A Dialogue with The Almighty

Merriam-Webster defines atheist and agnostic as

Atheist -  a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods

Agnostic -  a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

I have toggled back and forth between identifying as an atheist or agnostic for much of my adult life, although I generally considered my more agnostic leanings a reflection of a belief that while there must be some sort of force that exists that is not able to be understood by humans, our definition of God could not be accurate, that God could not be anything like what we have constructed in our minds and through our religions. And that certainly, there is no religion (or religious definition of God) that is any better than any other. 

So, imagine my surprise when I was recently contacted by The Almighty.  

At first I thought I was having a lucid dream. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the term, a lucid dream is one in which you are aware that you are dreaming thereby allowing you to influence or control the content or narrative of the dream. While I fly in my dreams more infrequently than when I was a younger adult, flying defined as soaring through the air like superman, I invariably knew I was dreaming while in the air. I was lucid dreaming during those flights.

As I said, at first I thought it was a lucid dream as I have often mused and even written about an encounter with The Almighty. But in this instance, that wasn't the case. For whatever reason, The Almighty had chosen to initiate a communication with me.

"Joe, it is The Almighty. I want to spend some time with you, if that is OK. I hope you will allow me to dominate the conversation but I will endeavor to entertain questions, if there is time."

The sound of the words were very clear, neither commanding nor with a deep resonant base kind of sound as one might expect, but very clear, as if reflecting a confidence. Not obviously a man or woman's voice either, so perhaps "voice" is more a function of a limited perception of communication. As I reflect upon it now, it may have been more of an ESP kind of thing. 

But as I did so, I was a bit taken aback when I focused on the phrase "if there is time", as the thought flashed through my mind that perhaps this was the actual last moments of life, and that my "time" was limited because, well, my time was up.

"No Joe, you are not about to die. It is just that I generally find that these kinds of communications stress the human mind to a degree that they can only last a short time."

"First, I want you to know that I have not abandoned Earth, or Man, or whatever you might refer to as everything going on in the world today. I know your thoughts have moved in that direction, especially these last few weeks, this last decade. Of course, for me, the passage of a decade, or even a century, let alone a few weeks is practically instantaneous, but even so, I am aware of the trends taking place on Earth and I can assure you that I am not missing in action, or off creating life somewhere else in the universe, or just sitting back and waiting for the chips to fall as they may."

"But there is such killing going on", I blurted out, hoping this statement reflected my real question; why did The Almighty allow such death and destruction as was occurring in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, let alone the multiple atrocities that are hidden from the media outlets which most of us access.

"Life is both complicated, and simple. Complicated because of how long it has taken for humans to have become what they are today through the stops and starts of life as it has evolved. And even more complicated because of the slow progress by humans as they have adapted to the environment, learned about the immense variety of species that I have also provided, sought comfort in ever increasing sizes of groups, began to wander about and explore the immense space outside their home planet."

"To be honest, it's been very rewarding to see the progress, the development of what you define as justice, fairness, the respect for life, animal as well as human. Of course, there is still a very long way to go, but I am pleased, in general."

"In essence, that is what makes life simple. You might call it the golden rule, treating others as you wish to be treated. For all the talk about the indoctrination of children towards a more secular perception, treating others as you would like to be treated does not require an association with a religion, just a belief that we should treat each other humanely."

"While I have said that I am pleased with the progress, again, you must understand that my timeline is rather large compared to any civilization's, let alone any one person's. There has been ebb and flow, the pendulum has swung, sometimes rather drastically, in the wrong direction. And I am not just referring to the events of thousands of years ago, but also to events that have transpired even during the lifetimes of many people alive today." 

"So, while pleased with the progress, there is a paradigm shift that is ongoing, that has been ongoing, for a while now. A shift that perhaps seems fairly drastic in the way that humans perceive the passage of time, but not so critical when my timeline is referenced."

"You see, that is the rub, as they say. While I am fully aware of even the most infinitesimal of changes in human development, I am also aware that this process has a timeline of hundreds of thousands of years. For that reason, I am a bit more patient before taking any active involvement."

"To be blunt, one might even say that I am reluctant to intervene because I know that I have provided the proper environment, Earth as you call it, the proper spiritual inspiration, Jesus, Buddha, Mohamed, etc, the requisite mental and physical traits, and, a plethora of possible experiences, joys, and sorrows, that there really shouldn't be the need for me to do more. Without giving too much away, the need hasn't been required in the past with any great frequency."

"Joe, I don't allow war, genocide, brutality, humans do. The real question is why do you allow it, and even more importantly, why do you allow it in My name so often."

"Is there a heaven?", I exclaimed.

There was a pause, brief, but tangible, then

"I will answer that, with the understanding that if humans accept that good and evil emanates from them, and that they should know the difference, then there must be a reward and a punishment for behaving one way or the other. So, yes, heaven and hell do exist but not as humans imagine it. The reward for a life lived as the great spiritual masters have described is far more amazing than anything you can imagine, as is the punishment for turning one's back on those lessons."

"To be honest, if I were to provide the knowledge of what comes after death while you live, the actual reality of each choice, no one would choose hell over heaven. Frankly, most people really don't believe in heaven or hell, despite their declarations that they do, or things like genocide and bombing schools and hospitals, wouldn't exist."

"Why are you communicating with me?", I asked. 

"A fair question, but again, one which reveals the inherent misconception that permeates all religions, that only a small percentage of humans can speak for me, or be contacted by me. All my children have the capacity for good, hence they all have the capacity to communicate what is right and what is wrong. Of course, having that capacity doesn't mean everyone chooses the correct path, or that people should listen to just anyone."

"In your case, you wrote a story called The Line. Do you recall it?"

I thought for a few seconds, remembering the title, but not the story. "No, I really can't remember it's details," I responded. 

Suddenly, there is was, in my mind's eye. 

The Line

I would imagine that if you asked the next 50 people that you encounter, 49 of them, if they answered seriously, would say that, all things being equal, they expected to go to heaven when they died. I have always thought that most people are good. My days of hitchhiking confirmed that belief, and my experiences at work, and in my community have done nothing to change that opinion. But what if we are wrong? What if the creator expects more of us?

Less scrambling for wealth and more helping those less fortunate than ourselves. Less trumpeting ways in which we are better than others and more recognition that the birth lottery was good to us, now how can we progress the lives of those not so lucky. Less finding reasons to distrust, isolate and kill, more searching for ways to bridge our differences; more love, less hate.

What if, at the end of the day, it is simply a matter of how many we've helped, not how much we've earned?

--------

The rain pelted the windshield making visibility very limited. There was no place to pull over, so I continued on, slowly. At a blind curve, two headlights lit up the night, temporarily turning the darkness into light. The collision occurred almost simultaneously just as my eyes recovered from the sudden light providing no time to react. The car teetered momentarily at the cliff's edge, then slid down the ravine into the shallow water below. Funny, I thought, no pain.

The line stretched out in front of me to a point where I could still make out the colors of clothes but not the faces of their wearers. There was a bit of chatter around me but it all sounded forced like the interactions one hears in an elevator. I chose to remain silent, only nodding my head at the woman in front of me when she turned around and smiled the smile one sees in line at the grocery store. Or at a funeral.

Gradually, we shuffled forward. We didn't seem to be moving very quickly yet I didn't sense the impatience one usually feels from a group stuck in a slowly moving, long line. I wondered if they all felt as I did, a feeling that the time would come, soon enough, when we would find ourselves at the front of the line. I heard a short, suppressed laugh in the distance behind me. It was a laugh that seemed to have been stopped short, not just by its owner but by the group as a whole, as if to remind everyone in line that this was not the place for laughter.

After a while, more than minutes but less than hours, I was surprised to find that I had a folder tucked under my arm. I glanced around me and noticed that everyone else also carried a similar folder. No one had opened their package and I followed suit.

More time passed and I was beginning to hear the words being spoken at the front of the line. Well, not really actual words, but voices. Soon I realized that every other voice seemed to be of the same pitch and eventually I understood that each conversation featured the voice of someone in line, like me, and the response from the person who was waiting for us. All of the conversations were brief.

For the second time since I had found myself in line, I was surprised. This time, my surprise was the result of realizing that there were two additional lines leading away from the front of the line in which I waited. How could I have missed them before? One moved very slowly and was extremely crowded. It disappeared into the distance and I got the sense that it did not end just out of sight. The second line was sparsely populated and the people moving within it were free to stride or trot or walk casually as they felt. I noticed that all those around me were also aware of the two lines. I imagined that they wished as I did, to be allowed to join those in that second line.

When I turned my attention back towards the front of my line, I could now clearly see the people as they approached the man whose voice I first detected. He was tall and lean, clothed in loose garb. There was nothing special about his clothes but he obviously commanded the attention of each person who approached him. As each individual personal drama played out, the tall man nodded, each person opened their folder, glanced at the words inside then handed the folder to the man. I heard each person say something, heard his voice respond, then watched as the majority of them walked off to the first, much longer line.

I was getting close now. I should have been close enough to hear the words but for some reason I could not. Yet I could tell that most of the conversations were not ending in the manner that was anticipated. While there was no anger being expressed, there was clearly disappointment of the kind that comes when an outcome is exactly opposite of expectation.

Then, despite the fact that I felt that I had been in line for quite a while, I was suddenly at the front of the line. It reminded me of the conversations that I had had with my grandparents when I was a young adult and they in the twilight of their lives. Time can seem interminable, they all said, yet your life can seem so short, and the time of inevitable death can seem so sudden.

I looked up at the man at the front of the line. He was taller than I had calculated while I was standing in line. But it wasn't his height that was his most striking feature. It was his eyes. They were direct, compassionate, and sad. I had seen similar expressions during conversations where tragic news was being relayed. But his sadness went beyond the sadness that comes from just bringing bad news; his sadness seemed to reflect a responsibility in that he had provided the way to avoid this bad news but it had been ignored. He was obviously reading judgements yet these judgements were far from the judicial impartiality that we expect in our courts. He was visibly saddened by the decisions he was rendering.

I opened my folder and found one piece of paper with a sentence in very large print. It said, YOU MAY ASK ONE QUESTION. Below that line were other words in a language that I did not understand but clearly conveyed something to the man.

"How do you earn the right to take the second line?", I asked.

"You made your choice of which line you would walk every day of your life. You earned time on Line Two every time you performed an act of kindness, doubly so when done for someone you didn't know or who was different from yourself. You earned time on Line Two when your life reflected the spirit of your beliefs, when you were nice when it was hard to be nice, and when you defended someone being treated unjustly. You earned time on Line Two when you used the abilities that you were born with to help those less fortunate than yourself."

"You earned time on Line One when you made choices to benefit yourself regardless of its effect on others. You earned time on Line One when you used your religion to define who to love and who to hate. And you earned time on Line One when you did nothing even though you knew what was right but deferred action to someone else. You earned time on Line One when you used the abilities that you were born with to help only yourself."

"I told you how to live, did you not listen? So many men carrying the message of love, did you not heed them? So much suffering to help ease, did you not see it?"

I reflected on my life in an attempt to calculate which line I had earned through my actions and in-actions. I glanced up at the man at the front of the line and moved towards the line he indicated.

 

As the story faded from my vision, The Almighty continued.

 

"You knew something when you wrote that story, or perhaps had fully incorporated the lessons from your parents, or the spirit of the religion you were born into, or perhaps the feedback you received from your life which taught you that when you are kind to others, it is it's own reward, and when you are unkind, it leaves a dark spot somewhere inside you."

"Which brings me to the theory that good works can't get you to heaven. I am not sure why it is so foundational in many religions and religious books, but that is one of the fallacies of a human created version of heaven. Being kind to others, especially those who are different from you in appearance, culture, perspective, even values, is the most difficult way for someone to live, and the trait I value over any other."

"Or, to put more simply, it is easy to treat people well when they are like yourself, when they are your family, or when they share some basic values or perspective, but far more difficult to treat those unlike yourself fairly and with humanity."

"Not for the first time, probably not for the last, there is a selfishness of action that has begun to permeate man's interactions with each other at a level that is making it more difficult for people to listen to the good within themselves, and to judge whether their leaders messages and policies reflect that same goodness. There is confusion and chaos which causes fear, which inspires behavior that rejects kindness while embracing blame and cruelty."

"Will we get past this cycle?"

"The Earth is billions of years old. Life has existed for millions of years, and will always exist is some form with or without humans. If I said it doesn't matter, would you consider ill of me, as if I didn't care if humanity prospers, or merely survives, or is extinguished? If you consider my time line, the veritable eternity that I have been in existence, and the endless time ahead, you might forgive me for such a nonchalant attitude."

"But know this, it is not the big picture of humanity existing for 100 or 1000 or 10,0000 more years that matters compared to how each person is judged."

"Have you reflected the best of what I instilled in each of you? Or have you ignored the lessons handed down through history from those who were able to fully tap into the goodness I imprinted in everyone?"

"Each of you will earn whatever fate comes your way, as will every person you encounter as well as every person unknown to you, and combined, those actions will enable humanity to exist for centuries, or for decades. But regardless, the Earth will circle the sun for far longer, and the sun will radiate light and heat for even longer still, yet that will still be only a fraction of the time of my existence."

"In that way, the cycle you refer to is inconsequential, in the bigger perspective of time without end."

"But if nothing matters, then what is the point?"

"Did I say nothing mattered? Everything you do matters, everything everyone does matters, every action and inaction. I said earlier that I value good works, especially those conferred upon people unlike oneself." 

"But just as powerful are the in-actions we engage in when we turn our heads rather than see injustice, or stay quiet when we know someone is harming others in words or deeds, in fear that if we speak up, we might be next. Or worse, by thinking we won't be next because our looks, or beliefs, or opinions, mirror those of the oppressor."

"To repeat a phrase that you are familiar with, due to your particular upbringing, what you do unto the least of them, you do unto me. That is a very powerful statement, and one which is extremely difficult to live as one's guiding maxim."

"The point is to leave the world a better place through actions you perform and in-actions you reject."

"The point is to strive to be the best version of being human that you can knowing you will fail, often, but acknowledging those failures, and doing even better when the next opportunity arises."

"The point is to live by giving and receiving as much love as you can both to those in your life, your family, your neighbors, your co-workers, your friends, and to those outside your circle. Or maybe a better way to explain it is to make your particular circle of love as immense as you can. As big as the Earth itself, if possible."

With that, the communication ended. I spent the next hour or so trying to remember and record as much as I could before the memory faded as I feared that perhaps part of the process was that I would forget the encounter. That doubt as to source of such a dialogue was designed to provide those who received such a opportunity a reason to pretend it didn't happen, or couldn't happen to an ordinary person. 

And if doubt in the existence of The Almighty was both the problem and solution to living a moral life, or to attain heaven, I wondered if my own agnostic or atheistic leanings were a boon or an obstacle. 

Or perhaps both.

Belief that by leaving the world a better place, we will be rewarded, and doubt that there a such a reward, but that we should leave the world a better place anyway. 

Do right by those you encounter, not out of fear of eternal hell but because that is why The Almighty began the cycle of life millions of years ago which ultimately led to humanity. 

------

For another short story with a religious theme, here is a link to

An Atheist For Christ

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

Eagles Super Bowl Win

The Philadelphia Eagles won the second Super Bowl of their franchise history, second in seven years, this past Sunday. It was a remarkable season for The Birds, who, after starting 2 -2  in their first four games, won twelve of their next thirteen regular season games, that one loss occurring when their starting QB left the game in the 2nd quarter with a concussion. 

From there they won three straight home playoff games, to the delight of Eagles fans, the last one, the NFC Championship game, a 55 - 23 drubbing of the upstart team from Washington.

Then, in a game that they played with near perfection, they dismantled the two time defending champion Kansas City Chiefs, 40 - 22, at one point leading 40 - 6. 

Today, on one of the Philly sports channels, the question was put to the listeners as to which Super Bowl victory was the most rewarding, or meant the most. I decided to read my post from the week after that first Super Bowl win before I considered my answer, a link to which you can find below. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/02/super-bowl-champion-eagles.html 

After reading it, I am torn as I initially thought that this past week's win was better for me, especially considering how dominant the team was in the last two Championship games.

But after reading it, I am less confident in my opinion.

While this year's team overcame some setbacks, there wasn't nearly the number of injuries that beset the first Super Bowl winning team. 

This year's team was hindered more by some poor play, at times, for some of the key players, yet that occasional poor play was always overshadowed by the remarkable year that their star running back had, a year in which he broke the all-time rushing record, regular season and playoffs combined, with over 2500 yards.

Still, I will remember the details of both teams' accomplishments, especially the fact that that 2017-18 team brought home our first Lombardi trophy by beating an opposing QB who is currently considered the best of all time. 

This year's game itself, like that first Super Bowl victory, featured individual play that provided a number of Eagles team members the chance to prove their worth to the team, many whom had their talents doubted at times during the year.

The QB is at the top of that list, a man who just wins games, without flash, without gaudy stats. Jalen Hurt's ability was questioned practically after every game this year, even when they won. And now he is the MVP of the Super Bowl breaking his own record for most rushing yards by a QB in a Super Bowl game.

Then there is the field goal kicker who was one for eight in kicks more than 50 yards after he missed one against Washington in that NFC game, and who had missed a number of extra points in the playoffs. Yet in the biggest game of the year, Jake Elliot made every PAT and hit four field goals, one from 50 and two from 48 yards out, which made him the first kicker to make three from 48 or more yards in Super Bowl history.

One of the Eagles, a player who was well off the radar when the season began, was one of their linebackers, a man who played his first four years in the league with another team, without distinction. For the Eagles this year Zack Baun made more tackles than all those years combined, and after having only one interception in those four years, had one in each of the two biggest games of the season.

Another player who, I admit, I did not have much faith in, accepted his diminished role on this year's team. But when they needed him most Avonte Maddox made a great pass breakup on a fourth down play, and also recovered an onside kick. He did not let his disappointment in not starting effect his play.

One might even include the star wide receivers who saw the limelight shine ever so brightly on the newly signed star running back and perhaps slightly less so on them. But that didn't stop A J Brown or DeVonta Smith who were often seen blocking down field to provide that extra space which resulted in a half dozen 60 plus yard running plays for touchdowns, a record for running backs.

And speaking of that star running back, Saquon Barkley did not just run. There were many plays where he stepped up into the pocket to take on an incoming defender, often someone much larger than himself, to provide that extra split second so the QB could let fly a pass or scramble for extra yards.

And finally, there is the rookie corner back, who did nothing other than holding opponent wide receivers to few completions and even fewer TD's. To top that however, Cooper DeJean, made his first career interception the the Super Bowl and returned it for a TD on his 22nd birthday!

Can I say it is a tie, that I enjoyed both games equally!

Regardless of which game, or team, you prefer for their great victories, hail to this year's Philadelphia Eagles, Super Bowl 59 Champions!

------

For those who wish to leave this post on a positive note, I recommend you stop reading. 

You see, the facts are that both Eagles teams would not have achieved their success without placing the team's needs above their own. It was truly a team effort! While there may have been moments that a me first statement or sentiment was uttered, all in all the players and coaches focused on the team.

Yet America seems neck deep in this America First bull**** which is nothing more than selfishness and me first. We see it in the inane renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, the ridiculous statements from the White House about making Canada the 51st state, or taking back the Panama Canal. As if what is perceived as being good for America, is good for the world!

Still, those supporting such populist nonsense will most likely agree with me that the Eagles run this season was based on non-selfish play. Had A J Brown operated with the mantra of A J first, he wouldn't have been making those down field blocks to allow Barkley to score. Had Jalen Hurst decided that he needed to pad his passing yard numbers, he wouldn't have accepted the focus on letting Barkley run so often. And had Barkley thought that he couldn't afford to risk getting hurt when 250lb defenders came barreling towards our QB, he wouldn't have put his own body on the line to protect his teammate.

Folks, it is that simple. We either work together to make America work, to make the world work, or we all go down together. And so when the new president unilaterally decides to sever our relationships with the World Health Organization or remove America from the Paris Accord on Climate Change, the end result of such temper tantrums is that we all lose, Americans and our allies.

Cooperation and collaboration, playing for your teammates, is a mantra that we hear all the time from players who have just won a championship, yet is sadly lacking from the absurdities that emanate almost daily from the new president and his acolytes. 

It can be difficult to widen one's perspective, while succumbing to tribalism can be safe, far less challenging. But can you imagine if we started treating everyone in our community as teammates, even those who live and love and worship differently from ourselves.

Can you then imagine if we did the same for everyone in our country, whether they live in blue states or red, whether they struggle with their gender identity or were born to people who came from outside our borders.

And finally, can you imagine if we extended that sentiment to all people who inhabit this tiny, insignificant planet orbiting one of millions of suns in a galaxy which itself is one of millions of such expanses in a universe that reaches back into time further than we have discovered, and will continue to exist far after humanity has worn out its welcome within its confines.

Imagine. 

 

 

Another Unconstitutional Executive Order

It's hard to keep up with the number of executive orders that explicitly violate the Constitution and/or just skirt its meaning. Which, of course, is the point of this administration. Chaos, suffering, massive upheaval. Whether it is because Trump just wants to push the limits as far as possible until there are no institutions left to counter his power grab, or because he doesn't really care which unconstitutional executive orders are struck down by the courts as long as he can continue to make money from being president (do we really know if all the classified documents he stole were returned), it doesn't matter. America may never be the same again.

So my big issue this week is Trump's duel executive orders which seek to make Americans who identify as transgender non-existent.  

First, just think about that. People, created by God with a different perspective of their gender identity, have been told by the president of the land of the free, that there is no such thing as their life situation. And, any parents of such a person, are, by association, either violating his executive order by encouraging their child's beliefs, or outright child abusers who may be subject to incarceration and loss of custody of their children if they live in states like Texas where the attorney general has made it a priority to seek medical records of his own constituents.

Of course, there have always been people who struggled with their sexual identity. One might even say that a sizable percentage of all people have experienced difficulty of some kind as they traversed the murky years of puberty. But let's not address reality, let's not address any of the reasons why Americans, children as well as adults, struggle with their self worth, turn to drugs and alcohol, or commit the ultimate act of self destruction, suicide, let's just blame those who manufacture the drugs we demand, or the countries which provide that demand, or just pretend that a certain demographic of Americans just don't exist.

Studies indicate that about 1/2 of 1% of people in America identify as transgender. Not even 2 million individuals, yet one would think that they are responsible for all of the problems of our times, and that with a stroke of the pen, those problems will disappear just as they do.

Which is the point of someone like this current president. Demonize a population that is not understood and exists in small numbers as a distraction away from the real problems of today. Not unlike sacrificing a virgin to appease the gods, except in this case the virgin is one of the most bullied and discriminated against populations in our country, and the gods are the super rich who drive the narratives that transgender people want to creep into women's locker rooms and excel at women's sports.

The fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To me, requesting medical records .of transgender patients could be interpreted an unlawful search and seizure. Unless one believes that transgender people don't exist and therefore have no rights under the Constitution. Keep an eye out for that interpretation in the courts who bend the knee to Trump.

And then there is Section One of the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Perhaps this a stretch, since this amendment seems to indicate that no state shall deprive a person born in the United States life, liberty, or property, but then again this amendment has been interpreted to protect all naturalized Americans from violations by the federal government as well, hence the current arguments about children born of non citizens, so it is certainly conceivable that transgender people have a case that an executive order, or any federal or state law, that declares them not real, could be considered evidence that their due process has been violated and that their are not being granted equal protection of the laws.

When the gay community was ravaged by AIDS, there were millions of Americans who shrugged their shoulders and blamed the victims for the disease. It was easy to do since they were "different", even easier when the "religious" right declared them to be at odds with God's will. Funny how those who die from illegal use of fentanyl aren't graded with a similar yardstick. And how children experiencing confusion with their gender identity aren't given even a modicum of empathy by those same religious people.

Whether you believe that the current president has violated the Constitution by signing executive orders that declare that transgender people don't exist, or whether you believe it is just another distraction foisted upon America by someone who is the master of telling us where to look, so he can loot our government of money, our national self respect, and the ideals of "all men are created equal", in the end such executive orders are simply mean spirited, and not worthy of a self proclaimed Christian nation.   

And, since the Constitution seems no longer viable, we might as well take down the Statue of Liberty as we clearly no longer believe the  sentiment engraved on the pedestal:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free".

And so, the decline of America continues.

The Anti-Constitution President

My last two posts discussed the first two unconstitutional executive orders signed by the new president. This post will continue on that theme, but without pulling any punches. We are witnessing, in real time, the actions of our country's first blatantly anti-constitution president. 

On July 1, 2020, the three cosignatory countries of the United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) officially recognized the tenets of this trade pact, which then replaced those of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) which had been in effect since the early 1990's.

During Trump's first term, it was no secret that he did not like the terms of NAFTA, so it was no surprise that he negotiated the new agreement, USMCA. At the time, it was hailed as a landmark achievement by the US Trade representative, one that would spur manufacturing and investment in North America's economy. 

All but eliminating tariffs between the three countries was one of the main features which is generally the basis of a free trade treaty. Just as a reminder, free trade pacts were historically a foundational aspect of the GOP and conservatives. 

Since the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 gives Congress the power to regulate trade, the Congress in power in 2020 had to ratify the trade treaty before America could enter into it.

This does not mean that any president can't enact tariffs against another nation, as was done by Trump and Biden against China in the past two administrations, but it does mean that once Congress ratifies a treaty such as USMCA, they are the only ones who can void it.

Now technically, Trump's 25% tariff threat against Mexico and Canada is not necessarily against the Constitution, as he invoked the emergency powers of his office to justify his executive order to institute these tariffs, to be specific, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

However, there does not seem to be an economic emergency at hand. The US economy is strong, unemployment still hovers around 4%, the stock market is near its record high on all three indexes, and inflation, while still stubbornly stuck in the upper 2% range, is far lower than its peak of over 9% just two years ago.

In fact, even Trump himself has defended these tariffs as a border security issue by referencing both illegal immigrants and fentanyl as not being controlled aggressively enough by our northern and southern neighbors. 

To me then, this is another power grab by the dictator wannabe who doesn't honor the literal meaning or spirit of our Constitution when he uses his executive powers. And apparently either unknown or not important to his supporters, he is violating the terms of a treaty he advocated for and signed himself.

Of course, Congress is currently inhabited by men and women who are either too afraid to stand up to the president, or actually believe that when the president is from their party, anything goes, the Constitution be damned.

While the judicial branch will attempt to reign in some of these egregious acts, as a few district judges have so far, it is obvious that Trump believes that the Supreme Court will see it his way, since he clearly thinks that three of them owe him for appointing them, and two of the others have indicated their allegiance to him and his movement in their personal lives, let alone their rulings.

 

Since beginning this post, Trump has delayed the 25% tariffs for 30 days. And, to a degree, the threat has worked as both Mexico and Canada have agreed to more border patrols to stem the flow of illegal entry and fentanyl. Of course, it doesn't matter that Mexico was already working with the Biden administration to reduce the flow of immigrants south to north towards our border, nor does it matter that Canada had announced enhancements to its efforts to crack down on illegal drugs moving into America last year.

And of course, it doesn't matter that illegal immigrants coming from Canada account for perhaps one percent of those crossing from Mexico, and that illegal fentanyl that has been discovered being smuggled into America from Canada is far less than one percent of that emanating from Mexico. Seems strange that the tariff penalty would be the same when the level of problem is so drastically different. Perhaps Trump's problem with Canada has less to do with immigration and fentanyl and more to do with...well, I guess it doesn't matter since Trump has rarely been held accountable for his questionable or outright illegal actions.

And, since it is well known that much of the illegal fentanyl is being synthesized in China, why only 10% tariff on that country?

Finally, on another front, if again, only Congress has the power of the purse, how exactly are these DOGE employees being paid for their time, or even that DOGE itself even exists since Congress has not approved its creation. 

The simple fact that America's payment disbursement system is being accessed by people who are not federal employees, and even worse, that when initially declined access to such confidential information, it was the federal employees who were dismissed from their jobs, for protecting the information of their fellow citizens, and the DOGEmen who were defended by the current DOJ head. Yikes!

In the end, I am sure that there will be some money saved from the federal budget, especially money headed to such woke programs as Head Start and school lunch programs. So much for pro-life, but as I have said before, pro-fetus should be their mantra as they have no care for that fetus once it actually becomes a child.

And I am sure that thousands of federal employees will take the "offer" of eight month pay with benefits, especially those in the boomer generation who were thinking of retiring anyway. But for those who aren't ready to retire, and anyone who is considering a public service job in the federal government, I would imagine they will have to reconsider being employed in a hostile work environment where they are considered either too stupid or lazy or both to work in the public sector. 

After all, reduced environmental regulations and less accountability for the fossil fuel industry, plus less food inspectors, highway engineers, government agency auditors, people who man the phones at the various government agencies who help Americans gain the benefits they have earned, scientists at NIH and the CDC, even IRS agents who root out the rich who avoid paying their fair share of taxes, all of it, will allow the real welfare queens like Musk and his ilk to continue to steal huge sums of our tax dollars to enrich themselves while everyday Americans are left to die from poor air and water, poisoned food, and public health emergencies. Double Yikes!!

And so, the decline of America continues.

 

Executive Orders

As expected, the new president has signed a plethora of executive orders in the first ten days of his term. This is nothing new, many presidents sign many executive orders in the beginning of their term, often to merely reverse those signed by the previous president. That was certainly the case for Biden who signed more in his first year than any other year of his presidency.

Below is a link to a site which documents how many executive orders each president signed since 1937, broken down by year.

https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders 

A quick perusal of the list, which only goes back to the last 8 years of FDR's administration, reveals that when the party in charge of the White House changed, there was increased executive order activity. This is especially true since Clinton, as there has been a party change with every new president since, and that change featured the most or 2nd most executive orders being signed in the first year of the new administration.

Interestingly, however, use of executive orders had been on the decline since the heydays of FDR and Truman with FDR signing over 2000 in his last eight years, and Truman signing over 900 during his two terms.

In comparison, Carter averaged 80 per year, Kennedy and Nixon about 70 per year, Johnson and Eisenhower around 60 per year, solid numbers but far less than FDR and Truman's per year average.

Ford signed about 55 per year in his 3 years in office, Reagan less than 50 during his two terms, Bush One about 40, Clinton about 45, Bush 2 about 35 and Obama about 34. Even less than the presidents of the 60's and 70's.

Trump's 55 per year in his first term indicates a slight increase in recent history while Biden's 40 per year is about the same as Bush 1 but still higher than Bush 2 and Obama.

Based on the perceived "mandate" from the American electorate that Trump and his allies spout, I expect that Trump will not be shy in his attempts to remake America in his image. Certainly the couple dozen executive actions he has signed to date indicate his belief in his vision for America, which is, of course, his right as the victor last November, but also exemplifies his belief that as president he can do whatever he wishes.

Because, at the end of the day, the number of executive orders is only one side of the conversation. It is the actual orders themselves that reveal the character of the leader who signs them, and the electorate who voted for him.

----

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That, my friends, is wording from section one of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. To put it into context, it was ratified in July of 1868, and was directly related to the cause of the civil war, the status of slaves in America, the idea being that anyone born on American soil, regardless of whether they were born into slavery, or even if they were the children of slaves, was granted citizenship. 

There was no asterisk attached to it that said anything about citizenship status of the parents of the newborn that might provide exceptions to this right. It was as clear an indicator that the treatment of slaves before this amendment, the fact that they had little rights as they were considered property, was finally considered abhorrent when compared with our founding documents that claimed that all men were created equal.

It granted, in no uncertain terms the privileges of citizenship to the children of slaves, in particular, but anyone in general, who was born in our country. No longer would anyone born in our great country be considered someone's property based on their parent's citizenship status.

Yet despite that very clear language, the new president signed an executive order rescinding this amendment to our Constitution. It is as clear an indication of his racism, as his belief that he is now King of America, that he would execute such a document.  

I have often indicated that I am in agreement with some conservatives who claim we should teach civics in our schools. Clearly it could be part of social studies, or even history. Oddly however, it seems to be some of these same conservatives who are either silent about Trump's unconstitutional attempt to change birthright citizenship, or actually agree with him.

Perhaps they should glance at the rules for amending the Constitution established in the Constitution, in article 5.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. 

To put it simply, the Constitution can be amended, as it has been done so many times in our history, by a process which includes approval by 2/3 of the Congress then ratification by 3/4 of the states. This means that 67 or more Senators (out of 100) and 290 Representatives (out of 435) must vote on a law, then 38 states must ratify said law. 

There is nothing in the Constitution that grants such power to a president, and while I certainly believe that the Supreme Court leans towards overarching presidential power as was demonstrated with their immunity decision, I don't see how they can discard the Constitution so haphazardly when the challenge to this executive order reaches them. 

And of course, there is a Supreme Court ruling from 1898 to overturn. In that case, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in America of non-citizen Chinese parents left to visit his family in his homeland, but was denied reentry upon returning as a test case to challenge the 14th Amendment, a test case brought by the US Government which was reacting to the anti-Chinese sentiment of the day. 

They did not refute that Wong was born in America but they claimed that since his parents were not citizens, they were still loyal to China, and so by automatic transmission, so was he.  And, even more insidious, lawyers for the government argued that the 14th amendment itself was unconstitutional because the South was coerced to ratify it as part of their being accepted back into the Union after the Civil War.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court sided with lawyers for the Chinese American, solidifying the Court's interpretation that anyone born in America was granted the right of citizenship.

Now, is it possible that Congress might approve a plan which alters this amendment, and that enough states would ratify? Of course, that is what makes our Constitution so powerful, as it allows within itself, the process to alter it. But for now, Trump has shown, again, his lack of respect and utter contempt for the rule of law, and to be honest, for each and every American. He knows best, the opinions of the electorate and the laws of the land be damned.

Speaking of contempt of the laws of our nation, Trump also signed an executive order freezing all government expenditures. 

Now, again, when the current GOP controlled Congress develops a budget and it is signed into law, whatever cuts and funding freezes they enact will be the law. That is another ramification of the phrase, elections matter.

But the flow of money that Trump tried to stop was from a budget voted on and approved by the previous Congress, those people we elected in 2022, and signed by then President Biden. Regardless of what he thinks, Trump cannot rescind that money just because he, one person out of 340 million, disagrees with how it is being allocated.

Can unspent money from that budget be clawed back in an upcoming budget that is passed in Congress and signed into law by the new president? Perhaps, but clearly money that has been approved by law to be spent in the name of the American citizenry can not be cancelled by a new administration with the stroke of a pen.

Congress is tasked with spending our country's money, so when a president attempts a power grab to overrule that Constitutional power, one would think that all the strict Constitutionalists on the right would be appalled.

But again, I guess when you are in agreement with acts which violate the Constitution and the ideals of the founders, capitulation to the destruction of that very sacred document, alleged, is okie dokie with those who sit at the knee and kiss the ring of the new president.

I would say that perhaps these two attacks on our Constitution will be the last, but that is probably not to be the case. I expect travel bans which target specific countries that just coincidentally include people who worship a different religion and have a darker skin pigmentation will again be enacted by executive order.

Will there be certain restrictions to news organizations that engage in fake news, you know, news that criticizes the new president or attempts to fact check his constant stream of exaggerations and lies? Certainly the first amendment's freedom of speech clause can be turned on its head when justified in the name of national security.

In fact, it is already apparent that Trump will refer to national security many times in the near future as he sits at the Resolute Desk and dismantles the rights of those who dare to question his divine right to govern. And sadly, there will be millions of Americans who will nod their heads in agreement, incorrectly believing that they will never be a target of his unconstitutional behavior, and perhaps even blaming whomever he tells them to blame when they are negatively effected.

I can even imagine that a Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage be returned to the states will occur in the next two years which one may interpret as not specifically unconstitutional, but certainly cruel, and dripping with religious bigotry.

And anyone who believes that Trump won't sign some type of abortion ban if it comes to his desk is not paying attention. 

As I said earlier, executive orders reflect the character of both the signer and those who granted him that power. As the next four years transpires, I shudder to think what new examples of our national lack of character will be on display.

And so, the decline continues.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-decline-of-america-part-one.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-decline-of-america-part-two.html

 

Presidential Pardons

The controversy surrounding the pardons granted by Presidents Biden and Trump in the last few days, inspired me to research past presidential pardons. 

As a result, I was surprised to learn that the concept of a presidential pardon is not a recent phenomenon. George Washington issued sixteen presidential pardons during his two terms as president, the most notable for two individuals convicted for their participation in the Whiskey Rebellion which occurred in the first decade of our country's existence. 

Other early presidents pardoned people convicted of similar acts against the government, some violent like the Whiskey Rebellion which was a protest against the first tax levy against an American made product, some non-violent which basically amounted to prosecutions based on criticism of the US government, and some were for criminals who later in life assisted America, for instance many men convicted of piracy who later fought in the War of 1812.

Only two presidents issued zero pardons, William Henry Harrison and Garfield, although that was more a function of them dying early in their presidency.

A number of presidents issued blanket pardons which covered unnamed people who shared an activity, such as those who fought on the Confederate side in the Civil War (by a number of presidents in varying degrees), members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who were convicted of polygamy (Benjamin Harrison), and those who evaded the draft during the Vietnam War, upwards of 200,000 people (Carter).

Of course the most famous pardon was granted in 1974 to Richard Nixon by Gerald Ford, a pardon some say would have been unnecessary had the GOP been filled with the spineless group we have today, and had the Supreme Court of the time not think presidents have immunity for crimes committed while in office, as our current iteration of SCOTUS has ruled.

If you are interested in a more complete list, it doesn't take much effort to find summaries of each president's pardons, and the notable names among those totals.

Which brings us to the pardons issued on January 20, by both Biden and Trump each which were met with outrage depending on how one voted last November.

I am in partial agreement with Biden's use of his presidential powers. While it is unprecedented to pardon one's family members who have not been convicted of a crime (Hunter not withstanding), sort of a preemptive pardon, based on the frequent statements by the new president and those who will soon lead the DOJ and FBI, I support Biden's pardon of his siblings and their wives. Since a presidential pardon does not include any state crimes that may have been committed by any of his family members, Biden's decision to short circuit any revenge investigations or acts of retribution by the president or his minions, was a direct consequence of all the talk about going after the Biden "crime family", so it made sense.

I was less enthusiastic of his pardons for the January 6th committee members. They knew what they were doing when they ran for office, and accepted a position on the committee. As public servants who were fully aware of the meanness of their chosen profession, is was a known risk. While I believe it's possible that someone like Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzigner or Bennie Thompson would have been targeted, I respectfully would have preferred that to occur, to demonstrate, again, how partisan and pathetic our government has become, especially under Trump.

I feel the same about General Milley's pardon; understandable but not necessary.

As for Dr Anthony Fauci, I am on the fence. Again, he was a public servant. The fact that he served under a half dozen different presidents from both parties should be enough to garner respect and protection from the zealots. Unfortunately, it is not enough, so I give Biden the benefit of the doubt in pardoning him, to allow Fauci to avoid what would have been rancorous and ugly investigations, as a reward for his public service, and the simple fact that his medical advice during COVID most likely saved hundreds of thousands of American lives.

As for Trump's pardons for those who beat up 140 police officers as they attacked our nation's capitol, who trashed said capitol building causing a few million dollars worth of damage, who threatened to kill both the vice president and various members of Congress, it is just another brick in the wall of our receding democracy. 

However, just to be clear, had Trump's trial been allowed to take place, had he been convicted of attempting to thwart the will of the people by overturning the results of the 2020 election, had he been relegated to the dustbin of history as the first failed dictator of the United States, I would gladly recommend pardons for those who believed that the election was stolen due to the lies of Trump and his acolytes. Other than those in the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were part of the conspiracy, even those who wielded flag poles and fire extinguishers, those who sprayed bear repellent into the eyes of the capitol police officers who they fought hand-to-hand in their attempt to invade the capitol and stop the electoral count certification, even those who proudly recorded themselves as they rampaged through the capitol building bragging about doing Trump's dirty work, even those people I would pardon, in hopes of demonstrating that unity among the American people is paramount, and that we are all susceptible to liars and con men.

Sadly, no such unity is on the horizon. There will be retribution against those Americans who see Trump as I do and who call him out for his autocratic tendencies, his immorality, his crimes against other American citizens as well as the United States itself. And not just individuals, but certain business, news outlets, and advocacy groups.

No one will beyond his ire, as was clearly demonstrated in his late night tweet against Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde, who had the temerity to request he follow the teachings of Christ and show mercy and restraint towards the least among us, which today translates as the LGBTQ and transgender communities, and the millions of undocumented, especially those brought to America as children and those born here but to the "wrong" parents.

The man is as far from a follower of Jesus, as far away an example of the spirit of Christianity as any American leader in my lifetime, and those who take the knee before him are as guilty as he is, especially those billionaires who sat with him at his inauguration, having sold their souls for even more money than they already possess.

It is a truly remarkably sad day for the country once inspired to be the shining city upon the hill, which has now adopted the mantra that any nation which wants our business, our protection, our good intentions, must do what we wish, or else. 

Threats not example, violence not cooperation, the bully nation in action, yet somehow populated by millions who believe that God blesses us above all. 

And so the decline continues. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/09/the-decline-of-america-part-one.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/10/the-decline-of-america-part-two.html

   

 

 

Family friendly work policies

I read an interesting article concerning Denmark's reputation as having achieved a much better work and family balance than most countries. Interestingly, the article starts by emphasizing that trust between employer and employee is the foundation of this balance. 

As one interviewee stated, there is not a lot of micro managing at my place of work. My employer trusts me to perform the task assigned or the overall requirements of the job, without looking over my shoulder, or controlling the specific hours I work, or tracking every minute I might be on my computer or in the office.

Trust.

Seems to fly in the face of the current trend in America where certain employers are forcing their employees back to the office, or certain elected officials are pushing for back to office laws for our federal workers. Now, clearly, if someone is not performing their job, whether from home or in the office, eventual dismissal should be on the table after warnings and job improvement plans. 

But merely demanding that employees work in an office reflects more a desire to control than an effort for efficiency.

Work at home flexibility allows for a parent to stay home with a sick child and still get some work done rather than taking sick time to attend to their child. It allows for employees to avoid the stress and expense of traveling to work. It provides an opportunity for an employee to prove their worth without constant supervision, which provides the employer with a dynamic list of employees who are capable of more duties, or advancement. Isn't being able to work efficiently while unsupervised a trait that all employers seek in their work force?

Being trusted to perform one's job requirements without constant oversight also equates to an increase in job satisfaction. A study detailed in the article revealed that 60% of Danes would continue to work if they won a significant amount of money, because they enjoyed their job. 

My experience after 40 some years of work indicates that such a percentage in America would certainly be below 50%, probably less. In my particular job now, the lottery machine is a popular hangout for many of my co-workers. They dream of hitting it big so they can retire. Now, of course, my current co-workers do not have the luxury of working remotely, being in a retail environment, so perhaps that percentage is as much a function of one's particular mode of work. Still, even my time in various offices convince me that job satisfaction is lacking in America.

One reason for this phenomenon, unrelated to working in Denmark or America, is discussed in a post I wrote in November of 2011. See link below if interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/11/labor-of-love.html

Of course, the elephant in the room of forcing employees back to the office is the expense, to employers and the US government of half empty office buildings. A hit to the revenue of the very people who are demanding return to office policies can reveal another (or perhaps the only) reason for such arbitrary policies.

So, let's assume that the Danes were not born with either a more advanced love of labor, or a more innate perception that a reasonable work-life balance is a priority. That perhaps they have learned the advantage of a balanced work-life attitude from the family friendly policies that exist in their nation.

For instance, in Denmark only 1.1% of people work over 50 hours a week, while in America a bit over 10% do. While I am not sure what percentage of those working over 50 hours includes people who work two jobs, as opposed to over 50 hours in just one job, as someone who worked over 50 hours a week for 25 years, it really doesn't matter. When we are away from our family to earn enough money to feed, clothe and shelter them, the factors that lead to such work hours, whether because two sources of income are necessary or because one's employer demands it if one wants to "get ahead", are less than family friendly.

Another family friendly national policy in Denmark is the five week paid leave benefit that all workers enjoy, not just white collar workers who work for large corporations, or in my case, being a state employee who benefited from a union negotiated contract. Just to remind you, there is no such federal law in America mandating paid time off (PTO) although to our credit most workers get two weeks vacation and some sick time. Still, that is less than half of all workers in Denmark.

Also, speaking of family friendly, in Denmark there is mandated six months maternity and paternity leave. Can you imagine, after having a baby, something that is certainly being pushed in America by those declaring we are facing a low population crisis, being able to spend the first six months of the newborns life at home, with pay? Of course, that doesn't mean that more people will have children if there was a more generous maternal/paternal leave policy, but it certainly does mean that the newborn will have much more intimate, quality time with his/her parents. 

I would say that this is even more critical for first time parents who are learning as they go, but then again, leaving a new mom at home with another child or two in addition to an infant, might go more smoothly if another adult was present.

In America, by contrast, there are guidelines that require new parents to have time off from work to stay at home without losing their job, but any income must be derived from PTO which quickly means unpaid leave if a new parent would like to spend three or four months with their baby, although, to be fair, our federal government does offer 12 weeks of paid leave for new parents. I wonder if that will be one of the targets for DOGE in the upcoming months?

As one of the authors of the article put it, in America there has been some progress towards such family friendly work place rules. To quote her

"Progressive organizations are introducing benefits like unlimited paid time off, mental health days, and wellness programs, to encourage employees to prioritize self-care," she says. "These measures not only alleviate pressure, but also demonstrate that employers value their workforce's overall well-being.

"More companies are recognizing that well-rested and balanced employees bring fresh ideas, better problem-solving skills, and greater engagement. Employees are beginning to feel empowered to take the time they need without sacrificing career growth."

Sadly though, many people read those two paragraphs and consider such thinking "woke". Treating employees like people rather than indentured slaves is woke to them, not because they truly believe that everyday working people shouldn't be treated with respect, but because they have been convinced by the rich people who control the narrative that such policies are bad for business, hence bad for America.

This is the crux of the issue. Not just how so many working folks in America side with the perceptions of billionaires in how they should be treated, but that they believe such nonsense despite the evidence that since the glory days of the American middle class, there has been a massive shift of income to the top 1%, to the detriment of everyone else.

To be fair, there are drawbacks to such family friendly work policies. When comfortable with our situation, we take less risks. Having a satisfying job with good pay and strong benefits might discourage entrepreneurial activities, might suppress risk taking in the form of new businesses or innovation. I certainly wouldn't argue that could be true, although I would posit that the opposite could occur as well, in that someone might be more willing to start a new business if they knew that their health care would be secure, and that should the new venture fail, there is a fall back position if their new venture should fail.

-----

Sometimes my posts are created and published the same day, other times there may be a few days between beginning and publishing. This post is an example of the latter, as I started it over the weekend, and today is now Tuesday.

Interestingly, since its inception, I encountered two pieces of information indicating that America is moving away from being more family friendly in terms of work requirements.

The first example is the story about a pregnant Congresswoman who has proposed a rule which would allow for votes by proxy for women who may be restricted from traveling as their pregnancy concludes, or who wish to stay at home with their newborn for a few months after the birth. 

Such a situation played out during COVID when voting by proxy was instituted to reduce the chance of spreading the virus, especially in the first year before vaccines were developed. At first there was some resistance against this temporary change, especially among GOP representatives, but soon it was realized that it was a prudent idea.

Unfortunately, current Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has indicated that he is against allowing such exceptions to pregnant elected officials, claiming it may run afoul of the Constitution. Now, there are a number of areas of hypocrisy I could call out towards his response, but to just stick to the topic

- Johnson voted by proxy dozens of times during the COVID exception period

- when the alteration was challenged, various courts ruled that Congress could create whatever rules it deemed necessary in terms of voting

Johnson's position seems pretty ironic when we consider his alleged pro-family, pro-birth positions as he appears to want to both encourage women to have more babies while punishing them in the work place when they do so.

The other telling instance of how America, in general, and the GOP in particular are anti-family when it comes to work rules, is the executive decision signed yesterday which mandates (that hated word, funny how it is so popular when Trump does it) federal workers return to the office. 

So what if that might force many of them to spend a significant amount of extra money on child care, or that it will force more workers into their cars to buy gas (doesn't demand for a product raise the price) or even that there is debatable evidence that work from home is less efficient than work in the office (common sense dictates that people who are lazy at home are lazy in the office, and that those who work responsibly and efficiently in the office do the same at home, but when did common sense have anything to do with being a bully).

Finally, the link below is to a post from September 2014 in which I discuss raising the minimum raise, among other things.

Sadly, ten plus years later and the federal minimum wage is still $7.25 per hour, not having been raised since 2009. 

Now, I am sure that the percentage of actual working people earning $7.25 an hour is a small percentage of the overall work force, due to most states having raised the minimum raise above that amount. However, shockingly, 20 states still follow the federal minimum wage guideline. In case you were wondering, Trump won all but one of those 20 states in last year's election.

Voting for anti-family work policies seems to be a common theme, not just in red states but all across America. And it certainly won't get any better as long as we allow the super rich open access to the White House and the halls of Congress, as long as we elect people who believe in money above all else, the family, women, those with the least resource be damned.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/09/happy-labor-day.html

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.