first foray into advanced citizenship, and he was already disappointed with the choices as he was not thrilled with either option. And additionally, he seemed genuinely upset both with the choice he ultimately did make, and the state of America due to that choice.

And that is what bothers me the most, that he is already skeptical about our current version of democracy, after only one experience. Skeptical that democracy is working as it should, skeptical that both parties seem focused on what is good for them, not what is good for the country.

Even more than that, while I accept my sense of hopelessness, or I should say lack of optimism for our country's near term future, I have a hard time accepting such gloom by a young adult with the vast majority of his life to come.

Perhaps that is the silver lining to my friend's pessimistic outlook. Perhaps he will do more research when 2028 rolls around. Or communicate a contrary perspective to those friends who leaned so heavily in Trump's favor. 

Do I think my friend is one of the far too many millions of Americans who are labelled low information voters, regardless of party preference? Not necessarily. But I do think that had he done a little more research, listened more carefully when Trump attacked the federal work force, and expressed his love for tariffs, he may have voted differently. And if we assume that there are tens of thousands of other Americans who fell victim to nonchalance when it comes to civic duty, or just plain lies and falsehoods, maybe the election of 2024 will be a catalyst for a more informed voter.

Why, Joe, are you expressing a sense of optimism?

Well, maybe guarded hopefulness.

As I sit here, after the last few days of a bloodbath in the stock markets, there has been a slight rebound. Did we hit the bottom already? Was that the step back before two big steps forward? Will my friend reconsider his regret if the post office calls him next week, or if he attains a different job to help him finance his young life, school tuition, etc?

I'll let you know.

In the meantime, maybe the best lesson I can take from my friend's revelation is that perhaps I should have communicated more reasons why I was voting for Harris, as opposed to reasons not to vote for Trump. Was that our biggest fault, that democrats in general did not give the low information or independent voter more valid and compelling reasons to vote for Harris? We certainly had a list as long as one's arm of reasons not to vote for Trump, but maybe all that talk was just chalked up to political rhetoric and partisan party politics.

Certainly, those members of the Cult of Trump were never going to be swayed to desert their leader. But perhaps a better approach to those center right and center left people who voted Biden in 2020, or those who were voting for the first time, may have helped Harris, and other down ballot democrats, win the day.

Should there be a midterm election, and I am far from positive of that eventuality, it may be enough to take back the House by just pointing out how awful the current administration is performing. But a dose of positive messaging from the dems should also be employed to sway those voters like my friend who were on the fence in 2024 but ultimately chose the GOP candidates.

 

 

No Longer A Complete Unknown

Yesterday I watched the Bob Dylan biopic "A Complete Unknown". To be honest, I was a bit hesitant to watch it which was why we didn't go to a theater to see it when it first came out. 

As I said to a friend who did see it on the big screen, one of the  reasons for my reluctance was the actor portraying Dylan. Timothee Chalamet, while a fine actor, seems so young to me. Yes, reverse ageism, I know. Not that I have seen him in that many movies, but his performance in Dune, Parts 1 and 2, left me less than impressed. I thought Kyle Maclachlan's depiction of Paul Atreides was much better, although, again, my opinion is certainly biased as my memories of Dune, both the books and the1984 movie, is much more ingrained into my life. 

Anyway, in this case, I was very happy that I watched the movie, although more because I was very reflective as I watched it, less due to the movie's content and story line. Don't get me wrong, I experienced a bunch of strong emotions during the film. Chalamet's version of the Dylan classics Blowin' In The Wind, It's All Over Now Baby Blue, A Hard Rain's A-Gonna Fall, and Don't Think Twice, It's All Right were wonderful, but nothing hit me like the reenactment of Dylan's appearance at one of the Newport Folk Festivals when he sang The Times They Are A-Changing assisted by the crowd who sang the chorus with him. 

The scene just by itself reminded me of how sad I occasionally feel about being born a decade or so too late, to have missed the "real" 60's. Those festivals when all of our folk and early rock idols performed on one stage, just beginning to hone their skills, and find their voices being one of the things I regret having missed.

Of course, had I been born in 1949 or 1951 I would not have missed the Vietnam draft, which ended in 1973, three years before I became eligible in 1976.

Would I have protested the war? Fled to Canada to avoid the draft? Or worse, been unaware of the seismic changes that were happening, but not necessarily well documented for many Americans, and certainly not universally approved by the parents, and "establishment" of the time?

I often ponder about how people my age, who spent their late teens and early twenties during the mid 70's through the early 80's, especially those in my circle of friends who were admonished and punished by society at large, and the adults in their world in specific, for our rule breaking, law bending, and outright rejection of the norms of the day, can be so conservative now. 

Was is just normal adolescence and young adult rebelliousness? A phase, soon to be replaced with the responsibilities (and if you follow the rules rewards) of adulthood?

I recently had a conversation with two different people about the tendency for people to become more conservative with age. Both disagreed with me, at first, to which I responded that they may have been the exceptions that proved the rule. I didn't respond with the theory that birds of a feather, flock together, meaning that perhaps my choice of whom I converse with reflects my own bias of being left leaning as it is certainly true that I struggle to have meaningful encounters with people who support the current administration, which I consider radical right. And the exact opposite of the teachings of Jesus Christ, himself being the epitome of liberal thought and woke behavior.

At the end of those two discussions, both people admitted that they understood my point that people tend to become more conservative with age because they have more to lose, possessions, comforts, even family. 

For instance, I didn't mention to one of those two, my mother, who has told me more than once of her experiences as a young lady with legal discrimination, in specific, when she would sometimes ride in the back of a bus with those who were required by law to do so, that she herself exhibited a lean away from her moral base when she and my father moved us from Mount Airy, a section in Philly, to the suburbs when the neighborhood started to "change". Of course, their participation in the white flight from cities in the late 60's and 70's was to protect their children. I do not doubt their decision was based on love for us, but what or whom did we need to be protected from?

As I have written more than once, I have lost faith in the American electorate at this point. Do not see a good outcome on the horizon, at least in the short term. But if I am to be consistent with that belief, then I must challenge myself to question my romantic perception that I would have protested the Vietnam War, or fled to Canada, or been an active demonstrator against the immoral actions of our government at the time, if I am not prepared to do something now, when I consider the current administration's actions as mean, amoral, vindictive, cruel, and certainly un-American as I define that term.

Talk is cheap, as they say, although with this administration, even speech they don't like is under attack. Fortunately, my readership is minuscule compared to heroes like Liz Cheney, so the chance of any actual suppression against me is highly unlikely.

So, while that might make it easier for me to continue to attack the president's all out war on decency and democracy, it doesn't require me to have some skin the game.

It is easy to be outspoken or a rebel, or anti-establishment when one is a complete unknown.

In Bob Dylan's case, he never really became mainstream despite his success. And, in fact, when he evolved, musically, and took heat from those who just wanted to hear the songs they loved, or grew up with, as those audiences did in the movie at his last Newport Folk festival when they booed him for going electric, he didn't care. He played the music he wanted to play, that meant something to him, and in a style that reflected his changing personality and outlook on life. 

Unlike so many artists who dilute their message for money or fame, Dylan, for the most part, did not, to his credit but certainly also to his detriment. 

So, again, what am I prepared to do?

Attend some protests? Get arrested? 

How about (potentially) sacrificing some financial security, to literally put my money where my mouth is?

I am pleased to say that we cancelled our Amazon Prime membership in protest of Bezos's refusal to allow the Washington Post to endorse a presidential candidate, Harris, to attempt to gain favor with Trump. 

We have also sold our shares of Amazon stock which was easy enough, but what about any mutual funds or ETFs which we might own that have Amazon in their portfolio, or even just 5% or less? Is that tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bath water? There are certainly many other stocks within such financial vehicles whose CEO's and/or stockholders have not kissed the ring.

A similar reasoning would apply to Tesla stock which again, may only represent a fraction of the dozens of companies in a mutual fund, yet makes me feel dirty and hypocritical knowing that I am helping Elon, if only in a microscopic way.

But there are many large corporations that are part of a balanced portfolio, or embedded in mutual funds and ETFs that invest in technology, consumer staples, or merely companies that provide consistent dividends, which are buckling to Trump's abhorrent executive order against DEI policies. Their compliance sickens me but enough to jettison those financial vehicles, and, perhaps, some slice of our financial security?

Are there enough companies that are holding the line, or will even those currently resisting, eventually comply when pressured by their customers or share holders?

And what about Facebook, which I use everyday yet which has recently relaxed its moderation policies, same say in response to Zuckerburg's growing relationship with Trump. Do I stop using it in protest of Meta's new policies which clearly enable more hate speech, especially towards the LGBTQ+ communities. Or is it enough that I do not share such hateful opinions, or that I unfriend acquaintances who do so, which I have done, twice in the last year.

Reflection. 

The good news is that I know what I should do if I were to be consistent with my posts, and my values. But do I have the will to follow through, or like most people, decide that what one person does is of little consequence, so why bother?

------

I have referred to Bob Dylan at least three times in the past. The first time was after hearing his song God On Our Side. I posted the following along with the words to that song in December of 2015. Here is a link to that post. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/12/god-on-our-side.html 

The second time was in May of last year after listening to Dylan's iconic Blood On The Saddle CD in my car. The song, called Idiot Wind, reminded me immediately of the so many inane utterances that have emanated from Donald Trump's mouth. Here is that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/05/idiot-wind.html

Finally, I again referenced Dylan's God On Our Side song, but this time without posting the words, instead referencing the general belief by all people on both sides of any war that they invariably believe that their particular god is not only supportive of the violence they are committing against fellow Earthlings, but encourages them to do so. Here is that final link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/11/gods-side.html

Dear Joe Biden

I have only posted once before under the title Joe Biden. As I reflect on that, compare it to the more than twenty times I have posted about the Trump Presidency, I must honestly accept that I was not as critical of the Biden Administration as I should have been, that I engaged in a sort of myopic, even tribalistic perspective.

Of course, I could excuse this lack of criticism with the simple reality that compared to Trump, I agreed with most of Biden's policies. That while I saw in Trump a mean, selfish, poor excuse for a human, I considered Biden a good man who did not always make the proper choice. I guess I was able to excuse his mistakes with the reasoning that he was doing his best, what he thought was best for America, while Trump only does what is good for Trump.

That being said, I read the other post I wrote about Biden. Here is a link, written just after his presidential victory in November 2020.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/11/congratulations-to-joe-biden.html 

At the time, and this was before the horrific events of January 6th, 2021, I advocated for Biden and the Democrats, and all of America, frankly, to begin the process of ignoring Trump, the belief being that his love of attention, if not rewarded, would drive him out of the spotlight. 

But more than that, the post discussed the pandemic. 

There is much written in the world of psychology about the power, for good and bad, of denial and suppression. When I wrote that post, only (what a sad adjective to use) 250,000 Americans had been killed by COVID, less than 25% of the eventual total. We were still months away from a vaccine. Very few children were back to school, nor would they be for quite a while. Masks were as commonplace as shirts and pants. Remote work was gaining in popularity but still a novelty for most Americans. Supply chain shortages were prevalent, although at least we could get toilet paper.

I truly believe that historians will debate at what level, not whether or not, America has experienced some type of mass denial or suppression of that time. That, rather than analyze the foundational reasons for why a zoonotic disease was able to spread around the world, killing millions of people, a million here in America alone, we pretend it didn't happen, and worse, suppress the reality that the president at the time was totally ineffective in establishing a nation wide program to reduce the sickness and death, at one point musing on TV that perhaps we could figure out a way to inject bleach safely as a way to combat the disease. 

That not only didn't we hold him accountable for the fact that more people died in America from the pandemic than anywhere else, and that our mortality rate was towards the bottom of all nations on Earth, and worse than almost all of the "civilized" countries, but that we blamed the consequences of the pandemic, the supply chain shortages and interruptions, and inflation on the following administration. And worse, far worse, rather than praising the vaccine that assisted in the world's recovery, we now have an anti-vaccine movement that is so strong that we have one such advocate in charge of our nation's health and human services department which oversees the very people that worked so hard to provide us with that vaccine.

But perhaps that is not enough to excuse Biden for his mistakes. So let's review them.

As the consummate politician that he was, Biden believed far too much in the theory that politics, the art of negotiating with those across the aisle to create laws and policies that helped most people, was still in force in America. I would have thought that he would have learned that during his time as Obama's VP, or perhaps he thought that having a common enemy, COVID, would unite the two parties to put aside their differences.

He was dead wrong. So, while he spent a lot of time and energy, for good reason, getting the vaccine in as many arms as possible, he neglected the border. And when it became clear that he needed to act, he fell back to his politician instincts, and again spent far too long negotiating with the GOP to fashion an immigration policy that was never going to be approved as long as Trump controlled the party. Then, when he finally acted unilaterally, it was far too late, the proverbial closing the barn door after the horse had left.

As for inflation, he spent too much time pretending it would dissipate on its own. Not that there weren't many economists who thought the same, but his focus should have been on communicating with the American public that he felt their pain. And yes, that perhaps that last stimulus check could have been more precisely directed, not distributed as widely as it was.  

I was also quite disturbed by his tacit endorsement of Israel's slaughter of Palestinians as revenge for the atrocities of October 7th, 2023. Clearly, anyone who made the short term choice to register their complaint about Biden's handling of this crisis by withholding their vote for Harris, has been proven wrong, considering Trump's outrageous comments of forcing the Palestinians to go to other countries, or that America might create some kind of new Riviera where they used to live. 

Immigration and inflation sunk the Biden administration and the party as a whole, not necessarily because it was their fault, it was partly, but because they didn't act decisively enough when it came to illegal immigration, and did not connect or pay attention enough to working class Americans in the case of inflation.

But his biggest mistake was not adhering to his original plan of being a one term president. Again, perhaps he didn't consider that Trump, who had been rejected so resoundingly in November of 2020, would maintain his hold on the GOP, especially after stoking an attack on the capitol building through his election results denials and lies. Still, he should have made it clear sometime in 2022 that he wouldn't seek another term. And, without endorsing any candidate, he should have provided a clean slate for the Democrats to have an open primary campaign so that the electorate could make the best choice. 

While it may be true that whomever emerged from the primaries would have still had immigration and inflation as anchors around their neck, they may have been able to fashion a response that could have separated themselves from Biden and provide an alternative to both Biden and Trump, while Harris, out of loyalty or lack of vision, could not.

Of course, this criticism about Democrats, that rather than act, they spend too much time trying to convince everyone that they are right, is nothing new. Whether one blames it on the fact that the Democratic  tent is bigger, holds a wider slice of opinions, or just that they are not willing to storm the castle, as the GOP faithful demonstrated on Jan 6, is besides the point. 

The DEM approach of two steps forward, one step back is bad enough, but far more acceptable to where we seem to be now, barely one step forward, a bunch of steps back.  I would say that had Biden acted more like Trump, declared a mandate for change (after all, Biden's electoral college victory was similar, plus he had a far bigger popular vote victory), and made things happen, I might sound hypocritical, but perhaps that is the only tactic that works today.

It is one reason why the attacks on Tesla vehicles, even the violent ones, do not bother me as they would have before Trump, seeing that the GOP recognizes no restrictions on their behavior, as long as it can be wrapped in an American flag and called patriotic.  

I originally thought of composing this post because of a dream I had about Joe Biden a few nights ago. In it, I pleaded with Joe to go public concerning some of Trump's more outlandish claims, especially the one about Biden's pardons not being valid because of the use of the autopen, or because he didn't sign them at all, being mentally incapacitated.

Don't get me wrong, I don't expect Biden to start appearing on the news shows every week, calling out Trump and the GOP for their attacks on democracy, careless tariff threats, and abuse of the federal government's spending power by attacking anyone who disagrees with Trump's "vision", not to mention their open threats against any judge who interprets the law differently than they, but I do expect him to appear a few times in the next six months to both contradict the attacks on his mental acuity, and to present an obvious alternative to the insanity of the current administration.

But more importantly, as I emphasized in my dream conversation with Biden, he must refrain from attacking the voters who elected Trump. In fact, I encourage other Democrats as well to focus their criticisms on the GOP, its policies of meanness to citizens and non-citizens, its attacks on the federal work force, and the myriad other objectionable actions on display on a daily basis. But stop attacking the voters. 

Perhaps even stop attacking the MAGA movement itself. While I still have some semblance of hope that like the McCarthy era which featured blatant Constitutional violations against Americans considered not "American" enough whether due to their alleged association with Communism or being gay, or just disagreeing with McCarthy's perspective of what Americans should think, the MAGA movement will also burn itself out as the people labelled as anti-American begins to include everyday citizens who just have a different opinion, and who believe in their rights to express those opinions. 

In the meantime, Biden, Harris and every Democrat who believes in our experiment with democracy needs to continue to speak out, whether it be monthly or daily. 

That is the message I gave to the ex-president in my dream, and that is my emphasis with this post. 

Anything short of a strong, continued series of statements which present facts, and an alternative vision, (and that is critical as well), will only extend our current path towards an autocratic government. 

Also, we need to separate the MAGA loyalists from the super rich who are aligning themselves with Trump and his movement, not because they really believe in its tenets, but because they know they can use the movement's energy to enrich themselves, and lock down control of where we are heading as a country, and who will, and who will not benefit from that change in direction.

As my dream ended, my final advice was for Biden to dig out those dark, aviator sunglasses, and embrace, at least for the next year or so, that badass personality that passed by much too quickly during his term.

 

 

 

 

Social Insecurity

If you have read any of my recent posts, you know I am not a fan of the current administration, nor of the use of DOGE to slash federal spending. While like the vast majority of Americans, I am all for finding waste, abuse and fraud in our economy, whether in our public or private sector spending, I don't understand why some Americans seem giddy when they read stories about tens of thousands of federal workers losing their jobs regardless of work performance, or even regardless of union or contract protections. 

It seems like just another example of this administration's plan to divide America by labeling certain segments of our population as enemies, or less than human, or certainly not American enough (which really means don't demonstrate fealty to Trump), and then to be blatantly cruel to them, with the support of those lucky enough (for now) to not be a part of one those demonized groups.

Which brings us to my topic, social insecurity.

Our Social Security System came about after the Great Depression, as part of the New Deal policies of the FDR Administration. For those who conveniently forget, before the establishment of this system, the elderly in our country were dependent on their families to take care of them once they no longer could work. This was also true to for those born with limited mental and/or physical capabilities.

It is difficult to know exactly how many Americans died during the years from late 1929 until the early 1940's when the war effort revitalized our economy, but the totals I encountered were in the millions. 

While we can debate whether creating a system which established a forced saving program so that people would have a guaranteed source of income when no longer able to work was a wise choice, it is certainly true that millions of men and women who survived the Great Depression, and who contributed to the defeat of Hitler and the Axis Powers, benefited from this program, as well as those born in the aftermath of WW2 who helped provide the labor which created our infrastructure which was built in the 1950's and 1960's. 

Monthly Social Security checks enable millions of people in their mid 60's and older to have options. For many who did not save as much as desirable, those SS checks raise them above the poverty line, and allow them to avoid making choices between buying food or medicine. 

That's why when I hear millionaires call Social Security a ponzi scheme, as Elon Musk recently did, or hear the current Commerce  Secretary, Howard Lutnick, say that only fraudsters would complain if their SS check wasn't received, it becomes all too clear that Trump and his ilk will say or do anything to convince low information Americans that it is time to take a sledgehammer to Social Security.

Whether by making up statistics about millions of dead Americans or undocumented aliens receiving benefits, or pretending that half of seniors who admit to living paycheck to paycheck are somehow at fault for their dependence on this security net, the super rich will justify their attacks on the Social Security system just to line their own pockets as they "balance" the budget to maintain their tax breaks.

Back in 2011, I posted four times under the topic of Solutions. My intent at the time was to address the problems of the day in forthcoming posts. While I didn't specifically follow that line of thought, I have presented ideas to address the issues which face us over the years.

Here are links to those four posts if interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/solutions-1.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/solutions-beginning.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/solutions-1_15.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/08/old-testament-thinking.html 

--

Clearly, we need to address the impending funding crisis that faces our entitlement programs. It is estimated that both Social Security and Medicare will need to reduce benefits within the next ten years if there are no changes to its collection and/or distribution systems. This is due primarily because we are living longer than we did upon the inception of these safety net programs, and have had a reduced birth rate since the boomers were born between 1946 and 1964.

Towards full transparency, I reached my full retirement age (FRA) a few months ago when I turned 66 and 8 months old. For those of you who are unaware, the last time the rules for receiving SS benefits was changed was during Reagan's presidency. At that time, it had become obvious that some tweaking needed to be done to ensure solvency, as it is today.

Among other changes, FRA was adjusted so that those people born in 1957 needed to wait until they reached 66 and 6 months old, those born in 1958, like myself had to wait until 66 and 8 months, those born in 1959 reached their FRA at 66 and 10 months old, and anyone born in 1960 or beyond had their FRA changed to 67. 

This doesn't mean that you have to wait until those FRA mileposts, you can still start drawing social security benefits at age 62, but it does mean that your benefits will be that much less, a full 5 years worth less if your FRA is 67. For most Americans, that difference, drawing benefits at 62 rather than 67, is as much as $1000 per month.

Of course, many Americans can't retire at 62 since our antiquated health system ties health insurance to your employer, so many people wait until 65 to begin drawing social security benefits to align with their qualifying for Medicare. But again, if their FRA is 67, they are receiving less than their full benefit than if they had waited until they reached their FRA.

Again, full disclosure, my public sector service job provided me with a pension, as well as health benefits even after I retired, as a bridge to Medicare, so I was able to retire at age 63 1/2 with health benefits and a pension, both which contributed to me having the option of "early" retirement, an option, sadly, that the vast majority of working class Americans do not have.

When I tell people that I am fortunate to have a pension primarily because I worked as a public sector employee which had collective bargaining agreements provided by unions, that basically I am lucky that I sacrificed short term pay while dealing with, at times, a convoluted system related to promotions, I always emphasize that despite those shortcomings, I am extremely grateful that I spent over 30 years as a public sector employee which provided me with much better options for retirement, and health coverage before Medicare.

I especially make this point to those who bash unions when they regurgitate the talking points of the rich who prefer sheep as employees who are afraid to demand livable wages, decent health benefits, sick and vacation time, and protections from unlawful termination. 

You know, all the things that Musk and Trump are doing, illegally, to the federal work force, just as they have in their private sector businesses. 

So, all that being said, and in association with my 2011 Solutions posts, here are details of my plan to fix social security.

First, social security was envisioned by FDR to "give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against the loss of a job and against poverty-ridden old age."

My plan, first and foremost, emphasizes the "average citizen" reference in FDR's vision.

Put bluntly, we need to stop payments to Americans who earn over six million dollars a year. 

But they paid into it, Joe, so they deserve it, don't they? No, as their duty as an American, someone who loves their country, who considers America the greatest country on the planet, it is a small sacrifice to make to provide for their fellow Americans who were not as lucky to be born rich, or did not have a superior business acumen. After all, since the max social security benefit is a little over $5000, a month, I am sure that those earning over 6 million dollars a year can live without $60,000 from the government, which represents 1% of their income, don't you?

Since Musk and his DOGE team have indicated that they want our IRS and Social Security records to find waste, fraud and abuse, and since they are the smartest tech people on the planet, I am sure they can find those who would fall into that category and stop their checks under the guise that such a plan addresses waste, waste being giving money to people who don't need it.

On the front end, I would immediately raise the level where collecting social security taxes ceases. Just to review, there are people, like almost everyone who is reading this, and everyone they know who have the social security tax (FICA) deducted from every pay check, all year long, while there are those who have it deducted only a few times, in January, and then not again until the following January.

For 2025 that number is about $176,000. So if you earn $176,000 a paycheck, times 26 pay periods a year, your total salary is a bit over $4.5 million a year. So people in that pay category pay their  FICA tax once per year, let that sink in.

I would immediately raise that limit so they pay their FICA tax at least for three months, which would equate to a limit of $176,000 times 6, or about $1 million.

Then I would raise that limit by $500,000 each year for 5 years which would result in the FICA tax stopping at the $4 million a year salary. After that, keep raising that limit by $100,000 a year for at least another ten years.

Those moves, by themselves, would most likely not fix the problem. There needs to be some more means testing so that those who receive social security payments truly need that money so in addition to eliminating payments to people making over $6 million a year, I would only provide a percentage of payments to those making over $3 million a year, so half, or up to $30,000 a year, again sticking with the 1% of total income baseline I referred to above.

This 1% rule could be applied right down the line. So that even people who earn $1 million a year in income, could collect up to $10,000 a year in social security, no more. That's about where the point of demarcation begins for the top 1% of wage earners in America.

Most people don't know that when social security first became taxable in 1984, there was a ceiling set for SS payments before taxes kicked in, $25,000 for a single filer, $32,000 for a couple. Unfortunately, that number has not been changed in forty years so we need to adjust it higher, immediately, then add a cost of living increase for every year going forward.

I would change it to at least $50,000 for a single filer, $70,000 for a couple to reflect the median income for seniors today. By the way, doing that would enable Trump to check off a campaign promise to reduce taxes on seniors, without applying the rule to all income groups which is just another give away to the rich.

Again, full transparency, my wife's social security benefits are taxed because we are fortunate enough to still earn a comfortable living through my pension, part time work, and an inheritance. While I may find her SS payments are taxed a bit less with the increase I've proposed, it would benefit millions of seniors who currently earn above that $25,000 for single filers, $32,000 for couples range. 

Is that enough? Perhaps not, but I am far more in favor of a plan which removes people from the social security rolls who could live with 99% of their current income, which collects more FICA taxes from those who can afford it, and which provides a much fuller benefit for those seniors whose income is below the median average, than just raising the FRA for people born since 1990.

We are already seeing that many people of my generation who are in their 60's are retiring, and drawing social security, before they reach their FRA, which means they are sacrificing bigger payments for money now, and which is partially why so many boomers are still working as they find that their social security payments aren't stretching as far as they thought. It is not hard to imagine that it won't get any easier for them when they cant' work. 

This lesson should remind us that increasing the FRA for all people, regardless of their work history, as was done in 1984, penalizes those Americans who work in blue collar jobs which entails more wear and tear on their bodies. 

Along that line, while I am not sure how it would be accomplished, perhaps the FRA for those born after 1990 (or whatever year is chosen) could be increased based on the actual description of the work they performed. Or maybe, since there may be some classifications which are nebulous as to how much physical work they demanded, the FRA could be tied to income. 

For instance, if you average an income that pays out a social security benefit in the top 30% of people in the system, your FRA is another year later. And if in the top 20%, a second year, and in the top 10% a third year. I am sure that the numbers people among us could develop something similar to this that would save back end money yet still provide benefits to those who can't wait that extra year or two to collect their full amount, just from a physical fitness standpoint. 

Juxtaposed next to the current attack on the social security system by the Trump Administration through reducing the number of people who help seniors navigate the system, changing the rules for contacting the system, then closing the offices where people are now supposed to go, my proposal emphasizes means testing to alter how social security taxes are collected and how benefits are paid.

Means testing, not mean policies.

Here is a link to a post I wrote in 2017 along these lines during the debate about the changes to the tax system which produced the current tax rules that disproportionately benefited the rich, and which now have to be extended. We didn't learn our lesson then, lower taxes on the rich did not produce a balanced budget, no where near it, yet here we are again, debating which segment of our population that needs it most, should lose benefits so that the rich maintain their tax breaks. It would be comical, if not so sad; just another indication of the decline of America.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/11/means-testing-not-mean-policies.html