Killing AmerIcan Citizens

In my ongoing project to increase the font size of all my posts, I encountered one today called A Death Less Noticed. It was written towards the end of 2011, the third year of Obama's first presidential term. The post was a response to a news article about the killing by Obama of an American citizen in a foreign country. Here is some of that post.

---- 

While not as heralded as the death of Osama bin Laden, there was another assassination of a key al-Qaeda leader this past weekend when Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone strike.  Al-Awlaki was the very visible leader of the Yemen faction of al-Qaeda, a branch which has upgraded both its reputation and its activities in its violence against America.  To some, he was the heir apparent to bin Laden, as the center of the radical Islamic movement has shifted away from Iraq and Afghanistan towards Yemen.  He was fluent in English which enabled him to penetrate an audience not easily reached in the past.    

And, al-Awlaki was a US citizen.

For most people, killing this terrorist was a no brainer.  He had long ago dissolved his connection to the United States by calling for violence against our country and its citizens.  He has been linked to various terrorist plots and actions including the Ft Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber.  All crimes that say treason in big, bold letters.

Yet, he was a US citizen.  This simple fact was enough to cause the Obama Administration to request the justice department's Office of Legal Counsel to issue a memorandum (same office that, under Bush II, ruled that water boarding was not torture). In the end, it was decided that there was no way to arrest and try the man so that in his case specifically, assassination was legal.  Of course, we all know the power of precedence so to me it opens the door for other overseas killings of American born enemies of our country. 

The danger is whether such a precedent could be used to authorize the killing of an American for other reasons that might be considered treasonous.  Perhaps someone plotting a cyber attack on our financial or military computer systems.  That would be pretty serious, so would it also justify suspending the constitution?  How about using it to authorize the killing of an enemy with American citizenship within our borders?  Someone who has been linked to a credible attack on a nuclear reactor?  Do we kill him/her outright also?

What is ironic is that most people who have been quoting the constitution when attacking Obama are generally quiet on this one, even though, clearly, due process of law as guaranteed by the constitution has been waived for this particular American citizen.Although I did see that Ron Paul was quoted as saying that Obama could be impeached for this act; could be but shouldn't be was his statement, I believe.  Another reason that Mr Paul can not win the Republican nomination as he will be pilloried when his opponents bring up that he once defended the rights of an American terrorist.

Obviously, in an ideal world, we hunt down the likes of al-Awlaki and bring him to justice through a military or civilian trial.  Perhaps he is killed in the process of that arrest so our legal conscious can be clear, but there is no middle ground when we target and kill someone with a missile shot from hundreds of miles away.  There was no intent to capture, only kill.  And for those killed with him, whether guilty by willing association or merely the driver who drew the short stick, I guess we don't even blink an eye as they were not Americans.  (One was a Saudi national; funny how so many terrorists are Saudi Arabian by nationality or supported with Saudi money). 

State sponsored killing to insure the survival of the state.  

If you were against state sponsored torture to insure the safety of Americans, should you also be against killing?  If not, then are you not accepting the premise that it is OK to kill but you can't beat them up?   And if you are OK with torture and killing because they are obviously our enemies, then are you OK with suspending the right to trial for other "obvious" miscreants?  Mass murderers?  Child molesters?  How about admitted frauds, like Bernie Madoff?  Everyone knew he was guilty of massive financial fraud and was responsible for the loss to hundreds of people of millions of dollars; should he have been convicted and sentenced without trial?   

------

Clearly, one can make a case that the assassination of an American citizen who actively works to hurt America and Americans is the exception to the rule. Obama and his legal advisers certainly did, and I imagine, most Americans would agree. 

But if we fast forward to the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, two American citizens killed, not due to a series of suspected terrorist attacks, or a history of anti-American rhetoric, but because they objected to the process by which deportations were being carried out in their neighborhoods and were murdered in their own home towns, not on foreign soil, and that within minutes or their deaths, the now fired DHS head Kristi Noem, as well as the current president justified their killing, merely by labeling them terrorists, is that not too far?

While Obama was concerned that killing an American citizen in a foreign country without even attempting to honor his constitutional right to due process, despite his obvious anti-American activities, our current president dismissed the killings of Renee and Alex by government employees without even batting an eye.

At the time, I questioned Obama's decision despite the obvious reason for his actions because I feared that someone with less scruples might use that precedent for other, less obvious killings, and I cautioned my readers to be careful what we wish for as related to turning a blind eye when our own government chooses to ignore our Constitutional rights, since it could lead us down a slippery slope that we could not foresee.

In about 10 days there will be another mass protest against our current president. Millions of Americans will take to the street to voice their concerns about immigration policies that are cruel, about the Iran War, about the chaotic tariff policies, about the arrogance of a man who thinks he knows more about everything than anyone yet denies culpability when his decisions lead to poor results. 

Will that be enough to label all of us terrorists? As improbable as that sounds, there has already been an executive order which has instructed the DOJ and FBI to go after antifa groups. Remember, antifa stands for anti fascists. Aren't we all against fascism? Do you know someone who is pro-fascism?

My point is that the administration is using this term so they can justify arresting people who are exercising their rights, who disagree with this government's actions. An administration that has refused to investigate and hold accountable ICE agents who killed American citizens.

I titled this post "Killing American Citizens" knowing that very few people would be in favor of such a thing. And to make the point that the problem arises when the government removes "American" from a person or group of people and replaces it with terrorist. 

We see the same thing in war. Krauts or Japs, Gooks, Towelheads, whatever the pejorative term, they are no longer people. 

And we certainly see it is so many discussions of immigrants. 

First you demonize them, label them as less than human, perhaps call them vermin or people with inferior genes, certainly calling them anti-American, or people who hate God will do it. Then, all bets are off. No more Constitutional protections, no more rights.

What is truly alarming, is that in this current war against Iran, we have the head of the Department of Defense claiming that we will no longer fight our wars without constraint, that our enemies will be given no quarter. The Geneva Conventions are now woke agreements that shackle our military from achieving its goals and the justification for ignoring those international agreements is that Iran has violated them, would violate them again, so we should drop to their level and act in the exact way that we condemn.

A race to the bottom that threatens all of us yet seems to be outside the concern of far too many people, in addition to an entire political party.

And so the decline continues. 

  

   

 

A Post From 2012

As I have said before, I am revisiting all my previous posts and updating them to a larger font. Today I checked and revised all the posts from 2012 that needed the change.

I encountered this post which originates after the two political conventions that selected Obama and Romney to run for president. It was part of a number of posts I did about that election. As I read it today, I was reminded of what I perceive as the decline of America, how we are going backwards, away from confirming the ideals of the founders.

I touched on the horrible Citizens United decision that has only made things far worse than when it was first rendered, made our politicians even more beholden to rich donors and corporations.

Next I expressed my anxiety that the next Supreme Court Justice to retire (or die) might be Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which meant that the next president will have to nominate her replacement. As the Court, at the time, was more evenly split than now, I called it 4 left leaners, 4 right leaners, 1 flip flopper, it was starkly clear that an Obama victory in 2012 might maintain that relatively even split, while a Romney victory might tip the balance to the right. As it turned out, Justice Scalia died unexpectedly in February of 2016 but the GOP led Senate did not even give Obama's selection a vote (too close the the November election they said), so Trump got to nominate Scalia's replacement, which basically kept the statue quo. 

But, when Kennedy retired in the summer of 2018, the justice who I described as the flip flopper, was replaced with the conservative Kavanaugh, and then when Ginsburg died in September of 2020, the GOP Senate rushed through Amy Coney Barret's nomination only ten days from the 2020 election (so much for it being too close to the next presidential election), which produced our current 6 to 3 Court dynamic.

As it turned out, I was wrong at the time in thinking that the 2012 election would matter to the Court, as it was the 2016 election that mattered far more.

But I was right when I expressed concern for Roe v Wade, as was evident when the court backtracked on its previous history of defending a women's right to reproductive freedom. I was also concerned about the possibility of granting person hood rights to a fetus, which, again, is happening at the state level now that Roe V Wade has been scuttled. 

The last part of this post discussed the need for more civility in our politics and political rhetoric. 

In that area, we are a long way from achieving that goal, even further than in 2012. We now have a president who belittles anyone who disagrees with him, who routinely calls Democrats and liberals evil, bad people, America haters. Civility isn't just unattainable at this point, it is part of the attack on woke, and reflects a harmful, and even amoral belief that treating others as you would want to be treated is a sign of weakness. 

As I said at the end of that post, politicians will react if we use the power of the vote to reject messages and campaigns that depend on cruelty and scapegoating. Trump's victory in 2024 demonstrates that the electorate prefers such messages. 

And so the decline continues. 

Here is that post.

----  

Romney and Civility

Sorry it has been a while.  I just finished a 12 day in a row work schedule this past weekend.  In addition I took a part time job about a month ago so my blogging time has been limited.  Hopefully, I will still be able to post once a week but...

In a previous post I listed reasons why one might vote to re-elect President Obama, vote for Mitt Romney, or vote for "none of the above".  For this blog I would like to emphasize the importance of voting for President Obama, or rather, the importance of not voting for any Republican nominee.

I believe I have been consistent in detailing my displeasure at the recent Supreme Court decision to allow unlimited funds to infect our election process.  There is far too much money being spent on these campaigns, on both sides, and it seems clear to me that the more money that is "donated" by large corporations and wealthy individuals, the less likely our government will do the work of the people.

By and large, the Supreme Court justices who ruled to equate money with free speech are conservative, and nominated by past republican presidents.  While there are certainly surprises, at times, in how justices will vote, it is not usually hard to guess which justices will rule which way on important issues.  (Justice Roberts' recent vote for the individual mandate section of the Affordable Care Act, is certainly the exception to the rule).

My concern is that there is a reasonable chance that the next judge to retire will be Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her ongoing health issues.  That being the case, it is of great concern to me that the next president nominate a liberal leaning candidate to maintain the current balance of 4 left-leaners, 4 right-leaners, and one who moves between. 

My ultimate fear is that a right leaning judge will be the deciding vote to overturn Roe vs Wade.  Already, many states are weakening this important precedent through work around laws that are making it harder and harder for women to have abortions.  Inevitably, a challenge will be presented to Roe v Wade that will make its way to the Supreme Court so it is imperative that either Judge Ginsburg still be there to vote for women's reproductive rights, or her replacement be someone who would not force the next generation of American women to be reduced to second class citizens. 

If you think I exaggerate, there have already been attempts to pass legislation under the guise of  "fetal rights acts" which would grant person hood to a fetus at the moment of conception.  In other words, abortion would be murder, as would a few of the most commonly used forms of birth control.  And, in case you missed it, Mitt Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, was a co-sponsor of the Sanctity of Human Life Act of 2009 which declares that a fertilized egg is entitled to the same legal rights as a human being.  Fortunately, the first attempt to pass such a bill was defeated in Mississippi but I do not think that will deter its advocates.

As I said in my last post, please vote.  And, when you are in that voting booth, remember that in many cases, a president's mark on our country is effected as much by his Supreme Court nominees as that which happens while in office.

My other topic of the day, Civility, comes from the movie Troy. 

The scene in question occurs after Achilles kills Hector and, rather than allowing Hector's body to be properly prepared for the afterlife, Achilles binds Hector's legs and drags him back to the Roman encampment.  Of course, this is the Hollywood version of Homer's Iliad, but after the battle, the King of Troy sneaks into the Roman camp and walks unscathed into Achilles tent.  There he makes an emotional appeal to Achilles to allow him to take Hector's body back to Troy so he can follow the normal customs and traditions of death.  Achilles agrees, not because his hatred of everything Troy has abated, or because he did not relish killing Hector, but because he respected the king of Troy and his bravery in making the appeal.

Of course, this emotional scene made me think of our current political situation.  Dems vs GOP.  Conservative vs Liberal.  In the movie, there was a nine day truce so that Hector could be properly mourned.  Wouldn't it be nice if we could have such a truce during this election campaign?  No more lies.  No more innuendo.  No more "what he said or did 20 years ago". 

Is it so hard to realize that regardless of your political affiliation, we are all Americans?  We all love this great country and want to see it prosper.  We need to DEMAND that our elected officials stop the blame game tactics and work together to solve our nation's problems.  And, just as important, we need to teach them this lesson through example.  Politicians are nothing if not students of popular sentiment.  If we chart a course of civility as we debate the issues, they will do the same for fear of being cast as a rigid ideologue, or worse, for fear of losing an election.


    


       

Sam Shepard

"The sides are being divided now. It's very obvious. So, if you're on the other side of the fence, you're suddenly anti-American. It's breeding fear of being on the wrong side. Democracy's a very fragile thing. You have to take care of democracy. As soon as you stop being responsible to it and allow it to turn into scare tactics, it's no longer democracy, is it? It's something else. It may be an inch away from totalitarianism."

One of the wonderful rewards of reading, especially reading non-fiction, whether it be actual historical fact or the perceptions of real people as they react to the issues of the day, the day being defined as 10, 20 even 40 years ago, is that it can offer buffers, guardrails even, to our reactions to what is happening today.

The above quote is not from a current essay or opinion piece, but from an interview with Sam Shepard in 2004, just before the Bush - Kerry presidential election, and just after Shepard's release of "The God of Hell", one of Shepard's' few plays with political overtones.

Understanding and acknowledging that the dangers of someone like Donald Trump have been with us for the entire history of our country, does not mean we should merely throw up our hands in defeat, or shrug our shoulders with the knowledge that America has had many instances of presidential overreach just in the last 60 years, let alone in 250. 

Our misguided attempts at nation building and regime change offers a litany of failures, Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, among others, while lies upon lies as told by the Johnson Administration about Vietnam, the Bush Administration about Iraq, the Trump Administration about immigrants and elections, could be considered just another act in the same bad play.

What amazes me is that the very same people who protested against the Vietnam War, who helped break down the systemic barriers that kept minorities and women from equal opportunities, the baby boomers, in other words, are now the people who support policies that are even more odious that the ones they marched in the streets against when they were young.

They say that we become more conservative as we age. I guess the boomers are the ultimate example of a generation that lived their ideals right up until those ideals conflicted with their ability to accumulate, and protect, wealth and privilege.

I encountered Sam Shepard in the Just Kids biography I recently read. While I certainly knew of Shepard as an actor, Patti Smith's collaboration with him in writing the play Cowboy Mouth was a complete revelation to me that Shepard had not only written plays, but that he is considered one of the greatest American playwrights in history. As a result, when I saw the book Coyote: The Dramatic Lives of Sam Shepard reviewed in The Atlantic, I requested it online from the Chester County Library System.

As with Patti Smith, Shepard's life reminds me what may have been had I been born 6 to 10 years earlier. Of course, Shepard was a product of his family life as much as one of his time, so my being born in the late 40's or earlier 50's is certainly no guarantee that I would have had the experiences that either Smith or Shepard did. His life, the demons he battled, his struggles with his identity, all combined to make Shepard the person he was, just as the ease of my life in comparison, created the basis for who I am.

Conversely, Shepard's life could not have been lived today, given his addiction to sex and women, his bouts with alcohol, the extremes of his personality. It is another reason to question whether being born in a different time or as a different gender, or in a different country, can be considered a realistic thought game if we assume that what makes a person who they are is precisely all those factors that would be different with different circumstances.

At the end of "Coyote..." there is a reference to Shepard's last book, "Spy of the First Person", which he finished not long before his death in 2017. For some reason, I interpreted the mention of it as a biography, of sorts, and thought it might be interesting to read about his life from his own perspective rather than that of a biographer. That, perhaps, the darkness that was so much a part of Shepard, that was part and parcel to what made me him such an important playwright, might come through. 

Unfortunately, my assumption was incorrect as, while "Spy of the First Person" is certainly revealing in a personal sense, it is not very specific, does not refer to many of the details of Shepard's life as  "Coyote..." does.

Still, it is an interesting, curious book.

I read about six pages when I first brought it home from the library, then let it sit for a week, then picked it up again today.

Coming in at only 82 pages, I sat down with my lunch and began reading it again.

Sometimes I read, sometimes I ate soup, sometimes I ate grapes, sometimes I sipped my pink lemonade drink. 

Within an hour I was finished both my lunch and the book.

As I said, it is a curious book. Not really about anything in particular, yet it touches on many of the things that are going through Shepard's mind as he deals with his failing health.

There are some reminisces, some references to his past, but then again many are presented as someone else's life, the man in the chair on the porch across the street. Yes, this man is Shepard himself, although it takes a bit (or at least it did for me) to realize this. 

In some ways, many might shrug their shoulders as they turn the last page, and wonder, is that it?

I was recently watching "Reds" with Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton in the starring roles when my wife passed through the room and recounted how her and her cousin had stayed up late one night to watch it, and when it ended, had that same feeling, is that it?

"Reds" ends with the death of John Reed (the Warren Beatty character) after having accomplished very little, at least as it applies to his goals of organizing the American labor force and aligning it with Russia's  Bolshevik revolution, so it is easy to have that WTF feeling.

Similarly, one might have the same feeling after reading "Spy...". as there is no great realization or revelation, no profound pronouncement by the writer or his character as they face death.

But perhaps that is the point.

Shepard displayed many different personas throughout his life, despite the success of his plays. Or maybe because of them. He often seems as surprised as anyone that his work is admired, while also being devastated when his plays did not translate to the big screen. 

He seems to best describe this seeming contradiction on page 22 when it begins to become apparent that the man in the chair across the street is himself when he finishes a short paragraph about how similar they seem with "The way the eyes look confident and lost at the same time."

"Spy of the First Person" is an attempt to observe his life from a distance, yet ultimately ends with a description of a big family get together at a local Mexican restaurant in which he names each of the family members who were there, a scene as personal as there could be, finally ending the book with this paragraph which describes the family as they head home.

"The moon is getting bigger and brighter. The Strawberry Moon. Spotlighting our literal troupe. The full moon. Two sons and their father, everyone trailing behind. Going up the middle of East Water Street and it's really bright now. The full moon. We made it and we hobbled up the stairs. Or I hobbled. My sons didn't hobble, I hobbled."

If nothing else, Shepard treats his life as a series of plays, each an illustration within itself of what he is thinking, what he feels, where he is in understanding his own nature and the nature of people in general, yet he also seems to want us to know that the connection between those plays, those personas, is less important than the realizations that occur within each part. 

Almost a "be here now" kind of philosophy that acknowledges the accumulated knowledge of one's life with the recognition that it is the individual scenes that should be valued because it is within those specific moments that real happiness, companionship and contentment derive.

Or perhaps, that is just me talking. 

 

The SAVE Act

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) legislation that was recently passed by the House of Representatives and is being touted by the president is being presented as a law which will prevent voter fraud, specifically voter fraud being committed by undocumented aliens. 

Before presenting my opinion, I tried to find a factual summary and opinion of the new requirements that this law would create, just to make sure that I was not reacting to opinions about the law as opposed to the actual law itself.

Here is a link to an article I found helpful.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/

On the face of it, there is a common sense reason to require a photo ID to vote as without that picture, anyone could show up and claim to be the person on the voting rolls. Of course, if you are not that person on the voting roll, I guess you would have to make sure you got to the polls before the "real" person whose ID you are stealing. I know that in the fifty years I have voted in Pennsylvania, I was required to give my name, a poll worker would page to the "P" section (first letter of my last name) and I would have to provide my signature as it was printed. At first I had to show my driver's license, which in itself is not proof of citizenship but does have my picture, but as time passed and I voted at the same precinct year after year and saw the same people processing the voters, I was recognized and not asked for ID. 

Five years ago, I moved to a different county, but same state. However, had I moved to a different state, the new requirements of the SAVE Act would have required me to prove my citizenship with a birth certificate to register to vote in that new state. 

Same for my wife but she would have had to provide a third document, our marriage certificate, as the name on her birth certificate does not match that on her driver's license. So, while she did not have to navigate this hoop for our move, she did have to go through this step last year when we applied for new passports. As it turned out, we both had to apply for new birth certificates ($30 each) as our old ones did not include the birth city of our parents, as required by the passport application. 

This is the kind of obstacle that people are referring to when they advocate against the SAVE Act, as it creates obstacles to voting that may discourage people, or worse, require a document that is not readily accessible, in particular, a marriage certificate. To be honest, I was surprised that we had ours as it had never been required for anything in our past, not needed to buy a home, to access the benefits of a will, to create investment vehicles, etc, yet again, had we not found it, would have required another request (for a fee) from the state.

Of course, if you are already on a voting roll for your local poll site, you will just need to provide a photo ID to confirm that you are the person listed on that voting roll, again, something that is fairly common already in our country, at least as far as my experience goes. However, if you were placed on that voting roll illegally, just showing a driver's license will not change the fact that you should not be voting, so unless we decide to re-register every eligible voter in our country by requesting documentation that many people may not have, I am not sure what this new legislation will do except place obstacles in the way of legal voters who do not have documents at hand that prove their citizenship. 

This is one of the main points of the article I linked above. The other main point is that there is no credible evidence that undocumented people are voting in mass numbers as detailed in the findings by the vast majority of the research into this claim, including the results of the very conservative Heritage Foundation. 

Here is a link to an article that discusses that particular study.

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/heritage-foundation-77-undocumented-voters-claim-true-or-false-e33e6f

In other words, it appears that the SAVE Act is a law in search of a problem that doesn't exist. 

But more insidiously, it is a piece of legislation that has been created to back up the Big Lie that our current president has touted ever since his loss in the 2016 presidential election, the same lie that inspired hundreds of his supporters to attack the Capitol building in an attempt to prevent the (normally) perfunctory confirmation of the electoral college results, the same lie that led to calls for Vice President Pence to be hung for not rejecting the electors of a certain few states, and/or to allow fake electors to replace those legitimate electors. 

What truly saddens me is that within my own family, before Trump, we often debated how to get MORE Americans to vote, even though we represented different political beliefs. We were united in our hope that by making it easier to vote, America would someday break the 70% voter participation rate, a rate, by the way, which represents the percentage of registered voters, not eligible voters defined as all American adults over 18 who have no other obstacle to vote other than lack of being registered. We all believed that the more people who voted, the more our government would represent the citizens.

Now, some of those very same relatives, believe the lies from Trump, and support the SAVE Act, even when presented with evidence that there is no mass voting by the undocumented, and that a significant percentage of Americans would struggle to prove their citizenship if required.

The fact is, it is already illegal to vote if you are not a citizen, and the penalty for doing so is a felony which would put the illegal voter on the fast track to deportation. So why do it? 

Similar to the research that indicates that non-citizens commit less crimes than those of us who are citizens, people here illegally know NOT to draw attention to themselves for the genuine fear of being deported. They want to be here, so why do anything that will threaten the continuation of staying? It is one of the justifications behind sanctuary cities. If a victim of a crime is undocumented but afraid to go to the police to report it, that crime, and future crimes will not be prevented or investigated. And, since undocumented people are more likely to be victims of crimes that to be criminals, it makes sense.

Of course, any crime committed by someone here illegally, needs to be investigated, and, if judged to be guilty, that person should be deported. It was the basis behind the idea that the "worst of the worst" would be identified and removed from our country that drove so many people to vote GOP last November. Unfortunately, that is not what is happening because, again, some of the rhetoric was based on the lie that illegal immigrants were driving up crime rates, that some countries were opening their jails, and that people from certain countries had faulty genes, all lies that Trump has repeatedly stated since his emergence on the political scene.

All that being said, I just read an interesting article in The Atlantic that attempted to turn the reasons each side of the political aisle support or reject the SAVE Act, on its head. The author believes that it may actually work against the GOP by requiring proof of citizenship to vote since the percentage of Americans with passports (and no, REAL ID is not acceptable to prove citizenship), the best proof of citizenship, are higher among people with more education and those that live in metropolitan areas, lower among the less educated and rural voters. Of course, this is just one person's opinion, but it is an interesting perspective on the debate concerning the SAVE Act. Here is a link. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/02/save-america-act-turnout/686145/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20260226&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily 

Not withstanding that article, which in some ways is trying to extrapolate a change in the demographics of the American electorate, which demographics moved towards Trump and away from Harris, and what they might do this November, with or without the SAVE Act, it seems that the Senate will not pass the bill, assuming the GOP does not attempt to kill the filibuster. There just isn't 60 votes. 

And, while Trump is threatening some type of executive order, it is unlikely that even today's conservative Supreme Court will allow him to create national voting rules when the Constitution clearly assigns that duty to the states.

The real question is, when will the mass hypnosis that has altered the viewpoint of so many Americans be broken? When will the lies about illegal voting, undocumented people, and stolen elections, stop being believed? When will America wake up to the simple fact that before Trump, we were actively creating new ways to vote, via mail, extended in person voting days, etc, and now we are actively trying to make it harder to vote purely due to the fact that Trump is a sore loser. And perpetual liar.

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

why undocumented don't vote 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/02/save-america-act-turnout/686145/?utm_campaign=one-story-to-read-today&utm_content=20260226&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=One%20Story%20to%20Read%20Today 

Some Glimpses of Hope

As is, unfortunately, common among people of my age group, I was at a funeral for the parent of a friend a few weeks ago. The service was at a Roman Catholic Church, very pretty, very large. As is usual when I attend a service such as this, I find my mind straying to all those Sunday masses I attended while in grade school and early high school, while also remembering the service for my father already fourteen plus years passed, and then imagining the inevitability of just such a service for my mother who is over 90 years old. That ever present link between the past and present and future.

Afterwards, at the luncheon, I sat with the work friends of my friend whose mother had passed, then when they left, sat with the granddaughter of the recently deceased, along with her three friends, all women in their mid twenties.

Other than my daughter's friends, who are now just entering their 30's, I rarely spend time in conversation with young women, and certainly not discussing the topics of the day. As a result, and despite the sadness of the occasion, I found some hopefulness after speaking with them for that hour or two although not necessarily because they were hopeful about what was happening today, but because they were aware of the issues, and able to express their opinions with clarity. 

Of the four, only one seemed content with her job, although, to be honest, the other three understood the nature of their current employment (to pay the bills), but still had hope that there was something out there on the horizon. They each had a gleam in their eye when thinking about the future, despite the obstacles that they were encountering. 

Two of the four were not in a relationship, but were not reticent to express their dissatisfaction with the dating pool. I have read a few articles recently about the seemingly immature nature of today's twenty something men, which was confirmed, although there was also lamentations as to where to seek a more compatible mate, internet dating apps not withstanding. 

I have often advised my own daughter to make sure she has a skill upon which she can rely for her own financial independence, so it was satisfying to hear that all four of these young women had taken such advice to heart themselves. At least for now, none of them was interested in selling herself short, whether such settling occurred in the social or personal or work aspects of their lives. 

In the recent past, there have been a number of actions that young people have engaged in concerning their awareness of the issues that will effect their futures. Obviously, there are millions of young people who are raising awareness of climate change and the damage we are doing to our shared planet, but just as vocally, protests and advocacy for common sense gun laws has also galvanized many people under 30 years of age, especially when they are the ones to have experienced active shooter drills while in elementary school. Not to mention that hundreds of school age children who have died on the alter of our country's veneration of the 2nd Amendment.

And, of course for the young women I spoke with, the simple fact that their reproductive rights are different depending on which state they reside in. They were fully aware that they have less rights than their mothers, and were less than happy to think that those rights were being restricted by, mostly, men.

Even more inspiring, there have been a number of articles detailing the high school walk outs that have been staged throughout America against the abuses and cruelty of ICE and the policies of the president. I would laugh, if it wasn't so sad, when I read school administrators or right wing pundits proclaim that anyone leaving school without permission would be punished, as if the threat of some kind of permanent mark on their high school record should dissuade them from voicing their concerns for the families of their fellow classmates.  

While I often bemoan the boomers who protested nuclear weapons, the Vietnam War, race inequality, gender bias, basically all the beliefs that the establishment used in attempts to teach conformity, but who now defend some of those very same injustices, especially as related to our horrific immigration policies, I can only hope that today's young people continue to strive for their ideals, to voice their outrage at what they find immoral and cruel. 

But more importantly, that they maintain those ideals even when their own comfort and privilege are threatened when those inequalities are addressed. Heaven knows, we, the baby boomers, sold our souls for bulging 401K balances, million dollar homes and yearly vacations overseas or to warmer climes. But if our young people are already compromising their ideals, what hope is there for real change?

Perhaps that in itself is naive, thinking that today's young people will do better than we did although I thought that was the foundational thinking of those we call the greatest generation; short term sacrifice to provide better opportunities for our children and grandchildren.

Over a dozen years ago, I wrote The Next Greatest Generation. The story reflected my hope, at the time, that in the near future a generation of Americans would alter the direction of America, and eventually, the world, just as it is said about the greatest generation of Americans who were born in the first 25 (or so) years of the 20th century.   

Here is a link to that story.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-next-greatest-generation.html

Since then, and especially in these last five years or so, my optimism has waned, so perhaps that sad event that led me to such an interesting conversation with four young women, and the walkouts and activism being demonstrated by young people across America, are indicators that there are many glimpses of hope out there, we just have to open our eyes to see them, but, more importantly, to encourage and support them. 

 

Olympics

I have been watching the winter Olympics these past two weeks, not every day, but most days. Sports can be a unifying force within America, and throughout the world, and the Olympics, despite the horrors of 1972, and the occasional political gesture by an athlete who chooses to use their temporary fame to make a point, is the perfect expression of men and women competing to win personal acclaim while honoring their country of birth. It is an attitude that belies those who believe that their country is the greatest ever, not because it is childish to think such thoughts, but because it is a shared belief that extends beyond arbitrary borders. 

I would even go so far as to say that pride in one's country is even more apparent among those athletes who, while successful in their own small world, have little chance of ending their event on the podium. They are Olympians even when they finish last, but still no less proud of their home country. It is a lesson that Americans often forget in our rush to celebrate gold, silver and bronze. 

Towards that point, over the course of the last two weeks, I witnessed a winter Olympic medal won for the first time for a few countries. Not first time this Olympic cycle, but first time, ever. Can there possibly be any more proud and moving an experience to be such an athlete who becomes the first of their countrymen to ever win an Olympic medal? Does it make that country any less exceptional to have achieved this initial feat, compared to a country like Norway which routinely wins the most medals at the winter Olympics?

Speaking of Norway, does their overall accomplishment in Milan -Cortina where they have won a total of 41 medals, which is about one for every 125,000 people, make them the greatest country of athletes in the world? As a comparison, America has won 33 medals, which is about one for every 10 million people. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely proud of the American athletes who won medals, but let's stop pretending that we are more proud of our accomplishments than people born outside our borders, or that we can come up with a bunch of statistics to prove we are the greatest country ever. Sometimes such bravado and constant need to proclaim excellence is more about insecurity than confidence.

But again, it was the athletes who set the tone that impressed me most. Athletes who celebrated the victories of their teammates as much as if it had been they who won. Athletes who comforted those who did not achieve a moment on the podium. Athletes who shared their success by acknowledging all those who helped them along the way. Athletes who smiled throughout their competitions and whose smile remained a fixture regardless of outcome.

One can only hope that for those athletes who did not perform as they expected, who fell short of their goal of Olympic Gold, the lesson of appreciation to have participated will allow them, should they be fortunate to find themselves in France in 2030, to be as honored just to be there as so many athletes who do not possess similar raw talent and the privilege of resources, have demonstrated these past two weeks.

While some might say that sports is the ultimate zero sum game as there are far more non-winners than winners, I maintain that true sportsmanship is better illustrated with the examples of hugs all around when the results are announced, or the handshake lineup that occurs after a hockey game when the winners and losers acknowledge the effort of each side.

It is a lesson completely lost on our current president, a person who is incapable of applauding the victor when the victor is not himself. Whether it be an election or a Supreme Court decision, he is incapable of congratulating the other side when he comes up short, instead resorting to exaggerations and outright lies to ease his damaged ego. He is the athlete that complains about the judging or who blames the sun in his eyes. The penultimate sore loser.

Fortunately, such behavior was mostly not in view during these winter Olympics, and that is certainly something to celebrate.

I was especially interested in the hockey competitions, both men and women. The fact that the United States won gold in both instances was certainly exhilarating, especially today's early morning overtime victory by the men's team. Perhaps it was a bit easier for me to cheer them on as it was obvious that the Canadian team was better. Not Miracle on Ice better, but certainly if not for our goaltender, the USA team would have lost 3 or 4 to 1. 

Is it not sweeter, then, to win in an upset than when favored? Truly, America was born from being the underdog, having bested the most powerful military in the world, at the time, to gain our independence. Perhaps it is too subtle for someone like Trump to understand, or for so many Americans for that matter, but there is always a bit of comeuppance that is wished for against the team, or country, that "holds all the cards", so to speak.

And, perhaps, that is the real issue for someone like Donald Trump. He believes that the powerful should always take advantage of the weak, if not, then what is the point of accumulating such power or influence or might? The fact that the United States has been a world power for 80 years, and that, for the most part, we used that advantage to attempt to improve everyone's lives, the global community, as it were, is translated by Trump into a belief that we were "taken advantage of". Only someone who believes that there is only one winner in an transaction thinks that way, and that is the essence of his thinking. 

And so it is no surprise when portions of the world begin to turn their back on us. To enact their own Make (fill in the country) Great Again policies. To stop caring about our neighbors, or even our planet, since the country with the most is being led by someone without empathy. Who in fact believes such thinking weak, and woke. Who would be the kind of athlete who looks with disdain at all those who they defeated, rather than as comrades who competed together, who helped make each other better for that competition, and who celebrate the effort knowing that the roles may be reversed next time.

What is truly sad, is that most people will agree with me about athletes who are humble and gracious in victory while disliking those who behave like spoiled children when a competition does not end as they hoped, yet still support a president who exhibits all the bad traits of that very same, selfish athlete who expresses their disappointment with a hissy fit, or an excuse, or both.

 

   

 

 

 

Gandhi and Pluto revisited

I was remiss in not mentioning my respect for the Buddhist monks who just completed their 2300 mile walk (yes, walk) from Texas to Washington DC. Their "Walk for Peace" began in October from their temple in Fort Worth on October 26th, finishing in DC yesterday. While short, here is a link with some basic info and reactions to their journey.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2026/02/11/monks-celebrate-end-walk-for-peace-lincoln-memorial/88624584007/ 

While I can't say that I followed their trek daily, I did get updates from Nora. Such an inspiring effort by men who have made a commitment to their beliefs, but more importantly, try to live as those beliefs teach them. Such dedication and self sacrifice makes the raucous debate over Bad Bunny and the Super Bowl halftime show seem as trivial and petty as so much of the vitriol that is rampant in America today.

---

I have altered my approach to updating my posts into a more readable (OK, a larger font) format. I am now systematically opening every post from newest to oldest and updating those which need the process. Fortunately, I began using the larger font in 2021, so last week I started accessing each entry beginning in December 2020. So far I have worked my way from 2020 through 2015, which leaves me with five years to go.

Today I updated a post called Gandhi and Pluto, from July 2015, and thought it appropriate to reprint it along with my reference to the monks walk. So, rather than a link, here is the post.

-- 

The July edition of National Geographic has, among others, two articles I found very interesting.  One concerns the legacy of Gandhi's teachings in India today, the other the long awaited fly by of Pluto by the New Horizon spaceship.

I am not sure if the connection that occurred in my mind between the two articles would have happened had I not read them consecutively, but a connection nevertheless sprang to me as I walking the dog today.

Is it possible that other forms of life in the universe will only be discovered when mankind begins treating the forms of life on earth with respect and equality?

The Gandhi article recounted what many consider his penultimate action, the 1930 Salt March.  For those of you unfamiliar with this event, at the time, there was a tax on salt production, proceeds of that tax going to the coffers of Britain, as India was still part of its empire.  Gandhi's decision, in retrospect, to stage this march to the sea where he would illegally (not pay the tax) produce salt, is genius, but was not universally supported by those advocating for Indian independence.  As is so often the case with leaders who talk the talk but do not walk the walk, Gandhi understood that the way to reach the common people was to relate the need for freedom to their lives.  As Gandhi said, other than water and air, salt was the commodity most required by Indians considering the extremely hot weather of the country.  Noble concepts were one thing, salt was a part of everyday life.

What is so amazing about Gandhi was that his focus on salt, so basic yet so powerful, was just a part of his message.  During his walk, he stopped at some of the poorest villages in the area, and went out of his way to challenge the caste system by inviting the "untouchables", not only to be part of the walk, but as a symbol to those Indians who supported the caste system that they might understand that the meaning of freedom was not just freedom from British rule, but freedom from poverty and social injustice for all Indians.  To further that ideal, he encouraged spinning of cloth, not just, again, as a protest against Britain, but to encourage everyone to wear khadi, to look the same, as an analogy to his hope that by looking the same, everyone, high born or low, might be treated with similar fairness.

The thought that started the connection to Pluto, was Gandhi's belief that religions are not for separating men from one another, but to bind them.  He revered Jesus, could quote verses from the Bible and Koran, and was a devout Hindu, but he also knew that true  independence needed to be founded on a democracy based on laws not religions. Considering the misguided attempts by fundamentalists in many corners of the planet to fashion their governments from specific tracts of their religious tomes, Muslim and Christian, it is not surprising that Gandhi's dream is still illusive, both in India and in much of the world.

Perhaps, if we were to judge our religious leaders on their similarity to Gandhi, his lack of material possessions, his time spent among those with the least, his efforts to promote equal treatment of all people, we might find those leaders to be without moral high ground, and it might explain why too many of those leaders advocate messages of blame, isolation and hatred as opposed to unity, community and love.  It is far easier to get rich when your message promotes friction than it is when you advocate for tolerance and peace.

And, perhaps, despite our best efforts to find life in the universe, despite the myriad number of vessels we have cruising through the solar system and beyond, despite the radio and TV signals that even now communicate how we live and how we die, we have not found life outside planet Earth because we haven't learned how to treat life on planet Earth.  

Whether it be the animals that we slaughter for their skin or their bones, the sea creatures we poison via our dumping of trash in the oceans, the birds we kill by belching toxins into the air, or the people we dehumanize because their skin color, gender, age, or any trait that has been deemed different, our lack of love for life on this tiny blue ball spinning anonymously in the cosmos, might be the reason for this lack of success.

There are those who worry what life from afar might do to us, but perhaps they have not come forth because they worry what we would do to them.  Based on what we do to each other, it would not be surprising.

---

In June of 2022, I wrote a story called the Universal Guild which concerns that very same premise that I touched upon in the last paragraph of Gandhi and Pluto. The idea that we will never find other life in the universe until we learn how to treat each other on this tiny blue planet we call Earth. Here is a link to that story. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-universal-guild.html

It is very clear to me as I reread those posts 2010 to 2016, up to 2020, that the exact problems that I discussed, the exact same issues that I wrote letters to my local newspapers about, the exact same topics that were being debated in our country, have not changed.

This, in itself, is not necessarily a bad thing, or a surprise if you were to research the debates that our founders had with each other as they developed the foundations for our country 250 years ago.

What is sad, nay, depressing, is not only the lack of progress, but the depth of the backsliding that has occurred in the years since I established wurdsfromtheburbs.

Are my feelings the result of being more politically aware than before? Perhaps, although I can recall having strong political views as far back as 1980 when trickle down economics under Reagan began the slow deterioration of middle class buying power. 

Certainly, the nature of the news media today with its extreme us vs them message that distorts everyone's opinions, may also be a factor. It is far more difficult to find unbiased news that it was even a decade ago.

But what if the real blame is actual reality? That there really is a decline in progress, and that is not just the normal pendulum swing that sometimes means two steps forward will always be followed by one step back. I would imagine that people who lived towards the end of other great civilizations, Roman or otherwise, may have felt the same foreboding but then may have just as readily chalked it up to the normal cycle of things, not knowing that their uneasiness was true.

Predicting doom is as old as communication between people, written or oral. I would think that since we are all mortal, if would be natural for us to have thoughts that broached our own mortality as well as that of the culture or society as a whole.

Yet it is still true that great civilizations that accomplished magnificent feats of creation, invented incredible mathematics, developed insightful philosophies and explanations of the world, eventually declined, some to be absorbed into the general knowledge base of humanity, some to be lost forever within our known history.

There is no guarantee that the American experiment of governance will last forever, no divine right that our vision will succeed. 

Whether the real truth is that we are one of millions of species in the vast universe, or the one and only sentient life form created as an experiment to see just how close we might come to a Great Awakening, it kind of doesn't matter in the short run, and frankly, as beings whose lifespans rarely exceed 100 years, we are the epitome of the short run.

What does matter is that we take seriously the lessons of the monks who just completed their walk, or of Gandhi, or even the person in our own lives whose example has inspired us to do better, to treat all those we meet as we would want to be treated. And, not just person to person, but nation to nation, and, perhaps, someday, planet to planet. 

  

Christmas Is

I have often recently mentioned that I am far less optimistic about the future of humanity, let alone America, than when I began posting in 2010. I have also speculated on how much of that increase in loss of hope is related to the mere fact that I have entered the last 20% of my life span, in other words, the fear of death and the confrontation with mortality. 

As I continue my process of editing the past posts which were created with a font that I now find far too small (again, a sign of getting older), I encountered this poem from January 2017, a poem I sent along with our yearly Christmas cards to family and friends and which I then posted for my "readers".

It clearly reflects a hopefulness, in addition to an acknowledgement of the blessings in my life at the time. And, to put a time stamp on it, was written as the first Trump Administration began.

Not to put too fine a point on why I might be less hopeful, nine years later, I feel we have gone backwards when thinking about the hopes I detailed in the poem. That our evolution towards a "spiritual enlightenment" has taken a back seat, way back in the communal bus we all share, to selfishness as depicted in America First, and to an embrace in cruelty as is playing out in the mass deportation policies that are wreaking havoc on American communities and American families. 

And, to be blunt, how such thinking is not considered "woke". 

Worse, that we now seem aligned with the other bullies of the world, in an almost choreographed plan which will create two or three areas of the world controlled by those with the biggest armies and most powerful weapons, a scenario which men like Stephen Miller not only seek, but believe is justified from past violent regimes which controlled large swaths of land in centuries past. 

Or as he says, "the real world is controlled by strength, by force, and by power."

Anyway, here is the poem I sent for Christmas, 2017, which, I believe actually reflects what most people wish for but are afraid, too selfish, or just unable to connect the path to such a time with the actual actions by those in power who prevent that future from developing, and our communal responsibility for electing such people in the first place. 

 

Christmas Is

It is not the presents we get

although it is nice to feel the love

that inspires our family.

It is not the gifts we give

although the delighted faces of

our loved ones warms the heart.

It is not even the time we spend

with our family and friends in

celebration of the holiday season.

Christmas is more than the wonderful

memories we accumulate over the years

in ornaments, pictures, and holiday meals.

Christmas is hope.

 

Hope that the New Year will bring happiness

and good health to our friends and families.

Hope that our country will focus on our similarities

and finding common ground, rather than elevating

our differences and points of debate.

Hope that humanity, all races, creeds, and nationalities

will continue to evolve towards a spiritual enlightenment

which results in tolerance, acceptance, and Love.

 

Just Kids

A book review in The Atlantic about Patti Smith's new book Bread of Angels prompted me to borrow Patti Smith's first book, Just Kids from the library, as I thought I would read that novel first before her newest effort. I was extremely happy I did.

For those of you who are not familiar with Patti Smith, and I include myself in that category, she is an incredibly versatile, talented woman who has mostly flew under the radar during her prolific career. Yes, her debut album Horses was met with wide acclaim for its originality and depth, but she is so much more than a rock star, punk rock star at that.

Born in 1946, Smith was one of the many millions of babies born after the atrocities of WW2. I believe it is a given that the horrible acts committed during that world wide conflict, led to millions of people to seek joy and a new perspective after such a horrific conflict, creating what we now call the baby boomer generation. To put numbers to it, in the eighteen years generally considered the baby boomer generation, 1946 to 1964, about 76 million babies were born to an American  population that was about 140 million in 1945. Talk about replacement theory! 

Just Kids recounts Smith's childhood days, her struggles in school, and her early search for her identity, a search which eventually takes her to New York City. It is there that she meets Robert Mapplethorpe, the yin to her yang.

As someone who often thought he was born a bit too late, having just missed the 60's and the social upheavals that fashioned the lives of those who entered that decade as teenagers rather than infants, I devoured this book imagining myself traversing the challenges of developing an artistic identity while working in menial jobs to pay the bills. 

This is not to say that Smith glorified those early days. To the contrary, bouts with lice and hunger, uncertainty about shelter, while seemingly the stereotypical experience of the struggling artist, were presented as the daily difficulties that she faced, often with tears and depression.

It is an honest depiction which does not ask for pity for the bad times or express a "I-knew-it-would-all-work-out" false bravado when she does start to achieve some success. 

Sadly, the book, although written in 2010, ends with the death of Mapplethorpe in 1989. In fact, Smith recounts the deaths of many of her acquaintances during that time, not to mention her reactions at the deaths of more famous people like Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin, among others. Although Smith is married to the late Fred Sonic Smith by then, and has two children, the loss of Mapplethorpe is palpable. She often states in the book that Mapplethorpe considered her his muse, but it is obvious that without his influence she would have never succeeded. Losing someone like that is true loss.

In my musings about being born in Smith's time, I wonder if I would have gravitated to New York's artistic scene, or perhaps California's campus protests. Smith only passingly touches on the Vietnam War, and as far as I can remember does not mention losing any friends to that overseas conflict although peak loss of American soldiers lives was from 1966 to 1970, which means that in took the lives of her contemporaries, people born between 1946 and 1950.

Of course, it is just as possible that I would not have survived those years. That like many of her friends I would have succumbed to a drug overdose or disease through an experimental homosexual encounter. Or perhaps I would have fled to Canada rather than serve in an immoral war, or fled merely because I was afraid to die. 

Another reason, a harsh truth if you will, to pretend that I would have pursued a writer's life had I been born eight or ten years earlier is to provide an excuse for not doing it regardless of my birth year. I certainly had the opportunity to follow a path of creativity in the years after I dropped out of college to "find my myself". Perhaps it was just a lack of discipline and persistence and focus. 

The good news is that I wouldn't trade my current life for these what-ifs. My life with my dear wife Nora, and the two children we raised, would never have occurred were it not for my path which resulted from the hand I was dealt by the birth lottery, and the decisions I made as I navigated my "life".

All of which increases my admiration for Patti Smith as she saw it through, stayed true to her belief that she had something to say, that all those early experiences added together enhanced her ability to create, to entertain, and to inspire others through her music and poetry. 

And, if I may be so bold to say, helps fuel my continued maintenance of this blog which is now approaching sixteen years of existence.   

It seems to be a very fine line which separates those who become famous in the worlds of music, art, writing, etc, and those who toil all their lives just below the point of "making it", who continue to write, perform, create, just for the love of it, and just to share it, and perhaps, at the odd moment, inspire someone as well. 

We are all the luckier for both those whose names are well known and those who create without achieving fame or fortune, especially when so many of the latter become teachers and mentors for those who are just beginning their own life paths. 

And, without appearing too metaphysical, I wonder if it the latter group will experience the more complete reward in the next life, the former having attained their reward in this one. 

Finally, two quotes from the book.

"In the war of magic and religion, is magic the ultimate victor? Perhaps priest and magician were once one, but the priest, learning humility in the face of God, discarded the spell for prayer." page 61.

Smith often touches on religion and spirituality, a result of her Catholic upbringing and her insatiable quest for truth.

"I learned from him that often contradiction is the clearest way to truth." page 200.

This quote appears towards the end of the book, as Mapplethorpe comes to grips with his homosexuality and his fear that by accepting that trait, it would deligitimize their relationship. That being categorized as a gay man would mean that his deep connection with Patti Smith, physically, emotionally, spiritually, would be deemed some type of false experience.

 

Slavery and Other Woke Subjects

Wonderful article in the January edition of the Smithsonian called The Life and Trials of Samuel Green. Now, of course, very few people, including me, have any clue who Samuel Green was, or why knowing about his life was important.

First though, I must say that I am grateful that the president's war against any facts and truth that annoy his sensibilities, including those battles against the Smithsonian, its magazine as well as the museums, has not gone so far as to prevent articles like the one to which I am referring to be stripped from publication. While some may take that as a hopeful sign, or perhaps even proof that his attacks on the truth are overblown, I offer the recent removal of references to slavery by the  National Park Service from the President's House in Philadelphia as a reminder that we are losing small battles every day in this war to whitewash our shared history.

So, to quickly summarize, Samuel Green who was born into slavery around 1802, and spent decades in bondage, was able to save enough money due to his being "hired" out to other farms to purchase his freedom in 1833, and then the freedom on his wife about nine years later, although their two children remained enslaved.

Despite this horrific fact in itself, Green spent the next few decades involved in preaching about the Gospel. Although, to be precise, his ministry was called "exhorting" as Black men were not allowed to become ministers even within the more advanced (for its time) rules of the Methodist religion.

Sadly, the times were moving in the wrong direction for free and enslaved Blacks as the country careened towards the eventual secession of the South, followed by the Civil War. Life for people like Green did not get better, only worse, as laws were created which enshrined the separation of the races in terms of voting rights and land ownership, and the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act which compelled runaways, even in free states, to be returned to their enslavers.

By 1854, Green's son and sister, having recently been sold to a man they regarded as the worst man in Maryland due to his vicious whippings and abuse, decided to flee to Canada.

A note here. Is it me, or is telling American citizens that they must participate in what they regard as an immoral act, reporting the whereabouts of enslaved people so they can be returned to their "owners", not dissimilar to administration officials at DHS and ICE advising protesters in the various cities being invaded by armed, masked officers to stand back, or even help them locate, people, and yes, they are people, who are being targeted for their non-white skin color?

Anyway, at this point, the abolitionist movement was in full vigor with books like Harriet Tubman's Uncle Tom's Cabin being widely circulated. 

Sam Jr did escape successfully, which, along with other successful escapes from the various plantations and farms where slavery was in full bloom, caused even more backlash against Blacks, freemen as well as those who were slaves.

Which brings us to the day when Samuel Green was arrested for aiding, among others, his son to flee to Canada. 

And what was the most damning evidence presented? That Green owned a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin, an "inflammatory" book that "created discontent" and fomented "insurrection".

So, in April 1857, Green was convicted, to a great extent, for owning a book, and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Fortunately for Green, he was pardoned after only five years behind bars, a free man again, for the second time.

Learning about the atrocities committed by American businessmen who believed that their way of life was threatened by the abolition of slavery, about how even after the Emancipation Proclamation was enacted, Black people in America were subject to all sorts of cruelty, including lynching, but even worse, systemic bigotry embedded in the laws of our country, is painful. And that some type of divine intervention was instrumental in our nation's founding, seems ludicrous.

As I have said before, it is OK to have two thoughts in our heads at once, the belief that American democracy is a noble experiment, that "all men are created equal" is an axiom worth striving to prove, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were created by men with foresight and great ideals, despite their owning slaves, dismissing women's rights, and believing that only land owners should have the right to vote. They were men, not gods, and men can be both good and evil in their deeds.

But people like Donald Trump seem incapable of this trait. They perceive that acknowledging faults equates to weakness, so better to pretend that only good things have happened in America, than to deal with the times when we fell far short of the ideals of our founders, who themselves fell short of their own noble words.

What really galls me, really makes me cheer, at times, for some type of calamity to befall our great country, is that along with the obsession with ridding America of DEI policies, those very same people think that we are a Christian nation. That deporting people whose only crime is that they violated an arbitrary line in the sand to attain a better life is what Jesus would do. And, that killing American citizens who believe that the real morality is standing against such cruelty is OK too.

I am not a believer that God intervenes in our daily lives, that She somehow favors people born in country A over those born in country B, or that natural disasters occur due to excessive sinning, or a lack of acknowledgement of who is really in charge.

But, if God is truly watching, is truly contemplating some form of punishment for those who have perverted or otherwise misinterpreted the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, I wonder if we would even recognize such an event in its true meaning. That perhaps:

extreme weather events are divine signs that we are on the wrong track in our abuse of our planet.

economic meltdowns (like 2008) are hints from above that our devotion to money and material possessions is off path.

the slaughter of humans, be it in Ukraine or Palestine, Sudan or Myanmar, should remind us that God expects us to seek peace, and to call out those who create chaos and violence, regardless of whether that nation or ideology aligns with our beliefs. Killing is killing.

All around America, especially in red states, there are active efforts to suppress the history of our country in the guise of a war against wokeness, even though those same people have a hard time defining what is woke. 

I maintain that the teachings of Christ are some of the most woke lessons ever presented which make it all the more insidious that those same people who are so fervently anti-woke, at the same time pretend to be Christian. I call them CHINOs, rhymes with RINOs, Christian in name only.

If you truly believe that diversity, equity and inclusion are horrible concepts then you must reject all the great accomplishments achieved by non-white men, women, first and second generation Americans, anyone with a disability, in other words, over 70% of the population because if it wasn't for policies that encouraged people that looked different from our founders, all white men, in the 250 years of our national existence, America would never have attained its current, although perhaps tenuous due to the current administration's egoistic policies, position in the world.

Better woke than asleep, or worse, just cruel. 

 

 

 

 

 

Our Shared Deficit

While a somewhat popular topic in terms of importance or when discussing threats to our nation, I believe that the national debt does not get the attention it deserves. To put it starkly, debt payments on our shared national debt is over 1 trillion, that is T for trillion, dollars a year. This expense is quickly becoming the biggest line item on the debit side of our national ledger, Trump's ridiculous statements that he wants to spend $1.5 trillion next year on defense aside.

First, I commented on this subject way back in early 2011. In that post I attempted to explain the research and information I had encountered before composing my commentary. In essence, I related that, at the time, 40% of the debt was owned by one United States Government agency over another, that, in essence we owed ourselves 40% of the debt. As an example, I had cited the accumulation of monies paid into Social Security that hadn't been paid out to beneficiaries yet.

The other 60% was held by various banks in America and around the globe. Upon learning this I commented that perhaps the prospect of those banks "calling our loans" was preposterous considering that bankrupting the United States would do great damage to the world economy as well.

Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/02/deficit-components.html 

Sadly, perhaps our politicians believed that as well, as, even though I go on to say that we need to begin having serious discussions about the trend that had added an average of $1 trillion each year to the overall debt from 2002 to that year 2011, (the national debt in 2002 was a bit over $6 trillion, 9 years later in 2011, it was close to $15 trillion), the trend has only worsened since.

Here is a link to a chart that I found which goes to 2023.   

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-major-events-3306287

It is startling! 

From 2011 to 2023, 12 years of budgets, the debt increased by over $19 trillion, an average of over $1.5 trillion each year. The chart also provides a column detailing the major event that may partially or primarily have caused the debt increase. Another column of this chart compares the ratio of national debt to GDP. Again very interesting data.

The last link I will supply is to access the current US debt clock. It is a real time estimate of our overall debt, with the last few days, increase or decrease, and the current number, in a clock type of format. As you will see, it is now about $38.6 trillion, another $4 trillion in the last 2+ fiscal budgets. (The fiscal year starts in October, so fiscal year 2026 is only 3 months old). 

https://www.us-debt-clock.com/ 

OK, so let's talk numbers.

Here is a current breakdown of who owns our debt. I am not sure where I got this data as I found it a few weeks ago, but I do remember thinking that it was relatively current as of fiscal year 2025. It appears that even more of the debt is held by America, less by foreign entities, and that Japan is the foreign country holder of the most debt, not China as some people might think. 

Breaking Down US Debt Ownership:

• 40% - US investors and institutions

• 20% - Social Security, Medicare, and other US agencies

• 13% - The Federal Reserve

• 25% - Foreign investors (only!)

• 3-4% - China (much less than most people think!)

 

Returning to that year by year debt chart, I especially focused on the debt to GDP ratio. As you see, this number doubled during WW2, surpassing the 100% mark in 1945 through 1947. At that point, even though the debt continues to increase, it does so very slowly. It stays below $300 billion, that is B for billion, from the mid 1940's all the way until 1963, then takes another 9 years, until 1972, to get to $400 billion. And, even though the debt does start to rise more quickly, reaching just short of $1 trillion by 1981, the debt to GDP ratio continued to drop. Remember, it was over 100% in 1947, but fell steadily through the 50's, 60's, and 70's to a low of 31% in that same 1981.

We wouldn't sniff such a low ratio ever again.

I have often commented that supply side economics was the beginning of the end for middle class buying power. While cause and effect are certainly hard to prove, it was during the Reagan presidency that this economic philosophy took hold. Remember, until the tax cuts that went along with supply side economics, the idea being to give the rich more money which would "trickle down" to the income classes below, tax rates for the rich were 50, 60, even 70%. 

In other words, the monies paid in taxes by the wealthy all during the 50's, 60's and 70's, trickled down much more efficiently through massive public work projects like the interstate highway system, and by keeping taxes for the not so rich reasonable, not to mention that the corporate structure did not exist yet, a system that has encouraged large amounts of money to be hidden in offshore accounts, untaxable. 

By the time Reagan left office in 1988, our national debt had doubled plus, from just under $1 trillion to over $2.6 trillion, but worse, the debt to GDP ratio had risen from that low of 31% to 50%.

Four years of Bush 1 added another $1.5 trillion to the debt while the ratio hit 61%.

Clinton's terms were better, adding another $1.5 trillion but over 8 years, while that ever important ratio dropped back into the mid 50% range.

Under Bush 2, the debt soared due to the War on Terror after the horrific attacks on 9/11. This is when we began our debt increase average of over $1 trillion per year. Remember, it took until 1981, over 200 years, to get to that first trillion dollar debt mark.

Bush 2 added $4.5 trillion in 8 years, ratio climbed to 68%. Then came the economic meltdown of 2008 which caused Obama's numbers to be even worse.

During Obama's 8 years, the national debt increased another $9 trillion and the debt to GDP ratio broke the 100% mark in 2014, staying over 100% ever since.

Trump's first term added another $8 trillion to the debt, COVID being the leading cause, then almost $7 trillion more in the first 3 years of Biden's term, also partly due to COVID. There were also stimulus packages under Trump and Biden that contributed to the now over $2 trillion, per year increase in the debt, with the debt to GDP ratio now over 120%.

So, what is the solution.

Well, first, we have to stop blaming our elected officials. We elected them, so if we really wanted national debt reduction, we would not reelect people who do not deliver. 

But, it is also possible that electing people who were serious about reducing the debt, won't work either. In the case of the current administration that has talked about a balanced budget, and has slowed the pace of debt increase a bit through the chaotic tariff policies (never mind if you think the American businesses and citizens shouldn't be paying more money as tariffs are a tax). Although, slowed is defined as only $500 billion dollar deficit in the first quarter of the new fiscal year, down from $600 billion for the same quarter last year. 

That still equates to over $2 trillion in new debt if we match that number, and may well be worse if Trump actually sends checks to 50 or 100 million Americans this summer, thereby negating the increase in tariff revenue. Again, in this isn't just a knock on Trump, but give the people money in an election year seems a far more compelling strategy for politicians of all stripes.

I have said repeatedly that income inequality, the fact that the richest in America own a disproportionate percentage of the wealth, while the bottom 50% own very little is a serious threat to America. And, while it is clear that the GOP advocates for policies that do nothing to reduce this situation, the fact remains that the rich have gotten richer under every administration, Democratic or Republican, since supply side economics has become our guiding principle.

So, yes, while many trillions of dollars of our national debt were the result of the economic meltdown of 2008 and the COVID pandemic, both of which resulted in massive amounts of money distributed to both save our large financial institutions, and to assist everyday people to pay their bills, the simple fact is that far too many people live on the edge, financially, so any disruption pushes millions of Americans towards food insecurity, bankruptcy, etc. 

Add to that the fact that we still, nationally speaking, have our heads up our communal asses in our resistance to create a universal health care program, which would provide basic health care to all Americans while also eliminating the really grotesque fact that each year far too many Americans find themselves claiming bankruptcy for medical bills, and it is clear that we choose to tolerate the causes of our soaring national debt by not addressing them.

One of the truly paradoxical features of the rise of Trumpism is that it is a populist movement. The very problems that I detail above resulted in millions of middle class, working people to reject Hillary who was effectively linked to the elite, a group who have been so effective in diverting resources upwards to the higher income brackets. The angst was real and Trump took advantage of it while the Dems ignored it, and/or were ineffective when they were in power to stop it.

Take the recent proposal to cap credit card debt at 10%. That is something that the left has been pushing for years, hence Elizabeth Warren's enthusiastic endorsement of the proposal. Of course, the powers in charge, the large financial institutions and the legislators that they own, have pushed back, claiming with straight faces that such a low rate would result in some people not having access to credit.

While this may be true, it is also true that the 25, 28 even 30% interest rates that are being charged to consumers with low credit scores or limited credit history, would make the loan sharks of the past quiver in ecstasy, and perhaps jealousy, that such usury rates are legal.

The simple fact is that interest rates that high only create debt that makes it very difficult to be free from. 

But again, we all must look in our collective mirrors and take some blame for this as well. Not being able to afford something should be a reason not to buy it. But since we all must have what we want, now, there are plenty of unsavory financial institutions that will loan us the money, turning a $2000 purchase into a $4000 payment over time.

Which circles us back to the fact that too many Americans live on the edge, financially, because we allow the rich to drive the narrative about all things income related.

Higher minimum wages? Can't have that, it would cause inflation, so they say, even though CEO pay has skyrocketed in the last 30 years, as has the pay for athletes, Wall street executives, movie stars, hedge fund managers, health insurance brokers and executives, the list goes on and on. 

But never retail workers, bus drivers, day care workers, sanitation workers, even police and firemen. Real income for the people who do the real work in our country has not kept pace so we feel it necessary to charge our way to comfort, a situation which big banks are all too eager to take advantage of.

But I digress.

The deficit will eventually lead to a financial reckoning. We can't continue to spend a trillion, even 2 trillion dollars a year more than we collect in revenue and taxes. It is unsustainable as any family who has faced unending escalation of their debt knows.

The rich must pay higher taxes, the working poor must receive livable wages, the middle class must prioritize where they spend their resources while avoiding the pitfalls of wanting everything new. Remember, supply and demand has two portions, so, while Trump's call for austerity by buying less pencils (who buys pencils?) seems to put all the blame on the working classes, he is right that we can be more discerning, more aware of wants as opposed to needs.

I called this post Our Shared Deficit because there are some Americans who choose to blame our elected officials or the Washington bureaucracies or, of course, immigrants. 

And that is the main problem. We, the people, are the problem and the fact that we can't or won't acknowledge that is what will doom our country more than anything else.