Dear President Trump: Take the Win

As we approach inauguration day, I wanted to post my letter to the president elect, part congratulations as no one can deny that his victory in the 2024 presidential election is historic, but mostly advice on how he might conduct his upcoming term.

But first, I read a bunch of past posts categorized under the Trump Presidency label, to remind myself of the comments, advice and criticism that I have levied in his direction.

Below are links to numerous examples of these efforts. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/11/congratulations-to-donald-trump.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/11/confronting-trump-in-all-of-us.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/11/seeking-silver-lining.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-first-100-days.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/06/america-first.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/01/an-open-letter-to-president-donald-trump.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/09/impeachment.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/05/dear-president-trump.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/09/whistleblower-act-1.html

 

One perspective of some of these posts that caught my attention was my frequent comment that I remained hopeful about our country's future, my disappointment in the 2016 presidential election not withstanding.

It is a viewpoint that I no longer share with my old self. After four years of his first term, his disastrous handling of the COVID pandemic, the refusal to accept the 2020 election results (which remains to this day), the well documented details of his attempt to subvert the 2020 election results which culminated in the attack on our nation's capitol by American citizens, and now, the election of a convicted felon, convicted sex offender, indicted thief of classified documents, and continued praise of all the worst leaders on our planet, I have lost faith in the American electorate and am not hopeful for the near future of America.

This doesn't mean that I am predicting a massive economic collapse, or even the suspension of elections or some such failure of our democracy. It is certainly possible, perhaps probable, that in conjunction with his billionaire friends, the president elect's policies which favor the super rich, punish those with the least, and use threats and bullying tactics to get his way, may produce positive results, economically speaking, at least for a while.

Those with resources will do well, those without will do worse but since those without have little power, and since those with control our media outlets, any suffering will be rationalized as laziness, or God's will against those who do not follow His rules.

I said something similar after the 2016 election, in that now Fox will emphasize the positive stories that paint a flattering picture of the president elect and his policies, and so millions of Americans will feel better. In some ways, we already see that scenario playing out in the polls in which a majority of Republicans now think the economy is doing better than just a few months ago, even though whatever good that is occurring now is the result of Biden's policies, policies that virtually no GOP elected officials in Washington supported, and which the voters rejected in November.

As for the loss of democracy, why suspend elections when you can win them with lies? No, our democracy is already in peril, not because of an authoritarian or potential oligarchy, but because the voters are easy to fool, and even easier to buy.

Another theme I noticed in those posts, is my nascent, but now full blown assertion that we are becoming even more of a selfish society than ever, certainly more so than the days marked by the greatest generation who sacrificed day to day comforts, and even their lives, in order to provide better opportunities for their children while advancing America's future and influence in the world.

Where America was the world's savior, in part, 80 years ago, now we have a leader who believes that we should get whatever we want, and if we need to use economic power or military power, nothing is off the table. Does he mean it? Some say it is just his way of negotiating. I say it indicates a lack of morality, a lack of humanity. No wonder he likes Putin and his ilk, they also display that lack of a soul in dealing with their neighbors. 

And, all the while, a large percentage of self identified Christians, support him. Funny, but my last reading of the Sermon On The Mount, didn't feature teaching points such as "take whatever you want if you have the power", or "lie enough and people will believe you" or "by treating those with less as less than human, the world can be yours to rule". But perhaps I am incorrectly interpreting the words of the person who is the founder of Christianity.

But there is a possibility, though slim, that the president elect might take the win, and pull back from his most odious tendencies.

For example, deportations under the Biden Administration will exceed those done during the first Trump presidency. Certainly part of that result was the unprecedented surge in illegal crossings, but it is still true that as of today, Biden deported more illegals than Trump, and encounters at our southern border are on par with the numbers from 2019 and 2020, the last two years of Trump's first term.

It would be quite easy for the new president to take the win by emphasizing the continued deportation of those found guilty of crimes, and by continuing to work with the leaders of those nations to our south in slowing the migration of those seeking refuge in America. By directing Fox to show border patrol and ICE officers arresting and transporting those with criminal records, Trump can show his crack down on the undocumented (even though it is the same as what is being done today under Biden), without having to authorize raids of work places and schools in search of the undocumented whose only crime was illegal entry. 

He can even call these everyday activities the mass deportations that he promised; as long as Fox labels them as such, no one will spend the time analyzing the data. Americans just need to know something is being done, which is, if not the biggest mistake of the Harris campaign, one of the biggest, as she and the Democrats refused to detail just how many illegal immigrants were being deported, refused to encourage depictions of ICE and various border patrol officers doing their jobs.

It would also be easy to take the win on the economy by having Fox (and tweets on X) recount how many jobs are being created, how unemployment has been in the 4% range, or less, for many years, and how actual wages of the working class are now exceeding inflation. Sure, it started last year, but that detail doesn't need to be explained since few Americans research such minutia. 

As for the stock market, take the win when new highs are attained. It doesn't matter how many new highs occurred during Biden's term, just emphasize any new run of record highs. Don't worry about giving credit to the previous administration which left a strong economy since millions of Americans have already been convinced that the economy was in dire straits. Once those new stock marker highs occur, blam, proof of your new Golden Age, and your brilliance in managing the economy.

And then there are international relations. Take the win when Israel finally stops massacring the Palestinians because everyone knows that Hamas is afraid of American bombs reigning down on them, even though most of the bombs destroying their neighborhoods, hospitals, infrastructure say Made in America now. The fact that the Biden administration has been part of the negotiations for months is another of those details that don't matter, just have Fox blast your picture over the crawl announcing a ceasefire and the return of the hostages, and who knows, maybe that elusive Nobel Peace Prize will be in the mail. I am sure you can bribe or threaten enough people on the committee to make it happen. 

Perhaps even tell Congress to give a few billion dollars to help rebuild Gaza, and your legacy as the peace master will be assured. You might even be able to work in a Trump Hotel, on the good side of Gaza of course, if you play your cards right.

And as for Ukraine, once they determine that they can't drive Russian forces out of their country, they will accept a peace plan that sacrifices some of their land. Don't worry about connecting the lack of funds from America to the process. Nor should you worry about the fact that this will prove that being a bully on the world stage, that might makes right, that invading another country is an OK way to expand one's territory, because you will be the man who stopped the killing. Machiavelli would be proud of your use of his famous maxim, the end justifies the means

Another easy win is to sign an executive order banning non citizens from voting. Sure, it doesn't matter that it is already illegal, it just matters that you sign a decree that puts Americans at ease in thinking that a problem that doesn't really exist has been solved. Now you become the hero of election integrity, the man who denies election results. How ironic, and how American.

I am sure that there are a number of other easy wins out there for you to take without actually doing anything but signing useless proclamations and directing your propaganda minions at Fox and your co-president Musk to weave the story. The electorate has already proven that facts don't matter, and that repeating lies is much easier that actually governing, so take the wins, maintain the narrative, and rather than worrying about being president and making all those hard, unpopular decisions, you can focus on your golf game. 

You already have an in with the Saudis, maybe you can "win" one of their tournaments so you can officially be proclaimed as the best American president golfer in history. A twofer, so to speak.

 

 

Bully Pulpit

A few definitions from Webster

- bully

one who is habitually cruel, insulting, or threatening to others who are weaker

 - pulpit

an elevated platform or high reading desk used in preaching or conducting a worship service

  - bully pulpit

a prominent public position (such as a political office) that provides an opportunity for expounding one's views; 

While I am sure that people in powerful positions, political, social or economic, have used their positions to influence others for most of history, it appears that Teddy Roosevelt first used the term bully pulpit to describe how he could use the presidency to relate his perspectives.

In and of itself then, the use of a political position, especially the presidency, to advance one's opinions, to influence the citizenry, to promote one's personal and party agenda is everyday fare, and could even be interpreted as a reward for winning an election. After all, if the voters did not agree for the most part with a candidate's stated priorities they wouldn't have voted for them.

But what about a situation where the focus is on the word bully. When a leader decides that he can force people, companies, other political bodies, other countries even, to do his bidding through the use of threats that are backed up by his presidential powers, not to mention the economic and military clout of the nation he leads. 

Again, this is nothing new, in terms of world history. Nations have been bullying other nations for centuries. One could even say that the mere existence of borders between countries is a byproduct of which country was the bigger bully. Even today, there are countries with populations that have more in common with those in a neighboring country than with their own fellow citizens, the Kurdish people being a good example.

And let's not forget that North America existed for centuries without the United States as a country. Our nation was created, not just as a result of our winning independence from an oppressive monarchy that suppressed our rights, but as a result of treating the people who inhabited these lands long before our arrival, with disrespect and cruelty. 

Again, bullying the indigenous peoples of North America is not just our legacy, but a common thread across many nations and cultures.

All that being said, I would bet that most Americans alive today do not consider America to be a bullying country. We rationalize our actions which have toppled dozens of leaders in foreign countries, our military invasions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc, and our ongoing support via bombs and bullets for other bullying nations as necessary in the defense of democracy, or freedom, or some such noble thinking, all the while ignoring the horrors that these actions have released upon the citizens of the countries we claim to be helping, or freeing.

So, it should come as no surprise when the president elect speaks of taking back control of the Panama Canal, or taking over Greenland, or annexing Canada, or any of the other plans he defends as critical to our national security. He is the consummate bully, has been so for most of his life whether in his actions toward the small businesses he cheated then dared to sue him for their due payments, or the women he sexually abused then paid off, or merely threatened, in order to keep them quiet, or even those people who attended his bogus "college", Trump University which even the National Review called a "massive scam".

To be fair, the president elect does not discriminate in who he bullies. During his first term he often threatened blue state governors that he would withhold government funds if they did not capitulate to his desires. This will be at the forefront in the next few years as climate change, which he relentlessly denies, ravages the country, and will be evident when he invents excuses not to help American citizens in states run by governors who don't kiss his ring.

What is unfortunate is that there are many Americans, successful business people, honest public servants, and certainly journalists and members of the press who only wish to ride on his coattails, that will eagerly sacrifice their pride and self esteem in attempts to avoid being a victim. You can see evidence of that in the number of prominent businesses who have donated to the upcoming inauguration (don't worry if some of that money just happens to be diverted from paying the actual expenses of the inauguration), or those that are all aflutter to be asked to visit the White House south in Florida.

I was especially disappointed in the announced resignation of FBI director Christopher Wray who was appointed by Trump (many people forget that) in 2017 to what was supposed to be a 10 year term. You see, that is how these critical government positions are supposed to work, to encourage the men and women who serve to remain independent of political pressure. While I can understand Wray's reluctance to serve another 2 plus years, it is just another sign of capitulation to a bully when he decided to resign. Make him fire you Chris! just to show how much of a bully the man can be.

I had a relative of mine express outrage when another relative, by marriage, treated one of our siblings in a bullying manner. He was quite upset, and wanted all of us to let the offending person know that we would not tolerate such behavior. 

Yet that same person is a strong supporter of the president elect. Likes him because he is strong, yet rejects the actions of our mutual relative who justifies their actions as defending her family, as being strong for her children.

This is what concerns me the most about America today. No one wants to work for a bully. No one wants a bully in their family telling everyone what to do and threatening them with consequences should we not obey. 

Yet many of those same people defend Putin's invasion of Ukraine because it used to be part of Russia, so he is just getting back what was once theirs. His bullying not only doesn't bother them, but is supported by them, the opinions of the Ukrainians not withstanding. And many of them smile when they read the latest rambling from the president elect about taking over this country or threatening that country, thinking how much America will now be respected when a bully leads us.

Have we completely lost the sense of the golden rule, do unto others as you would have done to you, or are we just too selfish to care about anyone but ourselves?

I generally don't blame the president elect for what I perceive as a horrible turn in the soul of America. We chose him, fully knowing he is a bully, fully knowing he only cares about himself, fully knowing that if advancing the condition of America requires us to be the biggest bully in the world, then so be it. 

Many of these same people just spent the holidays with their loved ones, perhaps watching "Its a Wonderful Life" or "A Christmas Carol" or any one of a dozen holiday movies and shows that emphasize love and understanding, and advocate for elevating such traits over money and power, yet are all in with the idea of deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented people, with or without their American born spouses or children. 

Are fine with bullying those Americans that are the most marginalized by limiting where they can relieve themselves, or how they can access medical care.

Are fine with bullying women into having babies, even allowing them to bleed out in parking lots or at home when their pregnancy takes a turn for the worse.

Are fine with bullying everyday workers to return to work even though their productivity is equivalent to in office workers, or just firing those government workers now being targeted by two rich foreigners who believe that employees are property, and that 24/7 availability is required, personal or family matters be damned.

The fact is, it is quite easy to be a bully, especially when you own a social media outlet or are elected to the most powerful office in the world. What is really hard is using such a position, using one's bully pulpit to advocate for kindness, for treating everyone with dignity, for actually mirroring, in actions, the messages of all those favorite holiday classics that we tear up at while watching after dinner, surrounded by our loved ones.

I don' have much faith in the ability of the president elect and his billionaire friends to act in such a way, and only a little more faith in our collective will to require them to do so. 

As I have said to my wife multiple times, it is time for a huge does of pessimistic optimism. We should assume the worst from our president elect, assume the worst from those who will capitulate to his bullying tendencies, assume the worst that those who are the meanest will be making many choices for our nation in the next four years.

Assume the worst about the fate of our democracy, about the rot that is growing in our national soul, and hope that something less than the worst possible scenario occurs. And who knows, maybe the light at the end of the tunnel is not an oncoming freight train, but a renaissance in spirit that will slow then eventually turn the awful pendulum that seems to be in motion.

In the meantime, try to be a better person than reflected by the actions that our country will be soon be taking with a bully and his minions in command.

 

Wizard of Oz and Japanese Internment

First of all, Happy New Year! I hope everyone had a nice holiday season, that Santa brought you something you wanted, and that you and your families are entering 2025 with good health.

I mentioned in my yearly Christmas letter that I am certain that the 1980 version of myself would have been skeptical of my being able to watch the Times Square celebration from last night, 45 years in the future. Hard to believe that the year 2025 is here, now, a year which seemed so far away in those years of our youth. 

I know that many of my recent posts have been negative in tone, I am not shy in my determination that we are in the midst of the decline of our country, perhaps even culture. And, while I certainly recognize that such perceptions are often associated with one's advancing age, that as we approach the end of our lives, we tend to indulge ourselves in rose colored glasses memories, when everything was better, I also can't shake the evidence that there seems to be an insidiousness of how we collectively think and react to events.

Or perhaps, sickness is a better word, sickness in our collective soul. How else can you explain our casual indifference to the fact that the leading cause of death among children under five is gun violence, that we actively supply weapons of war to a country that is slaughtering the civilian population of Gaza, that we are OK with the increase in maternal death that the alleged pro-life anti-abortion laws have created, that we continually punish children for their parents decisions, via the use of razor wire at our southern border or the unwinding of Medicaid benefits for thousands of American children.

I wrote a post called Personal Happiness vs Global Anxiety in August of 2019, link below, in which I discuss the seemingly contradictory feelings of being happy and grateful for one's life and circumstances yet completely unsatisfied with the progress being made across the planet. At its end I embrace that perhaps it is best that there can be millions of people who share such an outlook, as perhaps it is only through personal satisfaction that one can help others, to make a difference.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/09/personal-happiness-vs-global-anxiety.html

 -----

Two fascinating articles in the December edition of the Smithsonian magazine. One traced the influence of Matilda Gage on his son-in-law, L Frank Baum in creating the iconic Wizard of Oz story, the other about one family's horrific, yet inspiring experience during the dark days of America's internment of Japanese people during WW2.

As is so often true, I was unaware of Matilda Gage's place in America's history. Her work for women's suffrage and equal rights was as important as the efforts of more famous women in this battle, such as Susan B Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Ironic that I would only learn of it through an article about her son-in-law, and his literary accomplishment. 

One interesting aspect of the article was a reference to the belief among some scholars that Baum's inspiration for Glinda the Good Witch was his mother-in-law, Matilda who had always encouraged him in his endeavors, and to write stories with moral components, but without being overly sermonizing. 

A woman of great energy, great ability to imagine true freedom for her gender and other marginalized demographics, yet a women whose fame is linked inexorably to a man who, while creative with words, was mostly unsuccessful in his pursuits until inspired by his mother-in-law. Makes me wonder if we would even have the Wizard of Oz story and history without Matilda Gage, although it is certain that the women's suffrage movement would have still progressed without L Frank Baum. 

The article about the Japanese internment camps was both difficult to read yet also inspiring, as it focused not just on the awful idea of taking people from their homes merely because of their ancestry, but, in this particular case, on a family whose farm was run by their white neighbor while they were interred, so that once released, they had something to come home to after their ordeal.

While this example was the exception to how innocent Japanese people were treated by most Americans at this time, it at least demonstrated that even in the face of such bigotry and hatred, there are people able to act in the right way. 

One of the details of this sad time in our history, is that while incarcerated at these camps, many for years, they were still liable to pay their mortgages. The fact that the vast majority of Japanese families were not blessed with a neighbor willing to work their land for them, led to foreclosures and loss of wealth. Like adding insult to injury. 

With talk of camps to house the undocumented rampant in the news today, it is shocking to me that yet again, we fail to learn the lessons of history. And that so many people who advocate for such inhumane treatment of people whose only crime was to cross a strip of land so as to enable them to find opportunity and a better future for their children, is even more striking when we remember that America was founded on the free access to a continent that had no borders, that had the original natives of North America treated those first Europeans as we seek to treat those seeking freedom today, America itself would not exist.

I am posting under the title Life for this entry, a topic I use as a catch-all for posts that address topics about life that seem not to be able to be categorized easily, as with political subjects. Here are links to three of them, one each from 2017, 2015 and 2021.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/08/reading-and-thinking.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-white-mans-game.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/11/lies-lies-and-more-lies.html

A Salute to Jimmy Carter

While not surprising, it still caused me to pause for a breath when I read of the death of James Earl Carter Jr. For so many reasons, he was and will remain a wonderful example of how a public servant should conduct themselves, both in office, and afterwards. 

I have posted a few times under the title Jimmy Carter. Full disclosure, the 1976 presidential election was the first in which I voted, and Carter was the candidate I proudly chose, perhaps not realizing how important a man he would become, but certainly not regretful for choosing him.

The first one was posted in August of 2015 just as the 2016 presidential election cycle was beginning to form. In that post, I compare Carter to the new on the political scene Donald Trump. Here is that link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/jimmy-carter-and-Donald-trump.html

The next post occurred in February of last year, when it became known that Carter was in hospice care. In that one, I reflected on the difference in perception of lust, as detailed in Carter's admission to Playboy magazine about "lusting in his heart" and Trump's admission that he had on occasion wandered into the dressing rooms at beauty pageants and grabbed a few young women's genitals. I also apologized for mentioning Trump in a Carter tribute piece, but felt that the example cited clearly indicated the chasm of difference in character between the two men. 

As a side note here, one might wonder just what God those claiming to be American evangelicals worship, given that when Carter ran for re-election they campaigned for Reagan, and, as we all know today, they vote for Trump by around 3 to 1.

Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/jimmy-carter.html

The last time I posted about Carter was upon the death of his dear wife Rosalynn, about 13 months ago. In that post I again mention the all encompassing traits of service and love and kindness that both Rosalynn and Jimmy exuded. I also touch on the idea that Jimmy did hes best to outlive his wife to spare her the pain of life without him by her side, especially considering her dementia diagnosis. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/rosalynn-and-jimmy.html

I expect that the next few weeks will include many tributes to Jimmy Carter and his life and his example of how a real Christian lives their life. I hope there is a strong emphasis on this concept, how to live a life according to the example of Christ, as I fear we need this comparison even more starkly at this time when those professing the creed, advocate for the most harsh treatment of immigrants and the undocumented, pass laws which punish those who love differently or perceive their gender in a non-traditional way, and discount the utter destruction of life and hope that is occurring in the Middle East as somehow aligned with God's will.

As I said in my very first post about Carter, he will never be lauded as one of the better presidents in our history. Hopefully, however, he will be remembered as one of our very best people, and, even more critically, that there might be a reckoning of just how much more important the latter accolade is as compared to the former.

Rest in peace, James Earl Carter Jr.

 

Healthcare CEO Death

Reactions to the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare has generated as much news coverage and speculation as the killing itself. From fear that other healthcare industry heads might be targeted to praise for the killer in doing something that so many Americans may have contemplated after being denied, delayed or deposed during the processing of a claim, the response to this death has been widespread. While there are still more details to come, I thought it was time to express my thoughts at this time.

Generally, I am against violence as a means to achieve a goal or make a point. Killing never changes anyone's mind, never creates thoughtful dialogue between those advocating for death and those experiencing the fallout from such actions.

And, if we are to continue to believe that we are a Christian nation, meaning a people who follows the teachings of Jesus Christ, then I feel confident when I say that the commandment "thou shalt kill" does not include an asterisk with caveats such as "unless they are one's enemy" or "except in revenge" or "to illustrate the hypocrisy of CEO's who create policies that increase profit over the lives of its customers".

Still, it is also true that I published a story in 2013 in which violence was used to make a point, and that in the story said violence is successful in creating change. Here is a link to that story if you are interested or have forgotten its message.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-conspiracy-that-changed-america.html 

So, that being said, what is my take on this killing?

First, while I attempt to be consistent in my writings, in the expression of my thoughts and opinions, as I have posted over 600 entries under this blog, I do not apologize for what some may interpret as flip flopping on any topic. 

Opinions evolve, perceptions change with new experiences, the passing of time effects how the present and (somewhat) limited future is considered, is expected to transpire.

In this case, if the behavior of those who make the macro decisions about our healthcare system changes, whether through policy or the use of certain algorithms, and starts to lean away from profit and more towards better health care results for Americans, then I join in the chorus of those who consider the alleged killer a folk hero, especially when one realizes that this young man has sacrificed his future, a future that had all the advantages that can be conveyed on someone born to privilege. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that will be the case, which means that both the loss of a future for the young man, and the loss of life for the CEO (and pain which will last decades in the lives of his wife and children), will have been for naught. 

Because the reality is that America's healthcare system will never focus on healthy outcomes as long as large sums of money can be made by those who control the levers of the system, and that in earning those large salaries and profits, care for patients is secondary.

It's not hard to find evidence of just how much money is made by executives of health insurance companies, how much profit these same companies have made, and how far down the list of best health care systems in the world as graded by outcomes, America falls.

Maternal death rates, infant mortality rates, longevity rates are just a few of the metrics that demonstrate how poor are some health outcomes in our country. And this isn't just an indictment of the health care system, as it is we, the people, who are just as much to blame. 

From the elevation of certain individuals who choose to block out the history of vaccines in preventing death and disease, to the rampant conspiracy theories that were prevalent during the Covid years which discounted actual medical research in favor of internet cures and quack theories, and, worse of all, our communal resistance to a  universal healthcare system because of the fear of the dreaded S word, socialism, we prefer a system that provides the best healthcare in the world but only to those who can afford it.

Proof of this assertion? We continue to elect public servants who take large sums of money from the very health care insurance companies that we all despise. We rail about the system, complain till we are blue in the face, then vote for people who tell us that treating health care as a commodity is going to make outcomes better. Every time we enter a voting booth, we conveniently forget that the sickest among us are usually those with the least resources to pay for the care they need, all the while somehow believing that when we or someone in our family faces a serious health crisis, our care will somehow be valued more than the premiums we have paid. That capitalism will take a sidebar when someone in our families needs care regardless of ability to pay.

One of the very first post I wrote, in March 2010, was under the topic of healthcare. After reading it, I feel sad that the issues we faced along these lines almost fifteen years ago, have not changed all that much. And the questions I pose in the post, are no where near to being answered. Here is a link if your are interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/03/health-care-reform.html

The truly sad part to all of this, is that our national schism as pertaining to politics, overlaps and engulfs this important topic while to me, affordable, accessible health care for all Americans should be a bipartisan issue where the debate is how to achieve it, not whether it should be a right or not.

Answers? Like most issues, there are answers, both complex and simple. But like most issues in America, there are far too many monied special interests that pollute the conversation, that provide reams of misinformation and downright lies, that prefer their piles of money and power and influence over the health of their fellow citizens. 

In past posts, I have proposed a universal health system run by eah state. Federal rules that create a framework which might include basic catastrophic coverage with low premiums but higher deductibles for the generally young, healthy, single population, up to guaranteed maternal/paternal paid leave, higher premiums and lower deductibles for those with multiple family members, and some in between choices that balance premiums, deductibles and complexity of coverage. 

But, again, administered at the state level, so that each state, within the framework of federal rules, can work with those health insurers that choose to participate to craft policies and programs that target the needs of its citizens. 

That being said, I do believe that over time, some states may combine their programs to attain better rates, especially those states with low populations. I can envision a number of regional systems developing over time, but those decisions would be left to the legislators of those states, and the citizens who elect them.

Health insurance would still be mandatory, either as part of a parental plan or individually once the age of 26 is reached, pre-existing conditions exclusions would still be unlawful, and, hopefully, the concept of medical bankruptcy would be eliminated.

While doctors might still need to understand the coverage details of a patient's chosen plan, they would not be employed by the state, would not be paid by the state, but still be reimbursed for their services by the insurance company and patient. 

Of course, those with more resources would still be able to seek medical care wherever they wanted, without going through an insurance provider, but would still need to pay a premium into the system to support its viability.

Whether this system would work can certainly be debated. And, while the president elect might have a concept of a plan to replace the ACA, I am skeptical if he will look beyond the structure that capitalism offers us when contemplating a change in our health care industry.

But again, there are no changes that can be made if we continue to reward those companies and CEO's and, indirectly through campaign donations, our elected officials, with large profits and salaries. 

Perhaps it is naive to think we could ever evolve our system to a low or no profit one which would be my preference, but I don't think it is out of the question for health insurance companies to make a nice profit while also providing all Americans with affordable and accessible health care. 

At least it should be possible if we are to continue to believe we are the greatest country ever.... 

   

 

Notre Dame, Gender Roles and Solar Fuel

I recently finished the December issue of National Geographic. The highlight was a spectacular article on the restoration process for the cathedral of Notre Dame which was completed last week. For those of you who have forgotten, the iconic building was severely damaged by fire in April of 2019.

I was struck by two particular aspects of the restoration project. First, the effort was a cooperative effort which included a couple thousand individuals from a myriad of backgrounds and disciplines. While I am sure there was someone, or a few someones who led the project, it was clear from reading the article that opinions, perspectives and viewpoints from countless artisans, craftsmen, historians, engineers, even fire safety experts, among others, were instrumental in creating the end result. 

For me, it confirms my belief, despite the current popularity of me first philosophies, that our greatest accomplishments are cooperative in nature.

The second amazing feature is the simple fact that the final product will combine the styles and innovations of three eras of construction, medieval, 19th century and today. Again, I am sure there were some compromises from people who represented those three eras, yet mutual respect and support among them produced the end result.

If possible, I recommend you access the article online, or by purchasing a copy of the edition. As it is the December issue, which historically includes dozens of pictures of the year, it is worth having on that score as well.

Another interesting article in this edition touched on research into gender roles, or more specifically, how a new tool for studying human remains is upending what we thought we knew about gender in past societies.

For instance, in 2008 archaeologists discovered a tomb in Spain which contained lavish goods. At the time, scholars estimated the site to be 4500 to 5200 years old, and, based on the apparent age of the skeleton, and the luxuriousness of the burial, it was assumed that this was a man who had held an elite position in that society.

Flash forward to 2023 when a team of researchers used a new method to infer the biological sex, the protein from a tooth. Their conclusion was that this body was female, not male, a determination that could challenge our understanding of the importance and role of women in past societies.

Now certainly, one tomb of a women with elite status within their community, does not a trend make. However, it is also true that when interpreting information, our biases often dictate the direction which our conclusions might follow. In other words, if we assume all past societies were led by men, we assume all evidence of stature and influence align with our prejudice for male dominated societal structures, then any evidence of elite female burials must assume a secondary position to the husband, father, brother, etc.

This simple deduction, that when research fields are dominated by men who live in societies controlled by men, the vast percentage of discoveries and analyses of those discoveries will tend to emphasize a male dominated explanation. One might even say that should someone offer the suggestion of a female dominated society, much ridicule would follow. 

I say this, despite the adage that behind every successful man, there is a woman, because even when that saying is remotely believed, at the end of the day it is still the man in question that receives the praise and adulation.

One of the numerous advantages to reading history, not just his story, is that there are indeed a plethora of women who made huge contributions to our culture, although they have most likely been overlooked, not just by their contemporaries, but by the history books as well.

As simple proof of this claim is that while stories of women taking on male pseudonyms to hide their gender is replete in history, it is difficult to name a male who took on a female pseudonym. It just wasn't necessary and in fact, would most likely have created the opposite effect.

Interestingly, another recently reevaluated discovery, this time of two side by side skeletons holding hands, was determined to be two males. And so, again, it makes one wonder how and why the difficulty with homosexuality evolved. 

While I am no scientist, hold no advanced degrees, have not spent my life researching this topic, I don't need to have any sort of extensive knowledge base to comment on my theory. It is both the beauty and the beast of the internet, of having the ability to communicate with the entire world, and be able to access information from that world without filter for fact or truth.

My theory then? It is religion that has created much of the bias against strong female leaders and against love between same sex partners. Religion, that world-wide industry of control which exists to save us from the "other", and which, no coincidence, is controlled by men.

One last note on this topic. Over the summer, during a conversation with relatives, when I suggested that there weren't a lot of women fighter pilots in America's military because women were not historically allowed to attempt to qualify, my response was met with derision by someone who truly believes that my contention was typical of those who believe in diversity, equity and inclusion. You know, us woke people. 

This is not to say that this particular person doesn't think there may be exceptions, the occasional women who can be successful in a man's job, but his belief is that we have gone too far in thinking that any women who believes they can do it, deserves the support and opportunity to do so. He was unable to understand that his own niece, who is currently employed in a profession that women were not allowed to pursue just a few generations ago, just needed the chance to try, a chance not afforded to women in the recent past.

While it is encouraging that my niece has been able to achieve her dream, it is still frustrating to see that the pendulum seems to have stopped in these past eight to ten years. I see this trend away from gender equality in the odious abortion laws that are resulting in the death of young women, and in the equally repulsive laws that are isolating people who are struggling with their gender identity and who have now been labelled the lepers of our culture.

One other interesting item along these lines is that there was a brief article detailing the all women crew who are studying climate change at the top of the world in an environment that women "could not handle", or so was believed not that long ago. Another example of women achieving despite the prevalent belief that they just can't.

Lastly, there was a brief mention in the December issue about a new form of energy made from sunlight, water and carbon dioxide. Could this solar synthetic fluid replace fossil fuels in the next fifty years?

One could easily imagine that what will hold it back, may simply be the same axiom that women have faced for most of history; that it just can't be done. Of course, such an advancement in energy might also face an uphill battle from the fossil fuel industry, who like some men who are unwilling to surrender the possibility that they are the dominant sex, will not willingly give up their position of dominance, power and money.

  

 

 

A Health Care Odyssey

At my last biannual doctor visit, I was given two scripts for tests. Nothing urgent, just mostly preventive. One was for a calcium scoring test to determine the amount of calcified plaque in the heart vessels, and the second for a peripheral vascular test on my left leg which helps to detect a possible blood flow problem into your legs in hopes of preventing the onset of peripheral artery disease.

When the doctor gave me the scripts, he advised me that there was a good chance that one or both would not be covered by my medical insurance.

With that caveat, I decided to make some calls to schedule one or both of the tests but to also determine if my insurance covered them, and, if not, what the cost would be without insurance.

My first call was to the imaging and radiology number referred to by my doctor. 

Upon connection, I asked about scheduling a coronary calcium test. The customer service representative asked for my address, then told me that the closest imaging center in their system was 40 miles away. As it turned out, it was in close proximity to a specialist whom my wife will see in January, so I made an appointment for that same day figuring we could kill two birds with one stone and have lunch somewhere in the area. Make a day of it, so to speak.

I then asked the rep if she knew what it would cost for this service, as she had already been able to determine that my insurance would not cover for it. She said no, but asked me if I could hold so she could contact the billing office and ask them. When she returned to the line, she told me that I would need to talk to someone in the financial estimate office, and then transferred me to that person.

Also a woman, this rep was very helpful. First, she told me that the cost of the test depended on which facility I went to. The one I had chosen, which was the closest to me, would charge me $336 for the test. However, there were cheaper options within their system, although a bit further away. One such option, in center city Philadelphia would only cost $129. When I asked why the big discrepancy in prices, she could not provide a reason. Since I have recently obtained a free senior Septa pass for travel on their rail and bus and trolley lines, I thought it might be nice to go into the city for a day, and spend some time seeing the sights after the test. Certainly it would be cheaper than the $217 difference between the two sites for the same test, and, again, could be a nice day for myself and Nora.

Since this rep seemed so knowledgeable, I asked her about the second test, for the peripheral vascular issue. She informed me that this was merely an ultrasound, and that my insurance would certainly cover it. She also suggested I call the insurance company (in retrospect, I probably should have called them first), and they would be able to refer me to the nearest testing facility for this test, and not be restricted to her health system, the thought being that there would be a closer provider in network but with a different provider. She also recommended that I google calcium score test near me to find a local provider since it didn't matter where I went being that my insurance wouldn't cover it. Then, if I found a more local option at a similar price as with her system, I wouldn't need to travel at all. This impressed me as she was clearly helping me first, not just her employer.

I then called my insurance company, and indeed found that the coronary test would not be covered (as I now expected), but that the leg ultrasound could be provided by an imaging facility about five miles from my house. I wrote down the address and phone number.

I next called the local imaging facility but was told that they stopped doing ultrasounds a year or so ago. Close but no cigar.

I called the insurance company again, told the rep that I had contacted an imaging provider to schedule an appointment but was told they didn't provide that service anymore, suggested he (this was the only male I encountered in this journey) adjust their referral list, and asked for another provider. He gave me two, one closer than the original suggestion, one a bit further but still relatively nearby. We strayed from the topic of my call a bit, touching on the recent election, but also on the changes that were coming to Medicare, specifically the new premium and deductible amounts. At first, he only knew the deductible change (from $240 to $257 per year) but by the end of the conversation he also informed me that the monthly premium would be rising from about $174 to about $185.

At this point I had been on the phone with these various reps for about 90 minutes, but I had learned some valuable information, both about how locations, even within the same health care system, charge different amounts for the same procedure, but also that there are people who want to help patients navigate the system, if you spend the time asking for help.

And most importantly, I was reminded that one must advocate for oneself (or family member unable to do for themselves) when navigating the health care system in America. Just as it is important to get a second opinion on any invasive procedure or surgery, it is critical to confirm information about where to go for care and what it costs, and not just assume the first response is the full truth.

I have posted numerous times under the topic Health Care, but oddly not since 2019. Here are links to the more recent entries. The third one I added because of the fear that Trump and the GOP will once again try to eliminate the Affordable Care Act.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/02/health-care-cost-vs-outcome.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/07/taming-healthcare-costs.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/10/defunding-obamacare.html

Election Aftermath

It has not been a week yet, and not all the results are in, but there are some obvious takeaways from Tuesday's election.

First and foremost, it was about the economy and immigration, pure and simple. Perhaps that was obvious to some people, but while it wasn't lost on me as I knew that as many as a two thirds of the polled voters listed either the economy or immigration as their number one issue, I truly thought that since inflation was back to pre-pandemic numbers, the labor market was strong, consumer spending continued at a robust pace, and the the stock markets had broken their all time highs dozens of times this year, while encounters at the border had dropped to a similar number as before the pandemic, voters would also consider how we view Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the January 6th attack on our Capitol and subsequent vow to pardon some of those attackers, the bromance of Trump with the authoritarians of the world, and his personal criminal convictions.

Clearly, a majority of voters did not share my perspective that those issues were important.

In fact, one could even say that many voters thought that Trump's associations with strong leaders, his defense of the patriots who were fighting for their country in protest of a stolen election, and his total denial of guilt and commitment to fight all indictments, cemented their attraction to them. 

I spent some time before starting this post to look at some of the numbers from the election. Here are a few specifics.

In 2020, Biden received a little over 81 million votes, Trump a little over 74 million, and Biden won the electoral college 306 to 232.

While not a complete flip, and with still at least 6 million votes to count in California, Washington and Oregon, states which Harris won, I expect that when all votes are counted, Trump will have earned over 76 million votes (plus 2 million or so from 2020) while Harris will have accumulated in the 74 million range, minus 7 million as compared to Biden in 2020.

So, besides indicating that more people voted for Trump than in 2020, literally millions of people who voted for Biden in 2020 stayed home, in addition to those who switched their vote. The fact that it looks like less people will have voted in this election than 2020, is rather depressing.

A really striking analysis as to how poorly Harris did becomes clearer when looking at the Senate races.

There were four Senate races that resulted in a gain for the GOP, West Virginia, Montana, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Because the West Virginia seat was a lock for the Republican candidate, let's look at the other three.

In Montana, Trump won the state by 118K votes, while the incumbent senator, John Tester, lost by only 45K votes. In other words, a net 73K voters split their ticket, voting Democratic for Senator, Republican for President.

This pattern is the same for Ohio where the incumbent senator, Sherrod Brown lost by 210K votes while Harris lost by 640K votes (net difference of 430K), and in Pennsylvania, where the incumbent senator, Bob Casey lost by 40K votes while Harris lost by 145K votes (net difference of 105K).

Quick math tells us that Harris under performed in those three states by a combined total of 73K + 430K + 105K which equals 608,000 votes. 

As for the senate seats where the Democratic candidate won (or will most likely win if Arizona's numbers hold) but Harris lost, the totals are also prominent.

Nevada, Harris lost by 45K, Rosen won by 20K, net 65K

Wisconsin, Harris lost by 30K, Baldwin won by 30K, net 60K

Michigan, Harris lost by 80K, Slotkin won by 20K, net 100K

Arizona, Harris is losing by 182K, Gallego leads by 35K, net 147K

So that is 372,000 votes the Democratic Senate candidates received above Harris, plus the 608,000 she under performed in those Senate races that flipped, and we are just shy of one million votes (980K).

Remember, forgetting the Senate losses, if Harris gets the same amount of votes as the Democratic senatorial candidates in Michigan and Wisconsin, she gains 35 electoral votes, and if she gets the same as the Pa senate candidate plus another 30K, her electoral total goes from 226 to 270, which means victory, regardless of whether Trump wins Arizona which would give him 268.

Now, please don't misunderstand me, as you may be thinking that I am about to blame the loss on the candidate, Kamala Harris. 

Which I don't.

In fact, in some ways, these numbers are a credit to the almost one million voters who decided to split their vote, who put country over party loyalty, even if their decision does not reflect my perspective. 

We will never know if Biden would have received a number of votes closer to what he got in 2020, should he have stayed in the race. We do know that for two of the demographics which helped Trump, Hispanic men and young white men, many seemed to make their decision based on the simple fact that Harris was a woman. Would they have stayed with Biden? Assuming my first assumption, that the economy and immigration were the big drivers, then no, as Harris was not able to extricate herself from the belief that the Biden Administration was at fault for inflation and the record illegal immigrant surge.

Could a different (male) Democratic candidate have retained some of those votes by being less associated with Biden? Perhaps, but that imaginary candidate would still have had Democratic roots, and still been portrayed as a part of the problem, just as all the ads against Harris merely replaced Biden's name with hers, so it would have been with any other candidate.

In retrospect then, it seems to me that the Democratic presidential candidate was fated to lose this election due to inflation and immigration.

Before continuing, I must note here that Harris has conceded, and that Biden has told the country that he will work to ensure a peaceful and productive transition, two things that Trump never did. The good news then is that we will be spared two months of election lies, ridiculous lawsuits, and uncertainty as to whether Trump's win will be certified on January.

And not only will the majority of Democrats (and I say that knowing that there will be some who will copy the undemocratic posturing and rhetoric displayed by the GOP four years ago), honor the election results despite their disappointment, the losing candidate, Kamala Harris will preside over the certification of Trump, in direct contradiction of how that process was marred by members of the Republican party who denied Biden's win, and the lies of mass fraud which led to the horrific attack on our nation's Capitol.

As a loyal Democrat, I applaud these actions which have cemented my view that despite occasional differences in national Democratic policies, I will always remain a Democrat, will never be able to vote for a party which supported a candidate who spat on our Constitution because he wasn't man enough to admit he lost. Talk about a lack of strength!

Ok, so where does the Democratic party go from here?

First, let's remember that the last GOP candidate who won both the electoral college and popular vote was George Bush 2, and that the following election, only four years later in 2008, featured an overwhelming victory by Barrack Obama who won the electoral college 365 to 173 and the popular vote by 9.5 million votes, a much bigger mandate than Trump has been claiming this past week.

Now, of course, part of that big turnaround was due to the 2008 economic meltdown (yes, back to the economy again), and we certainly don't hope something similar happens again. 

But, assuming Trump doesn't do something unheard of (when did he ever do that, right?), then we should be starting from scratch in terms of leadership and message. Hopefully my party will have an open primary, and will not assume the country is ready for a woman president. While I believe that both Clinton and Harris were far better choices than Trump, it seems awfully clear that the American electorate is still unwilling to hand over the White House to a woman, which means my dream of having a black, lesbian, atheist, woman president will not occur in my lifetime.

And so if it must be a man, hopefully one who is less than 50 years old, and can articulate the party's platform, policy objectives, and provide cogent reasons why electing a Democratic president is best for America. 

Which brings us to message.

While I thought it ludicrous to claim that Haitian immigrants were eating people's pets, the message that illegal immigration had been out of control is what the voter heard. And they were right. In an effort to be more humane than Trump, Biden lost sight of the fact that we didn't have the infrastructure to assimilate two to three million immigrants, legal or otherwise, per year. Not enough judges to process asylum claims, not enough beds to house those waiting for a decision, not enough border patrol agents to help direct those crossing illegally to the proper places, not enough support and cooperation with the states that were stuck with the initial influx or those which proved to be the final destination of some of those immigrants.

So, while separating children from their parents was horrific and forcing immigrant families to live in refugee camps for long periods of time while their asylum claims were processed as occurred during Trump's administration, was less than charitable, allowing the undocumented to put strains on local communities, both at the border and thousands of miles away, was ineffective. 

And a losing election strategy, as it turned out.

I'm not sure when it will come to pass that a proper immigration system will be developed but in the meantime the democratic party must hone its message to support legal immigration by providing a much more efficient method for those crossing legally to become productive citizens, while emphasizing that those who cross illegally will be unable to attain that same level of acceptance. 

More carrots, but some sticks as well, but sticks that deny pathways to citizenship, as opposed to inhumane rhetoric and treatment.  

As for inflation, it is mostly under control at this point but I don't feel that Biden and Harris made enough of a point to admit that some of their policies added to its rise. It doesn't matter that most economists believe that inflation was inevitable after the pandemic, looking the American people in the eys and saying that perhaps we could have addressed the issue more quickly, may have stemmed some of the anger. 

Perhaps that is my bias as it has always bothered me that Trump never admits any mistakes. I prefer people, whether family, friends or politicians, to admit when they erred as it is only when one admits a mistake that we can know that they will try something different next time, that they understand how their blunder hurt.

Along that line, I found that one of the most effective Trump ads was the one where Harris was asked if she would have done anything different as compared to Biden and she answers that she can't think of anything. Now, I know her answer reflected her loyalty to Biden, but we were past that, it was time to begin the differentiation, and the admission of some mistakes can be made in a way that is not mean or spiteful, but provides the voter with the knowledge that Harris would have pursued some alternate paths.

Those two big issues aside, at the end of the day the biggest focus must be to stop the migration of working class folks to the GOP. 

I would like to think that connecting policy with the reduction of the cost of goods, and emphasizing the difference between legal and illegal immigrants and how they should be treated moving forward, might start that process.

And it is certainly possible that Trump may go too far with his dark intentions towards the undocumented within our borders. Should there actually be mass incarcerations and deportations, families ripped apart due to mixed citizenship status, higher prices from the reduction of the labor that does the base work in America related to the agriculture, meat processing, landscaping and restaurant industries, democrats may have less to do in winning back the everyday American should the economy struggle and Trump's immigration policies turn out to be just cruel.

I wrote extensively about student debt forgiveness in the past, specifically concerning the fact that this topic should have been presented as student debt interest forgiveness, the message being that students who have long ago paid off the principle of their debt in addition to hundreds/thousands of dollars in interest, would be the focus of any debt forgiveness plan. 

Again, better message.

Same with gun control. The reality is, the vast percentage of Americans do not wish violence to come to their neighborhood. Violence control should be the message, through the use of laws that keep guns out of the hands of criminals, mentally unstable individuals, people with past violent acts, etc. Connecting that concept with the reason for better background checks, red flag laws that allow police to investigate and confiscate, if necessary, guns to prevent violence, and removing assault rifles from our streets to make those who defend our laws as well as our citizens more safe, should be the emphasis.

Remember, while this was certainly a disastrous election, at the end of the day, Harris lost Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan by a total of about 250,000 votes. 

Surely those voters can be flipped with a message that paints the democratic party as strong on the economy via infrastructure projects that provide jobs, reduced medical costs due to the allowance of Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices, a balanced energy policy that incentivizes green jobs while stabilizing prices at the pump, and cognizance of the need for a border policy that provides encouragement for those seeking opportunity in America to follow the rules while emphasizing that lack of adherence to those rules will reduce such opportunity, while also treating those who have come here illegally in years past with humanity if they have followed the rules since.

 

Enemies Within

A friend of mine left a comment about my recent posts, The Decline of America. In it, he referred to me as a decent, caring man, but that he disagreed with my positions. I thought about that comment today, then decided to wrote this post. But before composing it, I glanced at the four posts I had previously written under the label Politics and Civility, which I just read. Here are links to those posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/civility.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/10/white-male-backlash.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/10/me-for-president.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/10/letters-to-editor.html

Curiously, the oldest of the four, from 2012, discussed the drastic polarity in our politics at the time, centered around our first African American President, who was running for his second term.

That post includes a reference to an online letter written by an elderly woman who claimed that another Obama term would mark the end of America. Her letter detailed why she thought as such, although some of her facts were not entirely true.

In addition to her comment, I refer to the five posted responses to her opinion, two in complete agreement, two diametrically opposed to her views, and one which requested future comments about the topic should actually introduce facts, and not "idiocies", his word, not mine.

My comment indicated my support for Obama, but also a statement that regardless of who won, we would have a man if integrity in the White House. For those of you who can't recall the GOP candidate in 2012, it was Mitt Romney.

I mention this, because I believe that my assertion, that both men were, are, men of integrity, who have different viewpoints of how to improve America, has been proven. 

America did not "end" as the writer suggested, during Obama's second term, and Romney displayed his ethics (and love for our country) when he voted to impeach Trump after the events of January 6th.

The third link, "Me, for President", also struck me as I was very focused on the middle class as the source of our greatness, and why we needed to emphasize programs and policies that will help those who make up this important swath of our economy. 

Which brings us to enemies within. 

This is a phrase being bandied about a lot by the GOP presidential nominee in this election cycle. 

I am very realistic in my understanding that very few people read my blog. I see the statistics every time I log in to create a new post.

But, if something were to change, if suddenly tens of thousands of people were to discover and begin reading my posts, I would certainly be one of those enemies within as referenced by the ex-president.

And so I have to wonder, why does my friend think I am a good man while still voting for the presidential candidate who has made it clear that people like me will need to be removed from our country if we are to Make America Great Again.

Does my friend think that Trump is not serious when he discusses using the military and judicial systems to target those enemies? 

I think that the recent revelations and statements by General Kelly should be proof enough that Trump will attempt retribution against those who disagree with him should he win again. Not to mention that Trump uses the word retribution at every rally.

Well, just so we are clear, I am one of the enemies within, as defined by Trump because

I believe that January 6th was one of the worst days in American history, perhaps the worst, because the past attacks on our country, Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the English burning parts of Washington DC, were accomplished by foreign actors who attacked us while on January 6th, it was American citizens who attacked the Capitol, fought hand to hand combat with police officers, broke windows to gain entry into the building, and vandalized the building, its offices and hallways, in an attempt to delay the certification of Biden. And it was Trump who told them, day after day after day, that the election was stolen.

I believe that any American who praises the worst world leaders seeks to be like them, covets the ability to do whatever he sees fit with immunity from consequences, as his lawyers stated in front of the Supreme Court Justices earlier this year.

I believe that demonizing immigrants, calling then vermin, accusing some (falsely) of eating pets, not only portrays an anti-Christian attitude, but spits in the face of the spirit of the Statue of Liberty that greeted my ancestors and those of a large percentage of Americans alive today.

I believe that women should have, nay deserve, reproductive freedom especially considering that it took 150 years from our founding for them to get the right to vote, and another 100 years for them to be able to seek equal opportunities in the job market.

I believe that America belies the notion that "all men are created equally" when it denies the basic rights to marry the person one loves, to worship in the manner one believes, and to identify the gender that makes one happy.

I believe that when someone breaks a law, regardless of their wealth, they should be held accountable, as opposed to using his wealth and political standing to delay trials and sentencing.

I believe that a candidate for any elected position, MUST accept the results of that election once all reasonable and legal investigations have concluded, and that running on a platform of "America's elections are rigged" should be an automatic disqualifier.

I believe that the vast amount of immigrants, legal and illegal, come to America for the exact same thing that my grandparents did, better opportunities both economic and social, and that those that have been here for five or more years, even if they came illegally, should be provided a path to citizenship if they have become assets to their communities and without criminal record, whether that path requires an extra monetary payment, military or community service, or any such specifications as determined by a bipartisan Congress. 

I believe that the free press should not only not be another group on Trump's enemy list, but is vital to our democracy, and anyone who suggests that certain newspapers, TV broadcast companies, or new outlets should lose their license or be shut down is the true enemy of our country.

I believe that Donald Trump is the worst president in my lifetime, not because I disagree with most of his policies, but because he actively promotes doubt in our institutions; our elections when he loses, our jury system when he is convicted, our judicial system when he is indicted.

Based on my beliefs and perspectives, Donald Trump considers me an enemy from within, and, harsh as it might be to hear, anyone who votes for him is indirectly in agreement with his opinion.  

God's Side

This morning at breakfast, I heard the song "God On Our Side" by Bob Dylan. It reminded me that I had written a post specifically about this song, and after a quick check, found that it was almost nine years since that post. Here is a link to it, with the full text of the words of Dylan's song, and my comments at the time.

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

As a result of this memory, I thought it might be timely to post again about religion in our lives, especially in terms of religion as viewed through a political lens.

Religion and Government

At first blush, it seems that this could be considered an oxymoron, as per our Constitution and the First Amendment which very clearly states that 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I have commented more than once that it seems that many people focus on the second part of that amendment when they believe that any tenet of their religion must be allowed to be exercised, even when the very exercise of that belief would deny someone else their religious or any other basic freedom. 

Such lawsuits advocating for this philosophy can be found in cases which claim that certain employers need not pay for medical care related to birth control or abortion because the religion of the owners of the company forbids them to engage in such activities, regardless of whether all their employees feel the same or not. Seems strange that corporations now take on the religious beliefs of their owners.

Or to go back in time a bit, people that claimed that their religion forbade them to hire, house, or do business with a gay person simply because being gay violated their religious perspective.

Or in a similar way, the current focus on trans rights and how we needn't treat those adults or children (or their parents) as equals under the law when one's religion looks unfavorably on such people.

When Dylan wrote God On Our Side, his focus was war, and how people on each side of such a conflict were convinced that their God was on their side, so death and destruction, while undesirable, was sanctioned as long as it was done with their God's blessing.

While my recent forays into this topic focused on lifestyle choices as noted in the previous paragraphs, the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas is rife with people who defend the atrocities of war with some version of what their God wants, or who God loves most.

Even crazier, in America there is a very vocal (and influential) group that has attached to the GOP presidential candidate some type of revelation of God's plan. That resistance to his election is not only anti-American, but displays a lack of belief in God, or worse, a belief that God actively supports one political party over another. 

The fact that this candidate has what was once described as a "checkered" past in regards to his treatment of women, his business activities, his respect for the rule of law, would make his candidacy comical, except that there are those who go the full Monty and believe his imperfections prove that God's method and anointed ones can not be understood by us, that this candidate's foibles prove God's  extreme love for us that he would use such an imperfect channel to work his Plan, to save America from itself, to make it great again.

Sometimes I wonder why the Democratic party has seemingly ceded the affiliation to God (and family and values for that matter), to the GOP. As such, it seems to free some Republicans to wrap anything in the cloak of religion, even when discriminating against fellow Americans and denying more than half of the population the basic right to reproductive freedom. 

I found the following post I wrote when reviewing the topic of religion. It was attempt to convey the idea that our rights as defined by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights flew in the face of most of human history, the Magna Carta not withstanding, during which any rights that the average man possessed came from someone claiming divine rights as leader, or was just the strongest person in the clan. Women and minorities of course, had no rights as they were considered property.

It was only by way of secular laws (although perhaps loosely based on some religious tenets) enacted by a government, local, or national, that regular people could expect some type of fair treatment when wronged. And even now, there is a propensity for those with more resources to be granted a different version of justice than the rest of us.

In other words, the concept of god given rights was, at best a fairy tale, at worse, a concept used by some to remove the rights of others. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/04/god-given-rights.html

Another interesting post I found, written just five years ago, involved a letter I received in the mail addressed to "my fellow Christian Patriot". I actually posted twice about this letter, but am only providing a link to the second one, as it goes beyond the actual letter and refers to my mother, whom I would never represent as a Christian Patriot, yet who embodies the spirit of Christ as well as anyone I know. I am fortunate to have her in my life as an example of how a follower of Christ actually behaves, even when we disagree on things, political, social, or philosophical.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/more-on-christian-patriot.html

Finally, it pains me to admit that I shudder a bit when I hear people say God Bless America, whether they be politicians, pundits, family or friends. In the case of politicians, I chalk it up to a necessary phrase, something they all need to express to help their supporters feel warm and fuzzy.

Still, the concept itself, that God loves our country more than the others, or that we wish Her to do so, seems both arrogant and prideful. 

It is certainly not quite as bad as an athlete who looks to the skies after a touchdown or home run, as if God had a wager on their personal or team performance and needed to break Her recent spate of poor bets. Perhaps when an athlete says the devil made me do it, after an error or misplay in the field, I might at least smile, although I would not acknowledge that Satan also has placed some misguided bets.

Well, they are just hoping for God's blessing, you might say. OK, but wouldn't it be more effective for us to say God Bless the Earth, to wish for Her grace and benevolence on everyone, not just our particular artificially created tribe? 

I mean, if God is to have a side, shouldn't She be on the side of all her creatures, those that live in America, the Sudan, Greenland, Lichtenstein? I would think it relatively simple for the creator of all time and space, everything that has been and is to come, to be able to bless all the inhabitants of a tiny planet in one solar system of the millions in a galaxy which is itself one of millions. Let alone any parallel universes, should you be an adherent of that concept.

In the end, thinking God is on your side, personally or nationally, in itself is not harmful. I am sure my mother believes a variation of that notion. 

It is the belief in favoritism that is dangerous, because once one believes God favors them or their country over all the rest, all kinds of horrors ensue regardless of whether that favoritism is wrapped in the superiority of one's religion, race, gender or creed.

If history tells us anything, it is that all great cultures, all great nations, all great civilizations, all which believed in one way or another that they were fated to be so, or blessed more than the rest, all of them have faltered or failed. 

And that's just the ones we know about as our knowledge of the history of humanity barely scratches the surface when we consider that our family tree is millions of years old, homo sapiens at least 250,000 thousand years old, yet written history only reaches back about five thousand years. A blink of the eye, so to speak.

I will leave you with this. I do believe there is other life in the universe, has always been, always will. But I don't expect that we will ever contact such life, as I am inclined to think that the Creator allows life to prosper, in different parts of the universe, at different times, then provides said life forms with the knowledge to thrive, independently of each other, and without Her further blessing or intervention. 

Let's hope that judgement day is not based on the overall success of each of those bursts of life. If so, should our entire species be judged, throughout times past and times to come, as one, it would certainly make the concept of God's side seem pretty fruitless, if not completely inane.