Iran Bombing

So we have bombed Iran and severely limited their ability to create a nuclear weapon. Now what?

Before beginning this post, I read a number of articles about the decision to execute the plan, about the evidence for and against the premise that Iran was "weeks away" from achieving the capability to create a nuclear bomb, and the possible ramifications of our intervention, militarily, at this time.

Like most Americans, those opinions were overwhelmingly in favor of the President's decisive action, while also expressing admiration for our military's impressive ability to execute such an elaborate plan without (apparently) the Iranians knowing what was imminent. There were even decoy planes!

And, while we know that Iran will respond in some way, perhaps by missile attacks on the various American bases in the area as was already done, or by strangling the flow of oil through the Straight of Hormuz, or simply by activating its proxies to engage in small, but deadly assaults on Americans, tourists, military personnel, business interests, etc, we hope that both sides are content with "appropriate" responses, as opposed to ones which escalate the situation.

Of course, how Americans and our president define "appropriate" on the part of Iran, and then by us should one of their efforts result in the loss of American life, is hardly predictable.

Unfortunately, that is a big problem, the idea that America, in general, and Trump in particular, have a say in how Iran reacts to being attacked. Certainly, if America was the victim of an unprovoked air raid on our infrastructure, we would not give a hoot how our enemies graded our response, yet we maintain the assumption that we have a right to evaluate Iran's response as appropriate or not.

This, of course, is nothing new. America has been arrogant in our relations with our friends and rivals for decades, and even more so since Trump's appearance on the political scene.

Still, again, just to be clear, President Trump accomplished something that every president since Reagan has wanted to do, but did not, and not because they were concerned about achieving the goal of hampering or destroying Iran's nuclear weapon goals, but because they were worried about what might have happened afterwards. 

Whether Trump calculated that Iran was at its weakest after the last week of missile strikes by Israel, as well as the dozens of assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, in addition to the fall of the Assad government in Syria, which created the perfect opportunity to strike, or whether he believes that "strength through superior power" is the only mantra that a country which possesses the greatest military on the planet should follow, he didn't hesitate, nor did he "run it up the flagpole" for consent or advice by informing our allies, or the other side of the aisle (there is some evidence that a few GOP Congressmen were informed).

Or perhaps because his birthday bash was overshadowed by the five million or so No Kings" protests which occurred the same day, and so he approved the attack to win back the narrative. 

Whatever the reason, he acted strongly, with the certainty that he was right, no doubt.

Clearly a trait which Americans respect, and, to be honest, one which I wish more Democrats would emulate.

But was he right?

The premise for our military action is that Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon, will immediately use it against the West, most likely Israel, but also, possibly, the Great Satan, America.

We have been told this for decades, so much so that it is a given among most people, those with the knowledge of Iranian thinking and the rest of us who hear it over and over and over again.

And why wouldn't we believe it when it is simple enough to google speeches by the various Iranian mullahs and leaders who call for the destruction of Israel and America, and easy enough to find videos of Iranians burning American flags while chanting death to America as they march in the streets.

Of course, we are also told that North Korea would use their nuclear weapons if provoked, as they are certainly no friend of the West. And, the country with the largest number of nuclear warheads, Russia, has often threatened the use of their arsenal if certain events occur. Plus, the always-at-each-other countries of India and Pakistan have nuclear capability, yet have not used them against each other, despite their constant bickering and aggression towards each other.

https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

And, finally, we have the only country in history to have actually deployed a nuclear weapon on a civilian target, twice, the United States of America.

Would Iran actually use their weapon if they develop one? It is clearly an act which would result in their own destruction. Still, I am in no position to know for sure. Perhaps the end of the world would work for them as they may sincerely believe that something akin to the rapture would result in their salvation. But that is not dissimilar to some evangelicals who seem all to eager for the end times, some who actually believe that Trump is here to accomplish such an event.

The question then is, would the concept of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, that has, allegedly, kept America and Russia from lobbing warheads at each others' cities, not be in effect for Iran? And if so, why not?

There is a Sting song, called "Russians" in which he hopes that deploying a nuclear weapon would be "such an ignorant thing to do, if the Russians love their children too". 

Do we not believe that Iranians love their children any less than the Russians, or Israelis, or those of us who live in America?

We just can't take that chance, is the most common response to such a query. Fortunately, we don't apply that same assumption to the leaders of other countries that fund terrorism around the world, North Korea and Russia to name two. If so, we might have already tested the MAD concept by now.

Additionally, did we actually "obliterate" their ability to create a nuclear weapon, as the president stated in his late night address? 

As of this post, there has not been any radioactivity detected in the areas around the sites which we bombed. Does that mean the enriched plutonium was moved in anticipation of the attack? If nothing else, after a week of air attacks by Israel, there is some sense to thinking that Iran might have moved the fruits of their efforts, along with the scientists who brought them those results. 

Or perhaps they have one, or more, other sites at which their nuclear program has been in development. After all, just because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been allowed to inspect the facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, doesn't mean the Iranians (who we distrust, correct), don't have another site.

Also, I read a really interesting and enlightening article about the advance of concrete over the past 30 years, specifically in response to the creation of the kind of "bunker busting" bombs used in the recent attack. In a nutshell, as the ability of these bombs to penetrate and destroy underground facilities increased, so did the recipes for concrete to withstand such bombs. In a classic, tit for tat, after each advancement on one side of the equation there was a response to negate it on the other side.

Did Iran have the latest and greatest concrete in place to withstand our current iteration of these large and powerful bombs? If so, and despite the obvious destruction at the sites, it may not take as much time to bring those sites back online, if the actual hardware was not reached.

Regardless of whether the sites were obliterated, badly damaged, or mostly spared due to the advancements in concrete, there will be, must be, negotiations between Iran and the US. 

But to honest, why should either party believe the other, trust the other to negotiate faithfully. To me, that is the big hole in Trump's approach, to frankly, any subject. He expects fear to be the ultimate motivator, and while, I don't necessarily blame him as it has worked for him, most of his life, and certainly works for him in regards to taking over the GOP, there is a limit to how far such a strategy will take you. And, ultimately, a limit to what can be accomplished as, the very first reaction that most people have to being told no, as the parent of any two year old knows, is to do it anyway, to resist. 

So, while it is certainly debatable to believe that an atomic non-proliferation agreement with Iran would be adhered to by Iran, at least we knew of the three sites we bombed because of previous diplomacy.

Now that we have attacked them unilaterally, what chance is there that any future agreement can be reached, or followed if signed. And, if they are able to achieve the ability to create a nuclear weapon in six months or six years, will we have a means towards convincing them to abide by the MAD philosophy, or will they actually use their weapon to enact revenge for the past weeks attacks on their sovereignty. 

At that point, then, will, just bomb them again, be our only option? 

After all, the real purpose of having a nuclear weapon is deterrence, the threat that it would be used if provoked. Isn't that why we maintain thousands of nuclear warheads, to send the message that we can end anyone (and everyone, sadly) if we are pushed? 

What is really ironic is that America has not deployed any nuclear weapons since WW2, even though we were attacked on 9/11. Does that simple fact make our stores of these powerful means of mass destruction a paper tiger? Or, are we just smart enough to know that a nuclear war has no winners. (Although, to be honest, I have little faith that Trump believes this axiom.)   

Finally, I struggle with the idea that America has the right to tell Iran that it can't have a nuclear program, for energy or self defense. We certainly would not tolerate any country telling us what forms of energy to create, what weapons to store, what military capabilities to enhance, yet presume the right to dictate to Iran. 

Why? 

Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and use it on Israel, as everyone fears, the consequence would be incomprehensible. Perhaps lead to a nuclear war. Devastation all around, although that destruction would primarily be the result of the USA and Russia launching their warheads.

It would be up to the leaders of America and Russia to decide to take a beat, or reject the tenets of MAD.

Considering that not that long ago, Trump berated Zelensky in the Oval Office, accusing his actions as the potential for a World War would it be ironic, or just typical of an act inspired by power and pride and hatred, should last weekend's attack on Iran prove to be the catalyst to just such horror. 

We can only hope that all three sides, Israel, Iran and America choose the least obvious, most common response to being attacked and hated.

Can you say Love thy neighbor as thyself? 

 

 

 

The Final Reckoning, Perhaps

Nora and I went to see "The Final Reckoning" a couple of weeks ago. For those of you who have not been following the last few Mission Impossible movies, this is supposed to be the last in the series.

First, we enjoyed the movie, although I felt that it was not quite as good as the last two, "Fallout" and "Dead Reckoning".

If you are planning to see the movie, you may want to wait until doing so to read the rest of this post, as I will discuss the ending. Not that it isn't easy to guess the ending of any these movies, as Ethan Hunt always catches the bad guy and/or averts world catastrophe.

One of the reasons I didn't enjoy the movie as much as some of the previous efforts was that I thought there were some moments when the movie plodded along, especially the extended time spent in the submarine.

Also, while so many of the exploits of Ethan and his team seem fantastical, the plan in which Hunt is to be rescued by the rest of the team as he floats in the frigid water under the Arctic ice, a rescue which requires exact timing and loads of luck, seemed unrealistic, again, even for this series of movies. Also, the rescue itself was not really displayed on screen; he is floating, presumably lifeless, underwater one scene then is being given mouth to mouth on an ice floe the next scene.

I mentioned this movie in my last post, in relation to our changing relationship with technology, AI in this case. This highlights another hard-to-believe scenario as we are supposed to accept that the only way to defeat The Entity, as the evil AI technology is called, is to act in a completely unpredictable way as any logical approach, any rational plan, will have already been predicted by The Entity, and therefore been addressed, before it even happens.

There is a bit of uncertainty among Hunt's team, when they wonder if The Entity had allowed Hunt to figure out where the key to disabling it was located, so that it could take it from him thereby eliminating the only plausible way to defeat it, but Hunt is, if nothing, the always positive action hero who believes that by gaining access to the key and allowing the Entity to acquire it is exactly what needs to be done to win the day. 

If The Entity was a person, one might call that playing to its over confidence, or bravado, or pride that no one could possible outsmart it.

In some ways, that could be a nice moral, be careful of technology, or a person, who claims to always know the best path, to always be the smartest person in the room.

When Grace, one of Hunt's teammates, suggests that perhaps they should try to control The Entity, rather than destroy it, I was impressed by Ethan Hunt's response in which he asks her who could be trusted to control such extreme power. I was further impressed when, after she answers, you, he immediately dismisses the thought, hopefully, in recognition that such power should never rest in the hands of any one person. Again, nice lesson considering the rhetoric emanating from the White House.

Sadly though, after a plan that requires Grace to react in the "blink of an eye", about 100 milliseconds, The Entity is captured in a hand held holding devise created by the Luther character, who, unfortunately, dies in the movie before he can witness the success, or failure of the mission.

I say sadly, because the device is given to Ethan Hunt, despite his claim that he didn't want it, and contrary to what everyone in authority is told, that The Entity was destroyed.

Since this is Hollywood, I assume that last scene leaves the possibility of another Final Reckoning in the future.

As I mentioned above, the Luther character dies in the movie. But at the end, there is a message from him to Ethan that he had recorded before he died. It is presented as a message that he made specifically for Ethan, knowing that when it was played he would be dead. It is a message of hope, that he had no doubt that Ethan would prevail because, as sappy as is sounds, he is a good man. Someone who has a history of actions that, at times, created the possibility of large scale death, but which were done to save just one person, often his wife who appears on and off in the series, or one of his teammates.

I took it as the belief, by Luther, that precisely because Ethan would risk many lives to save just one, he always knew that Ethan would prevail. That too many people justified the sacrifice of one, or the few, to save the many, as opposed to fighting with all one's strength to save each and every person because once it is accepted that this person, or those people, can be left to die, it is a short step to playing god and picking and choosing without conscience.

Again, analogous to the current administration's rounding up of all illegal immigrants to catch the really bad ones. It doesn't matter how many innocent lives are ruined in the course of that plan, as long as some criminals are removed from our country. Guilty until proven innocent one would think is not very American, but since when does the current president care about honoring the foundations of our country that has made it great.

Anyway, The Final Reckoning is certainly worth seeing as there are a number of thought provoking lessons that one could discern from the story, despite portions of the plot bordering on the truly impossible. 

 

2001 Revisited

I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey again a few days ago, again. I did a post about this movie back in 2017 which I have provided a link to below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/01/2001-reflection.html 

That post reflected on my perceived disappointment that those who were involved in that movie, the author of the book, Arthur C. Clarke, etc, but also all those who worked for NASA in the 1960's who were challenged by then President Kennedy to put a man on the moon, and did so, within the decade, must have felt when the actual year 2001 rolled around and the reality of our space age accomplishments were far less than what 2001, the movie, predicted.

I also commented on my personal disappointment that the cooperation between nations that was exhibited in the movie was no where near what we were experiencing in 2017. It was if we had forgotten the lessons of the two World Wars and were back on a path towards isolationism within certain countries and aggression by others via economic and military means.

This time, however, I was struck by the relationship between the astronauts in the movie and the computer, HAL, and how this dynamic has changed astronomically, in the last decades.

One of the lessons of 2001, was that when a computer with advanced logic and thinking skills is told to withhold information from the crew, it becomes paranoid, begins to suspect, in this case its human crew mates, as plotting against it through actions that endanger the mission. 

After a conversation between the two astronauts which occurs out of earshot of HAL, the computer kills the co-pilot during an EV, then turns off the life support machines of the three other crew members who have not been "awakened" yet. When asked why by the remaining human on board, HAL tells him that he was able to lip read that covert conversation, and that it was clear that the humans planned to disconnect him, an action that would clearly endanger their objectives. Remember, HAL has information that is not to be shared with the crew, so it is logical to the computer that the potential actions that the humans discussed were in direct conflict to the goals of the mission.

2001.. was released in 1969, over 55 years ago. While advanced computers with thinking skills were predicted at that time, we were no where near achieving such creations.

While everyone kind of assumed many blue collar jobs in the low wage industries were certainly on the chopping block, there are many who predict that AI, which is already being used to generate everything from college papers to automatic answers to Google queries, will also replace all kinds if white collar jobs in the not too distant future.

So, while our accomplishments in space as portrayed by 2001... are far from reality, the advancements in the science behind it, technology and computing, have produced a computer in everyone's hand (the cell phone), and a low level doctor on many wrists. 

My wife and I saw the last installment of the Mission Impossible movies a couple of weeks ago. (I plan to do my next post on that topic). Without taking anything from that post, the nemesis in this last movie is The Entity, a force which emerged in the previous Mission Impossible movies.

As in 2001.., the Terminator series, among others, the Final Reckoning portrays advanced AI abilities as a threat to humanity. Like Frankenstein's monster, we create a tool which is supposed to help us in some way, but we lose control over it and it becomes a threat.

I wonder if the current anti-science vein that has resulted in attacks on the various institutions that are science based, is tied, in part, to this fear. Certainly, vaccines that have been documented to have saved millions of lives in the last 100 years, are now being questioned, even condemned, as being unsafe, not just by those on the fringes of our society, but by some of the people in charge of our national health and disease fighting organizations.

It is such a severe contrast to the time of my childhood when the future was filled with wonderful inventions that would make life easier, provide more leisure time, remove humans from doing extremely dangerous jobs, perhaps even conquer some of our most deadly diseases. This dynamic has now been replaced with, at best, skepticism that those developing those life saving instruments have our overall interests at heart, at worst, that such advancements and technology are either just another way to make vast amounts of money or actually harmful, meant to reduce the populations of people not acceptable.

Advanced eugenics, if you like.

The ironic thing about eugenics is that most people would be in favor of, even rejoice at a science based breakthrough (such as the work with CRISPR) that would enable doctors to remove the faulty DNA which causes diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, MS, etc, yet shrink in horror when someone mentions eugenics due to its associations with the Nazis attempts to eliminate specific types of people. 

I posted about eugenics in 2015, link below.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/07/eugenics.html 

For me, it all seems to come back to the idea that we need to remember that it is possible to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. Respect for those in science who can think outside the box and develop tools that enable the rest of us to live better, while also acknowledging that, like any tool, that invention or advancement can be used improperly if not regulated or monitored.

In 2001.. the meaning of the monolith, that black rectangular thing that appears in the movie among the apes, and then appears again on the moon after humanity has established a presence there, seems to indicate that some extraterrestrial force exists that is monitoring, even directing, our progress on Earth.

I would prefer to think that humanity might be able to figure it all out on our own, without outside assistance, whether that aid comes from space or from heaven as it just seems too easy to excuse our mistakes, our inhumanity towards each other as out of our control. 

One more link, if I may. Created in late 2023, it discusses original sin, which is one explanation for why all of humanity is flawed, and in need of salvation. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/original-sin.html 

 

Protests, and Civil Disobedience

A few days ago, my wife and I decided to attend the local "No Kings" protest. Unrelated, however, my son was in town last night to stay over as he had agreed to help his friend move from our old neighborhood in Perkasie to the York, Pa area.

I mention this visit because JW and I had an hour long discussion last night about what it would take to change America from our current slide towards an authoritarian government. 

What was different about that late-night conversation, was that JW was more hopeful, citing the protests in Los Angeles as a sign that people were starting to wake up, while I was less so, a stark switch from most of our previous talks where he was less positive that there would be a strong enough push back from the electorate.

While we both remain frustrated by our two main political party's active restriction of other viable political parties, their dependence on monies from the super rich which then leads to policies that benefit them, and their lack of putting the everyday American first when governing, we do disagree in our perception of the democratic party as I still believe that the democratic party is more than just the lesser of two evils when deciding how to vote (not starkly less, but less).

He specifically blames the Dems for losing the 2024 election, which I partly agree with, as I have stated in previous posts, that our message was not clear enough, and that Harris did not separate herself enough from Biden's problems. But more so, I believe that the 2024 loss was more about the selfishness of the American electorate which is now OK with open cruelty to people that are different, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, etc, as long as their dozen eggs and gallon of gas cost $2.

It seems clear to me that hate is the best motivator for winning an election, while love/compassion is a distant second. That as long as we have a sickness in our collective souls, leaders like Trump will continue to win elections.

Which brings us to the protest we attended yesterday.

The good news is that it was well attended, despite the rainy weather. Certainly hundreds of people turned out, the majority with signs indicating their reluctance to allow a king to run our government. It was heartwarming, not just to see all the people there, but to witness the reaction by many of those who drove past the protest which lined both sides of the street. Lots of honking (for the Honk if you support Democracy signs), lost of waving, lots of smiles, lots of people using their phones to document the event.

While I certainly don't know what percentage of those who drove past did not know that this was a No Kings protest, and more specifically, that the local protest would be at that particular location, it seemed to me that many people were surprised to see all of us standing in the rain chanting "Dump Trump" and "No More Kings". And that a majority, while not overwhelming majority, supported our efforts.

Again, it made me feel a bit more hopeful. But is it enough?

Obviously, Trump will continue to assail the Constitution, will continue to deport illegal immigrants for no other reason that they entered America under the radar, with little regard to getting rid of the worse of the worse, as, I believe, many people who held their nose and voted for him, thought he would do.

It won't matter that hundreds of rallies were held in cities all around the country, attended by far more people than will be at his military fest/birthday bash. Trump will continue to demand that ICE deport a few thousand people, yes, they are people, by the way, from our country.

He will continue to spit in the face of Lady Liberty, will continue to equate racism with patriotism, and will continue to be supported by millions of Americans who think they are immune to the cruelty because they are white, or male, or wear a red hat.

So again, is today's protests enough?

Or do we need to take the next step beyond protests, and begin a program of civil disobedience?

I asked someone I had never met before who was standing next to me at the protest, when were we going to block the intersection and cause a traffic jam? When were we going to cause some inconvenience to our fellow Americans? 

She looked at me without answering, so I gave her a break and said that I thought that, while I was certainly encouraged by the size of the protest, I didn't believe it would make a difference.

To give her credit, she said that given that Trump's electoral victory was marked by close races in all seven swing states, and that even though he won them all, he won by a couple hundred thousand votes, in total, and that in four of those states the Democratic Senator prevailed, perhaps it will only take exposure to people in their own neighborhood to swing them back.

I am glad she is hopeful, but I don't share her optimism.

I think we need real action.

#OWPAT

Old White People Against Trump

There is no hesitancy among Trump and his acolytes when it comes to displaying cruelty against black and brown people. We saw that in action with the handcuffing of Senator Padilla a few days ago.

But perhaps if more old white people placed themselves between ICE agents and people of their community whose only crime is to have come here illegally, two, five, even ten years ago, the optics might galvanize the resistance, and stiffen the spines of our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to just say no, as Nancy Reagan preached.

No to deporting hard working members of communities all across our country, no to the use of extortion against universities and law firms, no firing thousands of federal workers, no to gutting our environmental laws, no to entrusting our health care to a man with admitted brain worm disease who has spent the last few decades spreading misinformation about vaccines, no to aligning our country with war criminals such as Putin and Netanyahu.

Even better, when will the Christian community, Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, etc, begin to hear from their pastors and ministers that belief in Christ's message compels them to get out into the street and surround and protect those among us who are being persecuted?

Economics matter, certainly the result of the election last November in which the memory of inflation paid a large part proves that, so perhaps when grocery prices start to rise because the people who do the really hard jobs in our meat packing plants and on our farms are no longer there because they have been deported or are afraid to go to work, Americans might actually connect the dots ans realize that we need immigrants, just as immigrants have always played a significant part in the creation of our great country.

But just as important, optics matter. It is easy to dismiss the protests when those in the streets are the wrong color, or just young (and presumed to be) stupid, but when old white people are being arrested, or beaten, or otherwise subjected to police brutality, perhaps America might begin to realize that the lie that anyone who is protesting is being paid, is just another big lie from a man who has no moral compass, and very little grasp on any reality that differs from his perception that he is always right.

Even more so, when the real Christian community, and I know you are out there, is inspired by pastors and ministers who apply the teachings of Christ to the events of the day and encourage their flocks to reread the Sermon on the Mount, and apply the Beatitudes to the atrocities that are being perpetrated every day in our country, when Christians are being arrested for interfering in the rounding up of good people from their communities, even more Americans will wake up to the evil they are supporting.

Is it time to cross that line to civil disobedience? Is it possible to turn our country from its path towards authoritarianism without it? 

More importantly, do we possess the fortitude, the guts, to be inconvenienced as we fight against a president and his cult, as they trash the perception of America as the "shining city on the hill?"

I have posted a few times with the label First Amendment. Here is one from early 2021.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/01/freedom-of-speech.html 

Also, speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, here is my take on those lessons, An Atheist for Christ

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/04/an-atheist-for-christ.html 

  

Messy Divorces

Before I begin this post, I wanted to provide a link to one I wrote in 2017, just as the first Trump presidency began. As I have noted, I have been updating my old posts to reflect a larger font, using a method driven by posts which are accessed by my readers. If a post has been accessed that is still in the smaller font, I enlarge it, reading it again in the process. Someone accessed this one in the last few days.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/02/hidden-figures-not-so-hidden-prejudice.html

In this post, I warn the electorate to be careful about aligning itself with someone with such obvious incongruities embedded in his message. Someone who is a product of very slack immigration policies, yet who preaches strict immigration policies while casting aspersions on today's immigrants. And, incomprehensibly, to me at least, finds a willing audience in a population which itself is comprised of a large percentage of first and second generation Americans.

Now, here we are, eight years later, about to embark on another four years of open hostility and cruelty to immigrants, but with the added horror that it will also be directed at American citizens who dare to disagree with our leader's opinions, and worst inclinations.

As the protests against Trump's authoritarian edicts and actions ramp up, there will be more occurrences like what is happening in Los Angeles with the National Guard called to quell "disturbances". From there, it is only a matter of time before American soldiers are authorized to fire into crowds of American citizens. 

Don't say you weren't warned.

---

Divorce is a difficult process for those involved, especially if there are children included. While the divorce rate has been steadily declining in America for the past 15-20 years, it is still true that a majority of marriages that end in divorce include the disposition of children; who gets custody, who pays alimony, etc.

Currently, the news outlets are ablaze with commentary and speculation concerning a very high profile couple who are airing their differences in public; Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Yes, strictly speaking, their current estrangement does not quality as a divorce as they are not married. But one can certainly state unequivocally, that they have been tied at the hip, in lockstep, since last summer when Musk began spending millions of dollars to help Trump win the presidency.

I don't consider it hyperbole to state that no couple's actions in recent history, have effected so many Americans, so quickly and deeply, than the actions of this power couple in the last year in general, and the last four months in particular.

And, while the general fallout of their divorce will not play out in court, at least not right away, the ramifications of their initial "separation"is already being felt across the spectrum of American life.

In a regular divorce, one of the biggest areas of debate is who will get custody of the kids. In this case, there are already clear signs that Trump has the big advantage here as most MAGA politicians and pundits are making it clear that they support the president over the billionaire. Not surprising, as they are far more invested in Trump, have far more to lose if they get on his wrong side, but still curious considering how enthralled so many of the MAGA crowd was with Musk's program to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the government.

I mean they gave him carte blanche to access the personal records of every American citizen with nary a negative response. Don't any of them now worry that some of the data he has mined without restraint might reveal some damaging tidbits? Financial records can be very revealing when in the wrong hands.

Another big concern in a divorce is money. Often, the bigger breadwinner must provide alimony to the person, usually the woman, who may have sacrificed her own career to raise the children, or now has primary custody of the kids.

Musk is already threatening to divulge secrets to continue to get his government sweetheart deals and contracts, while Trump is alluding to "the consequences" of Musk changing his allegiance to another political party. Usually the lawyers of the battling couple will advise their clients to stay out of the limelight so as to not provide fodder which might give an advantage to the other side. 

In this case, each of the "adults" has a social media outlet which they control and dominate, so that advice is long moot. 

One might say that since both men are super rich, it won't matter much who comes out on top, financially speaking. But it could certainly matter to the kids, and not just those who are all in on Trump's TACO tariff presidency. 

All of us could experience economic blow back from their divorce. Perhaps enough Republicans are emboldened to vote against the "big, beautiful bill" that passed in the House and is being amended in the Senate. 

Among other things, lots of other things, in fact, many not actually read or understood by those who voted for it, there are provisions for increasing the national debt limit which will become even more critical as we head into the summer, changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and limits on the SALT deduction.

Or, should Trump alter his retribution tour to include everything Musk, thousand of jobs will be effected should those contracts and subsidies disappear overnight.

Funny how all those who disavowed accusations that Trump would use the government's resources to go after his enemies, are either silent at this threat, or applauding it.

Of course, it is entirely possible that some form of reconciliation will occur. When there are two such overt egomaniacs involved, anything is possible as no matter what actually occurs, each will spin a reduction in animosity as a win for them.

Sadly however, there are just as many divorces that are not amicable. Even sadder, it is Americans, regardless of political preference, who will suffer the most.

Finally, I can't help but wonder what might be really going on here. While such a public feud might warm the hearts of democrats, I can't shake the thought that this is just theater, a distraction. 

I have mostly jettisoned the moniker of evil genius when describing Trump, but still recognize that he is a master at drawing our attention away from his real intentions by providing low hanging fruit to grouse about. 

The question is, are they both so stubborn and egotistical that they would actually continue such a public dispute knowing each might suffer, at least temporarily, or is it a concerted effort by one or both to give us a nice show while they work behind the scenes on something even more nefarious, and lucrative, for them.

I often discuss wealth accumulation, even when related to winning the lottery, as a goal which I eschew. Not only don't I believe that money provides happiness, I think that for people like Musk and Trump, it makes them miserable, perhaps even lonely. 

Unfortunately, it is also addictive, and like any addiction, cannot be overcome unless one admits its existence.

In the case of Musk and Trump, it will not come as a surprise to me if it is disclosed at some point in the near future that either together, or separately, their quarrel was all window dressing while they worked to feed their shared addiction of gaining wealth and power. 

If it is truly two narcissists battling over who has the biggest di$$, I won't be surprised, but if it turns out that they have the last laugh over the rest of us, having fallen for the faux fall out, I won't be any more surprised, just disappointed that we were fooled, again.

 

 

    

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