Sunday, March 17, 2024

Philanthropy

A few weeks ago, my wife and I watched a documentary called The Greatest Night in Pop which detailed how music's biggest stars came together to record "We Are the World." If you haven't seen it, and are either interested in music history, or remember how many musicians came together in the 1980's to perform at concerts for specific causes, or to raise money to address the problems of the day, I highly recommend you watch this Netflix show.

Towards the topic of philanthropy, I checked my blog only to find three posts under the heading, all from 2015. Thinking that in itself revealed a problem, I decided to comment on the topic in this post. In addition, I have enclosed a link to those past posts which I thoroughly enjoyed rereading today. 




For those of you who were young adults in the 80's, Live Aid and Farm Aid, both which occurred in 1985, might be considered the apex of benefit concerts. The most renowned musical artists of the day performed at those two shows, and hundreds of millions of dollars were raised outright, in addition to the millions of dollars of food that was donated by various western nation governments and non government agencies to help alleviate starvation in Africa.

And while it is certainly true that these concerts were blockbusters, the concept began in 1971 when George Harrison lent his name for the Concert for Bangladesh. This event not only set the precedent for benefit concerts, but helped to inspire Bob Geldorf and Midge Ure's song "Do They Know It's Christmas" and then Geldorf's organization of the aforementioned "We Are the World" song and Live Aid extravaganza.

In addition to these more well known spectacles, there has also been the thirty plus year Secret Policemen's Ball shows which raised money for Amnesty International, the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea in 1979, the Freddy Mercury Tribute Concert for AIDS Awareness in 1992, the Tibetan Freedom Concert in 1996, and the Concert for New York City in 2001 after the horrific events of 9/11.

While I am sure there are benefits being held by entertainers now, I am struck by the thought that what is being done today seems to pale in comparison to the global awareness concerts which I detail above. It's not like there aren't crisis galore as we speak. The war in Ukraine is two years old, why hasn't there been a Concert for Ukraine in America yet? Is it just that one of the major party's presidential candidates prefers the invading nation over the invaded? 

Or how about a benefit concert to raise money for both the victims of the Hamas attack into Israel last October as well as the humanitarian crisis that exists for the almost two million Palestinians as a result of the war in Gaza? Is it not possible for people to come together to mourn both the victims of the slaughter which initiated the war and the victims of the war itself? Is holding the idea in one's head that both acts were and are inhumane, not possible in our hyper partisan world?

And, perhaps it is too soon, or just that most people would rather forget, even though seven million people have died so far, but why wasn't there ever a concert for COVID? We lost over 1.2 million Americans to COVID, far more than any World War, more even than the loss of soldiers on both sides of the Civil War. Imagine that, the deadliest evedisaster in American history, and not only did it not bring us together to combat its spread and mourn our losses, it has driven us apart due to the politicization of the origin of the disease as well as the strategies (and vaccines) employed to limit the spread of the disease and reduce the deaths.

Is this one of the factors as to why benefit concerts, and more importantly, philanthropy and charity are in decline? 

First, it is unclear if charitable giving is truly in decline, or if there has just been a temporary dip. When I googled "is charitable giving in decline?", I found evidence that from 2021 to 2022 there was a significant reduction in giving in America. While you may still deduct your donations if you itemize (rather than use the standard deduction) on your taxes, the doubling of the standard deduction that occurred in 2017 has drastically reduced the percentage of filers who can take advantage of this deduction. 

Interestingly, in one of my 2015 posts, I posed the question of how much charitable giving might decrease if the tax deduction was removed. Again, there is not enough data to point the blame for the 2021-22 decline on this tax deduction change, as many economists point to the uncertain economic times as a bigger factor. Still, one might wonder if individual tax payers who no longer gain a tax advantage for charitable donations, in conjunction with the higher costs of living, might reduce their giving. I guess as the economy improves, more light will be shed on this topic.

I know that since our children left the nest, my wife and I have increased our charitable giving. Even now that we are both mostly retired (we each work part time, 12-20 hours a week), we have increased both the number and amount we give to charity. Perhaps, in the short term, charitable giving in America will actually increase despite the two reasons I list above, because baby boomers in the whole will have more disposable money than previous generations did. If that turns out to be true, it will at least bring from back a step or two from the cliff in my overall estimation of the baby boomer generation.

Philanthropy. Charity. Awareness that many others have less than oneself, and conversely, that many of us are very fortunate, privileged one might even say.

If we are indeed headed into a trend where people take to heart that often misinterpreted quote, charity begins at home, and America experiences a decline in everyday household charitable giving, will it simply be another indication that for all the talk about America being a Christian nation, we are all talk, no action? 

Not to put too much pressure on such short term decisions, but if we continue to ignore the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and fail to provide the Ukrainian people with the weapons and money they need to withstand the secession of their land and identity, while pretending that our weapons and monies aren't being used to slaughter women and children in Gaza, then we will be complicent, not only in two human tragedies, but in the surrendering of our "Christianity" to a much more powerful attribute and the exact opposite of charity; selfishness.

 


Saturday, March 9, 2024

Shame on You Supreme Court Justices 2

Before beginning this post, I reread the one I composed almost a month ago. In that one I chastised the Justices for their apparent bias against allowing Colorado to remove Trump from their primary ballot. It wasn't just this obvious bias that concerned me but what I called their ivory tower approach to the oral questioning, and the absurdity of their seemingly offhand dismissal of the actual basis for Colorado's Supreme Court decision, that Trump engaged in insurrection. 

It can certainly be debated whether Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen, his pressure campaign to convince certain state officials to alter or misreport vote totals and to create "alternate" slates of electors, not to mention his relentless attacks on Mike Pence to "do the right thing", and his apparent glee as the rioters attacked the Capitol building, rise to the level of insurrection, but the fact that all those things occurred (and more), should at least have been a part of the debate as to whether Colorado, or Maine, after digesting these facts, had the right to disqualify Trump. 

To completely disregard this aspect of the decision, seems to indicate that either the Justices are purposefully ignoring it, or have decided not to take responsibility (as the final judicial word on any legal matter), for upholding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/shame-on-you-supreme-court-justices.html

Now, as a result of their decision to rule on the extent of presidential immunity as being claimed by the ex-president, it seems that ignoring Trump's actions isn't the case anymore, they are actually going to discuss whether he can actually do whatever he wants as president along as his party doesn't impeach him. Hard to believe I would ever look upon Nixon with a bit of wistfulness, as even he knew that his own party might impeach him for his actions, and that he wasn't above the law, while Trump has always acted as if laws are for everyone else, while his grip on the GOP is impenetrable.

This whole situation is the perfect storm of inconceivable actions which the founders could have never predicted. A wanna be dictator with an iron grip on his party along with a Supreme Court more worried about technical legal issues than the fight to save our democracy.

As someone far more insightful that I have said, most great nations fall from within.

What galls me is not just that SCOTUS chose to elucidate their opinion on presidential immunity (an amazing fact in itself, that after 250 years of presidents, it is only now, with Trump, that the issue has to be adjudicated), but that they put a stay on the federal trial to determine Trump's responsibility for January 6th. They certainly could have allowed the trial to move forward, knowing that even if they didn't take oral arguments until late April (and why so much delay for that process is another bad omen), and didn't decide until late May or early June, the trial would still be in progress, since they knew that the judge in the case had already promised over two months to the Trump team to prepare for the trial. Now, if they don't issue their decision until late May or early June, the trial can't begin until late summer. 

As I have heard a number of times, it appears that the Justices have given Trump a de facto escape from accountability, both because of the prep time I mentioned above, and also because of the tradition of the DOJ not to get involved in a judicial case involving a presidential election within 60 days of that election. Two months prior to November is September which is damned close to the possible trial start date of an early June SCOTUS decision plus that seventy plus days for trial prep.

Is this a clear case of SCOTUS prejudice for a political candidate who either actually nominated them or shares their ideology? 

While I can't possibly know the answer to that question, I can speculate that Judge Thomas, whose wife actively lobbied people in Trump's inner circle to do whatever it took to keep him in power, is biased. I also have no doubt that Alito was instrumental in pushing for the Supreme Court to take this case. 

As for the three justices that Trump appointed, I would wager that at least two of them were down with ruling on presidential immunity, especially Kavanaugh, who has a history of supporting extensive presidential powers. I am not sure if I prefer to find out that Chief Justice Roberts was in on the push for taking the case because if he wasn't that leaves us with the dangerous realization that all three of Trump's appointments appear to be on his side, or as Trump would put it, are doing the "right thing".  

Certainly it will be interesting to see if there is some kind of details released on how SCOTUS determined to hear this case. Was there a unanimous decision to hear the case, but some dissent as to putting the election interference trial on hold? Did the three liberal justices find themselves outnumbered by the six conservative justices on both the question to take the case and the decision to grant the stay to delay the trial? Remember, allegedly, a stay is generally only issued if there is a reasonable chance that the requesting party, in this case Trump, has a reasonable chance to win the case. 

Really? There are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America that believe that a president of the United States of America has immunity to do whatever he wants while president? There are enough justices that actually believe that the founders who fought for independence from the dictates of the King of England, would be down for an American King?

We have already seen some dissent when it came to the Colorado decision, as the three liberal justices were joined by Justice Coney Barrett in disagreeing with the extent of the majority when they seemed to rewrite the 14th Amendment with their decision that indicated that states can only get involved in state elections when using the insurrectionist clause, despite the fact that the original intent of the amendment was to keep those who fought against the Union out of the Untied States Congress. 

So again I say, shame on you Supreme Court Justices! Perhaps you believe that you shouldn't have a hand in presidential elections which is why you negated Colorado's decision. Unfortunately, you effectively have changed the course of the November election by not allowing the Court of Appeals 3-0 decision to stand, by not allowing the election interference trial to continue while you debated the extent of presidential immunity, and by scheduling oral arguments two months in the future, rather than in a much more aggressive expedited fashion. 

What is truly mind boggling, is that this Supreme Court thinks that should Trump win in November, they might be a backstop for some of his more outrageous policies, as if he will follow the law as they rule. We already see the Republican Governor of Texas thumbing his nose at their decision that only the federal government has authority concerning immigration, already see multiple GOP Congressmen and Governors advising Abbott to ignore that ruling. Do they really think that Trump will care what they say should they rule against one of his executive decisions, do they really believe his MAGA supporters will side with them or Trump?

While Biden engages with NATO countries leaders, Trump hosts the dictator from Hungary at his Florida home. The authoritarian playbook is open and in progress, yet the Justices think Trump will obey any ruling they make with which he disagrees. Again, ivory tower thinking.

A Trump victory in November, that can be blamed, even in part, because the American electorate is denied access to the details of how Trump and his team tried to negate the votes of over 80 million Americans, will add the Supreme Court Justices to the list of enablers which includes those who deny what they saw on TV on January 6th, refuse to evaluate the reams of evidence placing Trump at the head of a conspiracy to thwart the peaceful transfer of power, and ignore all the signs that Trump does not care about democracy or America, never has, never will. 


  

Thursday, March 7, 2024

The Key to November's Presidential Election

Before beginning this post, I reread my Nikki Haley for President post from January. Here is a link.


In that post, I made a case for Nikki to win in November, and that it might be better for America if she did, certainly better than a Trump victory, and perhaps better than a Biden win. Unfortunately, as of now this will not be the case, as Haley recently suspended her campaign. 

I am not sure if the word suspended was used purposefully, meaning that she could reanimate her campaign should something occur that would make it viable again, perhaps, oh I don't know, maybe Trump being convicted of a felony, but for now she is out of the race. While it will be curious to see how many votes she gets in the next few GOP primaries, as no less than twelve states are still set to hold primaries this month, and I would imagine she will appear on many, if not most of those ballots, Trump is the presumptive nominee and will continue to be so until at least the summer when it is possible that one of the DOJ cases against him go to trial.

Which brings me to the title of this post, the Key to November's Election. Drum roll please......

Nikki Haley!

I don't know if she understands this, don't know if she is cognizant of the power she now possesses, but Nikki Haley can make or break either candidate with her endorsement. Should she capitulate, as virtually every other Republican in Congress has done, and endorse Trump, that may be enough to sway some of the over two and a half million Republican voters who have already cast their vote for her so far in the primaries, to hold their nose and vote for Trump in November. 

But if she withholds her endorsement, or actually endorses Biden, those same Haley voters might follow her lead and vote for Biden even though they may disagree with many of his policies. 

In other words, if Haley and those who chose her over Trump in the primaries put America first and either leave the president section blank, or actually choose Biden, that could be the difference in the outcome.

One might say that life is nothing if not ironic, so, as I stated in my post Accountability Finally? 2, from early February, wouldn't it be ironic if, as has already been started by strong women, the final die is case on Trump by another strong woman.


At this point, only Nikki Haley knows what she will do. I would like to think that she is considering her decision very carefully. I acknowledge that choosing no endorsement for either candidate, or openly rejecting Trump, will mark the end of her political career as a Republican. But if she chooses to emulate Liz Cheney, should she choose the United States over her personal ambition to be president, that choice in itself could not only save our democracy so that she can run for president again in four years, but also might catapult her to a position of strength in 2028 should the democrats not find a unifying candidate for that race. 

I imagine that I will go to my grave and never fully understand the allure of Trump, and why so many millions of Americans would knowingly vote to elect him president despite being convicted of sexual assault, convicted of fraud in his business dealings, been impeached for attempting to extort a foreign leader by dangling military weapons for dirt on a political rival, been caught with classified documents after lying about returning them, and most egregiously, lied about the results of the 2020 presidential election, then incited a mob to attack the United States Capitol while surreptitiously pressuring state and federal officials to "find" votes or just make up electors. Not to mention "jokingly" suggesting he would be a dictator only for one day.

Still, compared to how Nikki Haley may be viewed by future historians who attempt to understand her eventual decision about who to endorse in the 2024 presidential election, I can envision my eventual forgiveness for those in the Trump cult. We are all gullible to some extent, we all fall victim to the occasional scam, we all sometimes sacrifice logic, ignore the obvious, fail to research, or just plain become lazy, especially when the topic is as complicated as democracy.

But Nikki knows better. She knows the danger Trump represents. Knows his demand for loyalty to himself above all, and how that requirement in itself, does not bode well for America. I can only hope that she does not follow the path of most of the men in her party, men who have chosen political relevance over America, men who prefer to gain the crumbs which an autocrat like Trump will drop their way as opposed to the freedom that democracy, messy as it is, offers.

Let's hope Nikki is better than the Ted Cruzes and Mitch McConnells of the world. If not, and Trump is narrowly elected, in part due to her head down, eyes averted compliance to either some sort of party loyalty, or actual deference to Trump to gain some cabinet position, I expect that history may judge her no better than the other myriad enablers who lack the backbone to stand for America and to stand against a dictator wannabe. 

 


Saturday, February 24, 2024

Another Step Towards Theocracy

I have written dozens of stories in my life. Futuristic, based on real life experiences, and some with social lessons and commentary, among other categories. But I must confess, I never conceived of a story in which a great shift in a society towards a more religious interpretation of laws would be initiated through the election of a twice divorced man who cheated on all three of his wives, claims "for better or worse" famous men are allowed to grab women by their private parts, who more than once commented on how "hot" his daughter was, and is a convicted sex offender.

Life is stranger than fiction, you betcha!

Theocracy, is defined in a number of ways. Some define it as a nation ruled by religious leaders or one in which the leaders claim to be divinely appointed, deriving their power from god. I imagine if pressed for an answer, many Americans would define theocracy as the kind of government Iran has while also expressing their displeasure with such a government.

However, as more and more laws are being passed by (mostly) red state legislatures, and more and more judicial opinions are emanating from right leaning judges, it is now clear that what irks many Americans about Iran's version of theocracy is the religion it adopts, not the form of government itself.

Jefferson is the most quoted founder in reference to the separation of church and state. While the founders, in general, shared a Judeo-Christian ethos, they also made clear their opinion about religious influence within the government in the very First Amendment, via the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses which basically state that the government shall not establish a religion nor restrict the worship of the people in whatever religion they choose.

Yet, as the non-fiction story reference above indicates, we are in the throes of a movement, which featured the seduction of the evangelical community by the orange Jesus to make abortion illegal, resulted in the Dobbs decision (thanks to the 3 Supreme Court Justices placed on the bench during the Trump Administration), and is now in full swing in dozens of red states, despite the actual wishes of the electorate of those very same states. (See Kansas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Montana.) 

It is a movement driven by a vocal minority which has decided that its religious beliefs should rule the day, literally.

Which brings us to the atrocious decision by the Alabama Supreme Court last week, which ruled that embryos which are the key to IVF treatments which allow couples with fertility issues become parents, are children. Not potential children, actual children! As a result, the accidental destruction of some embryos at fertility clinic has been interpreted as murder, as justified by the interpretation of various biblical (not legal) quotes.  

I know, shocking that in 2024, a panel of justices who represent the most respected legal thinkers in the state of Alabama, (assuming that is not a contradiction in terms) would actually equate a batch of cells in a test tube to a person. 

But, you see, that was the goal all along of the anti-abortion crowd, to establish the legal precedent that personhood begins at conception, which then allows the state to control the most personal, intimate situations of its citizens lives, everything from who to love and marry, to birth control and when and how to start a family. You know, the most repressive form of government based on the tenets of one, established national religion. 

Around and around go the bodies of our founders in their graves!

I posted under the title Separation of Church and State twice before, once in 2022, and the other time ten years previously. Here are links to those two posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/one-step-forward-for-american-theocracy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/02/contraception-controversy.html


What is truly alarming about this movement is that is didn't just appear in the last decade. For those of you who haven't heard of the Seven Mountain Mandate, and I was one of you, there will be plenty of opportunity to research and learn about its philosophy in the coming months, and perhaps years, as the Chief Justice of Alabama, Tom Parker, believes whole heartily in its tenets. 

In a nutshell, it is an ism which traces its origins to Revelations, verse 9, which identifies the seven spheres of influence that must be penetrated by the righteous; family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government. Once those areas of influence are dominated by these true believers, the prophesy of Isaiah 2:2 can be fulfilled, bringing about the end times. 

When Trump talks retribution, I thought he only meant punishment for those who disagree with him, I didn't realize he was talking world wide retribution! Of course, I am sure he doesn't believe any of this, but can certainly spot such an easy to manipulate group of people from a mile away.

In addition to Parker, the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson has exhibited leanings in this direction, not to mention some other prominent GOP leaders and influencers. While there are some who believe that Trump himself shares this belief, I know better; he has no moral or religious foundation, but will certainly use those who do to be king or dictator or whatever it is that his damaged psyche needs to feel like a real person.

So, gird your loins as the saying goes. We are in for quite a ride through the remainder of 2024, and in the next few years. Whether we actually adopt some of these religious zealot dogmas at a national level remains to be seen, but remember, it won't matter if the majority of people are against such measures. Ideologues like this aren't concerned with what the majority think. They have their holy book, their narrow interpretations, and the sheer belief that God is on their side, the electorate or the constitution be damned. 

Sunday, February 11, 2024

Shame on You, Supreme Court Justices

This past Tuesday, I listened to portions of the oral arguments (perhaps some day the Supreme Court of the United States will allow cameras in their court so the American people can see their work in progress). I caught some of the questions put to Trump's lawyer (Jonathan Mitchell), then left the house for a while, only to return to hear some of the questions put to the lawyer representing Colorado (Jason Murray).

I commented previously on the topic of Trump being disqualified from the ballot for his insurrectionist activities. (See link below)


Based on what I heard that day, the tone and nature of the questions, and the comments delivered by various legal experts since then, it is clear that SCOTUS will overrule the Colorado ruling (and negate Maine's decision as the Secretary of State of Maine has indicated she will follow the SCOTUS decision).

While this is not unexpected, I said as much in the post referenced above, I am extremely disappointed with the process I listened to last week. And, while I expected that certain conservative justices might be reluctant to entertain the disqualification of Trump, I am especially disheartened by the liberal judges who also appeared to have already made up their minds before oral arguments commenced.

What was particularly galling was the seriousness of the questions and answers surrounding the concept that the president (and vice president) were not officers of the United States, and that therefore the 14th amendment did not apply to Trump. 

Now, I understand that at the time of the Civil War, when the 14th amendment was ratified, focus was on the Congress, and to a lesser extent, those electors who chose who would be on the party's presidential ticket. As I mentioned in my previous post, it was of paramount importance to prevent those who engaged in insurrection (in other words, the Civil War), from either serving in Congress or choosing those who would serve (at the time, Senators were not voted on by the electorate, but were chosen by state legislators) in Congress or in the White House.

But, and this is a BIG BUT, when pressed for why the amendment didn't mention the president or vice president, there is historical evidence that those positions were assumed in the words "or hold any office", and that the concept that an insurrectionist would be tolerated on a presidential ballot after such a horrific and devastating war was ridiculous. Certainly, anyone who actually thinks about it, would conclude that the creators of the 14th amendment would want to make sure that anyone who actively fought against America would be prevented from running our country, none more so than the two offices at the top of the pyramid.

So, while we don't know precisely why the offices were not specifically mentioned, I find it hard to believe that the advocates of the 14th Amendment would have been against an insurrectionist in Congress but not in the White House. Isn't that common sense, or am I missing something?

This is just another in a myriad of examples of Donald Trump finding loopholes in our Constitution and our other laws and norms, to excuse his aberrant behavior. He pushes the limits of the spirit of our laws with impudence, lies incessantly because we allow our politicians to do so, and uses intimidation to bully those who disagree without actually threatening violence.

And, at least in this case, the justices of the Supreme Court will most likely allow him to get away without accountability, again!

I at least hope that, when the ruling comes down, they at least acknowledge that an insurrectionist should be disqualified from running for president. Perhaps they might rule that only Congress can determine an insurrectionist, or that one must be convicted of such to be disqualified, thereby taking the task from the hands of individual states, and placing it in the hands of the judicial system or entire Congress.

Should they, however, rule that the 14th Amendment, article 3 does not apply to the presidency, I believe that will mark this court, Robert's court, as a failure by future historians, to preserve our constitution and our democracy.

Speaking of democracy, why wasn't Mitchell asked if his client acknowledges that he lost the 2020 election, since one of the other parts of the disqualification clauses of the constitution is that no one shall be elected to the presidency three times? They should have pushed the issue to counter Trump's claim that he won "in a landslide" in 2020, so that the American electorate can begin to discount that obsession, and so that, should he and his acolytes try to press for a third term if he wins in November, they will have it on record.

This also gets to the point of denying election results. To me, anyone who claims that they only honor an election when they win, should be disqualified as a candidate, for any office. Again, it is one of the foundations of our democracy, the peaceful transition of power between presidents, and another of the unspoken rules that Trump trampled upon after the 2020 election. 

It is one thing to be a sore loser, to refuse to congratulate the victor when one loses, but another when you spend the next 3 years travelling around the country spreading lies about our country's elections. Lies that led to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, lies that resulted in Fox Business paying Dominion Voting Machines almost three quarters of a billion (that's billion) dollars, lies that resulted in a libel decision against Rudy Giuliani for $148 million, lies that have convinced more than half of Republican voters that President Biden is illegitimate, enabling GOP reps in Congress to justify not working with him to solve our nation's problems.  

It seems to me that SCOTUS completely missed that point, instead focusing on technical details, placing their ivory tower opinions over the reality of Trumps threat to democracy. 

Finally, there was the point made by one of the justices, one which I made in the post I've mentioned already, that should Colorado's decision to remove Trump from their ballot, might that not cause other states to remove Biden from their ballots? A situation that might result in a handful of states determining the results of the 2024 presidential election. 

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but that is already the case in America, due to the electoral college. Just look at the last two elections. The results in five states decided the outcome, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Biden won those five states in 2024, Clinton lost them in 2020. All the other states, that's 45 out of 50, were won by the same party in each election and had literally no effect on the outcome of either of those elections.

So, in effect, the terrible possibility proffered as a reason not to allow Colorado remove Trump from the ballot, is the reality of our elections at this very moment. There is every reason to believe that whomever wins those 5 states this November, or four of the five, or perhaps even three of the five, if those three happen to be Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia, will win the 2024 election. So much for worrying about disenfranchising voters!

If we assume that we don't want a handful of states to decide future presidential elections, perhaps we should be having a serious discussion about eliminating the electoral college? 

Finally, there also seems to be an assumed reluctance for this court to take positions that would change the course of our country, that those kind of choices should be up to the legislative and executive branches. That a decision to remove Trump might possibly lead to strife in our streets even though that didn't seem to stop SCOTUS from removing a right for the first time in history. (The Dobbs decision).

Well, perhaps it is time for the court to show some balls, the female justices included. When the Warren Court overruled Plessy in the Brown vs Board of Education rulings, finding the sanctioned segregation of our public school systems as unconstitutional, all hell broke loose, to use a phrase. Federal troops had to be sent to multiple southern states to escort frightened African American children into desegregated schools, to the outrage of certain racist Americans. Talk about having balls!

Clearly, the Roberts Court will have whiffed on this one, if the consensus is correct as to how they will rule. Perhaps they will do better in the immunity case, should they agree to hear it. Should they fall short on that one as well, I expect that historians will have even more evidence of this court's failure to defend our democracy.   

Saturday, February 3, 2024

Accountability Finally? 2

About nine months ago, I posted the following concerning the possibility of accountability finally coming to Donald Trump for all his horrible actions, although I also state at the end that I only believe true accountability will come when the grim reaper visits him. 



Still, I reread it to see what may have changed in those intervening months and was both gladdened and saddened.

At the time, Ron DeSantis was the GOP candidate expected to pose a possible challenge to Trump. As it turned out, he, along with all the other men who entered the race have dropped out, most, only to endorse Trump. Of course, other than Chris Christie, those other male candidates were obviously not serious about challenging Trump, rarely, if ever, attacking Trump on any of the many topics available to them. Can you say gutless?

Also, we didn't know just how many felony indictments would be forthcoming, ninety-one, as it turned out. I am old enough to remember when a politician could be forced out of a presidential race for admitting having mental health therapy in the past, or having extra-marital affairs. And when a candidate who may have smoked pot in his past, had to explain it away.

But now we have a candidate with millions of supporters who (among many other things) stoked a mob to ransack the Capitol building in the attempt to thwart the peaceful transition of power (and perhaps kill or hang a few in the process), stole national secrets, then lied about having them and about returning them all, and has continued to lie about the results of the 2020 presidential election. Oh, and believes that as president he should have complete immunity from prosecution even if he should order the assassination of a political rival. Can you say cult?

History is a curious thing. In hindsight, there are often obvious inflection points that historians can cite as the time or place when a sea change had occurred. Perhaps it is a specific battle of a war, or a speech made by an influential person, or an invention. 

But in real time, as life is happening, it is rare indeed to identify such a point when everything that comes after is different from everything that came before.

My hope with this post is to predict a possible turning point in the life of Donald Trump, and our country.

A while back I published a post concerning which gender is the weaker sex and how we might redefine masculinity to allow for the social changes that have occurred in the last hundred years, changes which have reduced the dominance of (white) men while providing for an immense increase in opportunities in education, business, politics, etc for women and minorities.


Which brings me back to accountability for Trump.

I would like to think that in 5 years, perhaps even less, the events of 2024 will be designated as the beginning of the end for Trump's influence. Not perhaps the end of such influence, but the beginning of the waning of such influence.

And, as indicated in The Weaker Sex post, should that be true it will be women who have demonstrates their strength, specific women and the gender as a whole who were able to create that slow slide towards irrelevance.

As mentioned before, a lot has changed in nine months. While we already knew about Cassidy and Liz, we now have other women leading the charge to shine light on the Donald.

Two women prosecutors, Fani Willis and Tish James are leading strong cases against Trump which demonstrate his past lies about his finances to obtain preferential loans, and the conspiracy he led to subvert the will of the American electorate to disenfranchise Georgia's voters.

E Jean Carroll, and her female lawyers, Roberta Kaplan and Shawn Crowley, have successfully won a jury verdict which not only found Trump guilty of sexual assault and libel in the first trial, but won additional monetary awards for defamation, injury to her reputation and punitive damages to the tune of $83.3, that second jury trial which resulted from Trump's inability to keep his mouth shut. Can you say lack of self control?

And then there is Nikki Haley. Now, I was very disappointed in Nikki's early debate performance, especially her willingness to pardon Trump should she win the presidency, not because I would not be opposed to such a move should he admit to wrong doing, but we all know he won't admit to doing anything wrong, so Nikki should have prefaced her decision to pardon him with the caveat that he admit wrongdoing, and ask for a pardon. 

But, now that it is mano e mano (so to speak), she is pulling out all the stops and is beginning to point out, not just the obvious, that other than 2016, he (and the GOP in his image) has lost every other election; 2018 midterms when the GOP lost the house, 2020 presidential election when they lost the White House and Senate, and even in 2022 when the red wave was more like a trickle, but also his lack of clarity, his penchant for dictators and bully tactics, and his obvious misogyny.

Can she win the nomination? She has survived the primary to date, besting all the other male candidates, so anything can happen as the trials begin and those republicans who are paying attention see his childish behavior, continued all caps temper tantrums, and the testimony of those who previously voted for and served in his administration. As I said in my last post, I believe it is more likely that she could beat Biden in the November general election than Trump, a prospect that I do not embrace, but one which I can't for the life of me understand why the republican party doesn't realize.

So then, will women be the ultimate force behind Trump's fading away? Specific women, as I have mentioned in past posts, and women voters in general? 

If there is still irony left in the universe, that would certainly be the purest example, for a misogynist, women private parts grabber, thrice married philanderer, to be relegated to the trash bin of American history by the very gender which he treated with disdain and contempt.

Thursday, February 1, 2024

The Monarch Butterfly and Selflessness

Wonderful article in the January edition of National Geographic about the monarch butterfly. Another tremendous example of why this magazine is so invaluable, why learning about our environment is crucial not to just the survival of the hundreds of species that are  currently under enormous stress but to humanity as well.

Most people probably know something about the monarch butterfly. Many can even recognize one by sight, despite the myriad of categories of butterflies that exist.

Perhaps the most amazing fact about these delicate creatures, their migration cycle, is also known to most people, in general terms. I know that I was aware of the prodigious nature of their travels, from points as far north as southern Canada to central Mexico. Unfortunately, what I didn't know about them was far more than I thought I knew,

First, and most important, it is a generational journey that the monarchs take each year. What that means is that the monarchs that we might see in our backyards during the summer, are not the monarchs that left Mexico in the spring, and they are most likely not the monarchs that will travel back to Mexico in the fall. The yearly cycle takes at least three, and as many as five generations of monarchs to complete.

Also, those monarchs that are born in southern Canada and America, never see Mexico. They are non-migratory, and tend to have smaller wings than their migratory ancestors and descendants. They are born of the monarchs that left Mexico, survive between two and five weeks, then pass along their DNA to the next generation, eventually producing the one that does the heavy flying, back to Mexico. Those that represent the 4th and 5th generation can live up to a few months, in addition to being bigger than their progenitors.

Yet, amazingly, they know when to depart and where to go, despite never having been there before. Perhaps, due to having very little knowledge of etymology, I assumed that, like birds, monarchs were led by the senior members of their group, at least for one round trip, thereby imparting the migratory cycle through experience. 

But no, those that make the return trip have never been there before. Considering my own tendency to easily lose my car in a large parking lot, or get turned around when approaching a familiar destination from a different angle, it is a remarkable achievement.

Last year, my wonderful wife decided to realize a dream of hers by creating a wildflower garden in our backyard. In our previous home with its postage size backyard, she had, over the years, eliminated most of the grass, replacing it with flower gardens and plants and bushes of many types. By the time we moved in 2020, I was able to mow the lawn with a weed wacker.

But it was very small, as I said, so when we were searching for a new home, we prioritized a larger yard, which we were lucky enough to have found. Consequently, last May, we contracted to have about 900 square feet of lawn removed down to the soil, whereupon she distributed wild flower seeds, like the proverbial Joanna Appleseed.

Now, if you recall, it was very dry in late May and early June last year. And so, three weeks into the experiment, we were looking at dry ground with a few random pieces of grass struggling towards the sky. To be honest, there were a few days when we wondered what madness made us scrape off such a huge swath of land.

But June's dry spell was replaced with rain, and by mid-July we had a host of wildflowers growing, followed by all sorts of bees, bugs, and butterflies. I can't say we saw any monarchs, but the colors and smells and plethora of nature eliminated the doubt we had experienced for those first few weeks. 

Or, in monarch time, it took one generation for our garden to prosper.

Needless to say, the wildflower garden is here to stay, and will most likely get expanded, in hopes that a generation of monarchs will find a home, if only for a short time, in our modest back yard.

Selflessness.

Without falling to far down the rabbit hole of anthropomorphism, wouldn't it be nice if humans showed even a tincture of the selflessness that those generations of monarchs display which never leave America. Their only function is to procreate the next generations, eventually leading to those monarchs who travel back to Mexico to spend the winter, only to migrate up north where the cycle begins again.

Of course, in some ways, we do behave in such a way when we become parents. A little bit of sacrifice here, some nods to the future there, and hopes that by providing roots and wings, our children will have the confidence to pursue happiness, wherever it may take them.

We also act as those monarchs who live so the next generations can migrate, when we discuss the problems of the day, and when we fashion solutions to address those issues. While politics has always been partisan, there has also been a generous amount of compromise and bipartisanship at various times, even in our recent past. 

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that all the stimulus money distributed by both the Trump and Biden Administrations during the pandemic, while adding a certain percentage to the ugly rise in inflation, also provided the foundation for millions of American families to weather the storm of lock downs and unemployment, enabling America to emerge much stronger than most of the world's other western nations. 

So yes, while the hand wringing associated with the ever growing national debt is justified, the understanding that it could have been much worse, that those at the bottom of the economic ladder may have fallen completely through, that recession and perhaps worse was avoided by temporarily increasing our debt is a strong counter to such worries.

That doesn't mean we should not act to reduce the debt moving forward, but is also doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize the end results. After all, if we were honest with ourselves, compared to the past when we took actions that substantially increased our debt, World War One and Two, the Cold War, the war on terror which began in 2001, and the massive bailouts of the banks and other financial institutions in 2008, at least the funds causing this rise in debt went to everyday Americans, not the military industrial complex or the bankers and hedge fund managers.

Will we act communally to address this debt, will we demonstrate some selflessness? Will those with the most (have you read about Elon Musk's $58 billion pay package that is being challenged in court) act as those monarch generations who are content with never migrating? Will we begin to understand that fair distribution of our great nation's considerable resources is the only true way to guarantee that the generations to follow will be able to prosper? 

A few years ago, I posted the following concerning personal happiness and global anxiety. While the topic is only loosely associated with this post, it does address the idea that it is possible to be happy with one's own life, maybe even one's position in the migratory cycle, while worrying about the bigger picture, about whether our progeny will be able to create a future better than today, or make it to Mexico.




Saturday, January 27, 2024

Utopia and The Future

An acquaintance of mine recently sent me a book called Utopia For Realists by Rutger Bregman. I finished reading it last night.

Bregman is a popular Dutch author and historian, who has written other books about the future, utopia and creating a better world. In Utopia.. he makes the case for how the three concepts he advocates for the most, a 15 hour workweek, universal basic income, and open borders, could create a world without poverty, with much less crime, and with far more productivity than we have currently.

I reread a few of the posts I created along the lines of The Future, and have provided links to two of them.



Utopia and the future.

I must confess, I have allowed my outlook to degrade in the past few years. I say this because I found a number of past posts I had written with forward looking, positive outlooks for the world, humanity, but far less with such an optimistic viewpoint in the more recent past. I often remark that I believe that some of the negative attitudes emanating from people in their 50's and above, are the (natural) result of nostalgic thinking that is so easy to revert to as we age, as well as the obvious but often ignored fact that death is much closer than we want to admit.

Whether this generalized outlook has also effected the tone of my posts, is certainly debatable. The phrase, just because someone is paranoid, doesn't mean there aren't those out to get them, may be appropriate in regards to the recognition that sad and angry making news seems to attract more viewers, more clicks, more attention, so perhaps I have begun to succumb to that trend as well, even while I remain happy in my life, although more sad in regards to the world around us.

While I have certainly begun to believe that our democracy is already dead, is it simply because I am avoiding the obvious, that I am closer to death than birth, or just a reflection of the awful politics that is prevalent at this point in time?

Utopia For Realists, offered me a chance to put aside the cheerlessness of such thoughts, and to read about a perspective that not only believes in the progression (for the better) of humanity, but offers ideas as to how to accelerate that trajectory.

A few times in the past, I have discussed with friends, the concept that many women who stayed at home to raise tomorrow's adults, fulfilling what has traditionally been the ultimate goal and purpose of a woman as wife and mother, were sold a bill of goods that has proved detrimental to their later adult lives. 

Whether through divorce or death, there are far too many women in their 50's and above, who find themselves with far too few resources, especially in the form of their social security checks, because they did not earn any money outside of the home during those years when they were performing the most noble of tasks, raising and caring for their children. 

When discussing the problem of older women who live in poverty, my standard reaction is that, recognizing this issue, we should develop a program whereby women (and men) who stay at home with their kids are credited with an amount of money towards their future social security earnings. This amount could reflect the average cost of daycare in the state where one resides, or the income which equates to the poverty level for one person. Regardless of the metric, women would at least have an extra safety net to counter events that force them to sell their homes, or take menial jobs to make ends meet, when their only crime was staying at home to raise their children. 

Bregman takes this concept to the next level however, proposing a universal basic income for all people. It is an idea that, while certainly not mainstream, is actually being discussed in reasonable tones, and is being experimented with in various iterations in a few countries, and especially as a way to end homelessness. Bregman cites all kinds of studies which demonstrate that giving people cash is far more effective than any of the standard, traditional methods of assisting those in need.

As part of this argument, Bregman agrees with those who rail against the various "helping" programs that exist, not because he believes we should only advocate for "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" which he finds immoral and inhumane, but because there is not enough proof behind the efficacy of so many of our current attempts to address the ills of poverty and homelessness, and that too much of the resources applied to the problem are wasted on administrative costs related to oversight and evaluation and fraud prevention. 

Whether universal basic income is actually the norm in 25 or 50 years, it has been documented again and again that giving people in need an infusion of cash, especially the homeless, propels them to correcting their situation, and saves future expenditures related to policing, prison, and welfare. It is an investment that almost always returns more than it costs.

The 15 hour work week, on the face of it, seems unrealistic. How can the wheels of industry continue to turn if people only work 15 hours a week, and, what will people do with all that free time? 

The latter question has always been offered as a reason by employers and other institutions as to why people need to work. And, frankly, given the rise in suicides and drug overdoses that occurred during the lock downs related to the pandemic, I can see why most people would shrug off such a concept. 

But, using a situational instance such as the pandemic is not a good evaluation of a program, since we were thrust into the changes that marked our attempts to save lives, whereas working towards a 15 hour work week would entail a progression of steps to get us there, not a sudden change. 

Also, there is something to be said for the belief that it is the very nature of our workaday world, the financial stress of always seeming to be just a bit behind, the jobs that provide little or no fulfillment, the pressures of holding ones tongue when presented with abusive co-workers or supervisors, that contributes heavily to high drug use and suicide rates. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not convinced even after reading the book, but if there is a way to reduce the sheer number of unhappy people who kill themselves, or drown their sorrows in alcohol, then I am willing to try a new way. 

Since Bregman's book was written in 2014, and re-released in 2017, there has been a real sea change in how we work as indicated by the meteoric rise in at-home work. Of course, there has been push back from some business owners, CEO's, certain politicians, but there is also growing data that people are more productive when working from home even if they put in less than the traditional 40 hours, since they work without the stress of a commute or the hovering of a supervisor in a safe, comfortable environment. Is this an indication that moving towards a 15 hour week is already upon us, or at least, less crazy a concept that even just five years ago?

The last concept in the book is open borders. Again, this was written before the demonization strategy of a certain politician who brainwashed a significant percentage of Americans that immigrants were evil people. I can't even begin to imagine any politician from any party or ideology, advocating in public for an open border today.

As it is, I see the phrase open border used in conjunction with Biden multiple times every day, even though that is far from the truth. An open border is not defined as detaining and returning to their home country hundreds of thousands of people every year. The very existence of ICE and other border patrol agencies, the existence of an asylum program for those escaping religious and political persecution, and the need for agents, lawyers and judges to operate those various programs, belie the daily use of the term open border.

Ironically, many of the ancestors of those very same people most vocal about open borders, came to America when we truly had an open border policy. 

As far as I know, the Pilgrims were not detained at Plymouth Rock when they arrived. While, perhaps, the indigenous people of the time should have required references, or proof of a skill, or familiarity with the prevalent culture, from the arrival of the Pilgrims in 1620, there was an open border to the "New World". 

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and most of the founders took advantage of the open border of the day, and, maintained that concept during the infancy of the United States. It wasn't until the late 19th century that the first restrictive immigration bill was enacted as a way to restrict Chinese immigrants to America. Racist? Certainly. 

It wasn't until 1924 that the United States initiated immigration restrictions that were not prejudiced, at least not on its face. That law restricted to 2% the number of visas issued for each nationality as reflected by their population from the 1890 census. We can debate the latent prejudice involved in the use of the 1890 census as opposed to the more recent 1910, or even 1900 census, but suffice it to say that the influx of immigrants from certain countries between 1890 and 1910, inspired the use of that 1890 census so that the 2% number was far less, meaning less of "those" people would be allowed to immigrate. 

So, in other words, the United States indeed had an open border for the first 150 years before its founding, and then another 150 years after its declaration of independence. Only in the last 100 year has there been restrictions on immigrants, and those have always been based on prejudice.

Bregman, again using all kinds of statistics, attempts to prove, that, once again, our current methods of addressing immigration by providing support for the country of origin of those wishing to come here, has not been proven to be effective, whereas allowing those people to come here, unencumbered, will be better for them as well as the country at large. I would recommend you read that section for yourself to test his logic and points.

Interestingly, Bregman reminds us in this section of the book, that goods and ideas are allowed to migrate from country to country, across borders without checkpoints. Of course, it is no surprise that most people are for free trade, as it is a staple of the entire capitalist system. 

But think about ideas. Is there anything more dangerous than ideas that counter the norms and rules of society? We have a history of labeling certain thoughts as dangerous, sometimes using the phrases immoral or anti-social, and we obviously discourage ideas that are associated with communism and socialism, yet we generally allow discussions of those concepts in the name of free speech.

Yet, a poor immigrant mother who walks hundreds of miles with her children are denied entry to America because she is some kind of threat to our way of life.

I have said it before, and will say it again. America is as great as it is precisely because we have accepted people from all over the world, because we enjoy the diversity of culture and experiences, and because we seek equity in opportunity for all people, those who did nothing to earn the blessings of our country other than being born here, and those who take great risk, leave everything they know, and come here for a better life.

Frankly, if you even pretend to believe in the phrase "all men are created equal", working towards more reasonable immigration laws which recognize the humanity of those seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, while providing a process that provides a safe, legal pathway for them while easing the anxiety of those natives who worry about how their country might change, should be of the highest priority. Anything short of that, any words such as vermin and invasion when talking about immigration are not only saturated with prejudice, but fly in the face of what has made our country great.  

Whether Bregman's advice for us to return to the open border policies of our past which created the foundation of our country is followed, remains to be seen.
   

Thursday, January 25, 2024

Nikki Haley for President

First, I want to publicly thank Donald Trump for saving us from nuclear holocaust, as he claimed in one of his depositions which was  recently made public.  Thank you sir!

Also, I would like to thank Barack Obama for also saving us from nuclear holocaust during his 8 years in office, as well as George W Bush, Bill Clinton, George H W Bush, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, John Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhauer, and, so far, Joe Biden. All those men served as president of the United States since the development of the nuclear bomb, and, since there was not a nuclear holocaust during any of their terms in office they deserve our thanks. Of course, I don't recall any of those men citing, under oath during a deposition concerning possible criminal activity, this achievement, but they did accomplish it nevertheless.

-------

After watching the results of the New Hampshire primary this past week, and then parts of Nikki Haley's post election speech, along with a few snippets of Trump's post election victory tantrum, it dawned on me that perhaps Nikki is our best bet for unity in America. 

Now, don't get me wrong, I support President Biden. Despite the constant criticisms leveled at him for the last 3+ years, he has done a remarkable job. Remember, when Biden took office in January 2021, about 500,000 people had already died from Covid, with another half a million still to come. Yet starting in the Spring of 2021, millions of doses of vaccines were rolled out and placed in the arms of those willing to join in the fight to combat the virus. 

Whereas Trump did a great job with Operation Warp Speed to get the vaccines developed, he failed to quell the conspiratorial stories about the danger of the vaccines, thereby contributing to a reluctance among his followers to get vaccinated. Strangely, the numbers show that a disproportionate number of those very same people died, as did those living in the red states where governors also ignored the science. 

But Biden didn't differentiate red from blue states; he made sure that all the states had access to the vaccine, and, as time passed, the mortality rate declined. I have no doubt that history will praise Biden and his team for saving tens of thousands of lives by making those vaccines available.

Then, as a result of the pandemic, there were supply chain issues, amplified by the invasion of Ukraine and the boycott of Russian oil in those countries who condemned that behavior (and subsequent, and continued slaughter of the Ukrainian people). Soon, prices began to rise, and inflation plagued both America and much of the globe. In addition, the pandemic monetary assistance for those most vulnerable to the loss of jobs, flowed freely, adding to an artificial ability for everyday people to pay their bills, buy food, maintain their homes. So, while some of Biden's monetary decisions added to the inflationary pressures related to supply chain problems and the rise of fuel, it also saved millions of people from foreclosure, food insecurity, and the choice between medicine and food.

Now, compared to most western countries, inflation in the United States is lower, unemployment is still under 4%, two of the three market indexes are at all time highs, and 401K balances are up. By almost any metric, America is in as strong a position as any country, and Americans, while certainly stressed from the shock of inflation rates not seen since Carter and Reagan, are also starting to gain purchasing power due to increases in wages.

Frankly, if Trump were president today, he would be crowing about how he saved us all, would be bragging about those same facts listed above, and Fox News would be full of positive stories about America's great comeback from Covid, instead of their relentless attacks on Biden. 

So, why title this Nikki Haley for President?  

While it is clear that Trump has a stranglehold on the GOP voter, Nikki's strength in New Hampshire was among first time voters, those  registered as independent, and the few remaining Republicans who believe that Trump's bullying, his constant skirting of the law, his lack of respect for the American electorate, not to mention the felony charges he is facing, make him unfit to lead.

Nikki is certainly going to lose big in her home state of South Carolina, but there are many other states with constituencies similar to New Hampshire. Trump can and will win the GOP nomination, but the demographics of America are more like New Hampshire than Iowa and South Carolina. It is the soccer moms of the suburbs, young voters who are leery of two old men as their choice for the next president, and the over 45% of Republicans who did not vote for Trump in Iowa or New Hampshire, who, may or may not support him in November, but have certainly indicated by their votes that they are OK with moving on from him as well.    

But, and this is a gigantic possibly pie-in-the-sky but, Nikki would need to soften her position on abortion to at least support states being able to decide themselves, but certainly no national ban, would have to emphasize her plans to strengthen the border without pushing to deport the 11 million undocumented people already in America, and, the biggest of all, have Donald Trump withdraw from the nomination and endorse her.

Now, I know what you are thinking, did you recently hit your head Joe? Donald Trump will never abdicate (I use that word purposefully) his eventual nomination. He loves himself far more than his party or his country. He is not a quitter. I am sure there are many other arguments that can be made for him to not withdraw from the race, although the recent one I heard uttered by one of his supporters in New Hampshire, that he was divinely sent to save us, I discount as one which only those fully down the rabbit hole of his cult would posit.

Still, I think only Nikki can unite America at this point. Trump will never be seen as anything more than a dictator wanna be to 52% of the people (perhaps more if he is convicted of any of the felony indictments he is facing, and likely even more when, after losing his ludicrous request for total immunity, he launches into another one of his ALL CAPS tirades about the courts and how they need to be dissolved). Biden had no choice but to call out the MAGA crowd who believe that the 2020 election was stolen, and who are OK with storming the Capitol and killing elected officials to prevent the transfer of power to Biden. 

Nikki, on the other hand, has the ability to walk that fine line between side stepping the truly crazy aspects of the MAGA movement while still talking about making America great again. By adopting and co-opting the beliefs that drive people towards Trump she can seem palatable to them (as compared to Biden) while also appealing to the independents and center left democrats that are unhappy with how inflation has hurt their finances (even though, as I said, it was a global event, and ultimately handled much better in America than most places), and are alarmed about the influx of immigrants, not because they see them as a threat or consider it an invasion, but because our system is not designed to handle such a large influx. In other words, we need to control it better, both for our benefit as Americans, and for those who risk their lives to come here outside the legitimate pathways. 

Clearly, I won't be betting my house, or even next week's garbage, on this scenario to happen. Sadly, I believe that even if convicted, Trump will still be the nominee, which will drive his people to be even more loyal while spurring even more independents to vote for Biden.

In essence, Nikki is the only hope the GOP has of winning back the White House, yet their blind loyalty to and, let's be honest, fear of Trump, is stronger than their desire to win in November, and ultimately, stronger than their desire to address our nation's problems.

In a past post, I asked Donald Trump to resign the presidency rather than allow our country's divisions to multiply. He ignored me at that time. 

But, rather than being deterred, I ask him again. Mr Trump, be the great man who you wish to be. Do what's best for America, as you claim you desire. 

Withdraw from the presidential race, throw your full support behind Nikki Haley, help her win the White House, and then accept her pardon with grace. 

Just think of the legacy that will create! 


Sunday, January 21, 2024

The Big Chiller

Twice in the past month or so, I have stumbled upon the movie "The Big Chill" on TV, last night being the second time. I knew I had commented on this movie once before, so I reread that post before starting this one. Here is a link to that one, from 2010.


It dawned on me as I started this post that I had never researched the reasoning behind the title of this movie. A quick google revealed that the Temptations created a song called The Big Chill Motown Medley which accounted for part of the answer as to its origin.

Additionally, Lawrence Kasdan, one of the co-writers, once referred to a physical chill that would pass through his body when encountering certain people in the film industry, and in life. The way he described it was not complimentary.

As it relates to the movie, however, it seems clear that the first reference, music, applies much more than the second one, although there are a few scenes between the girlfriend, Chloe, (played by Meg Tilly) of the newly deceased friend and one of the long time friends, Michael (Jeff Goldblum), that might remind one of the way certain men may be considered by a woman who recognize the intent of their attention, but is more repelled than attracted.

When I wrote that first reference post in 2010, I mentioned that those I considered my Big Chill friends were not drawn together at a college setting as in the movie. In fact, truth be told, it was at the McDonalds in Horsham, Pa, where we all met and began our friendship. While the movie friends were pursuing an education as part of their rebellious youth, we were making a living to fund our parties. The future for us was that night or the next weekend, or the next rock concert. Living for the moment. 

This is not to say that the characters in the movie didn't enjoy their time in similar pursuits. At one point, Harold (Kevin Kline) remarks something about "how much sex, fun and friendship can one man take", in reference to their time at Ann Arbor.

But there is a number of reference in the movie to idealism and commitment, as if the friends believed in something bigger than their shared good times. The friend (Alex) who has killed himself, the funeral being the reason for their reunion, seems universally considered the smartest of the group, yet apparently, one of the least successful in terms of societal norms. 

In fact, there is a scene in which Meg (Mary Kay Place) is riding in a car with Nick (William Hurt) where she recounts that the last time she spoke to their mutual friend, they argued, Meg telling him that he was wasting his life. Nick's comment, "that is probably why he killed himself", aside, her opinion reflects a theme that runs through the movie concerning lost idealism, and the compromises we make for material comforts.

In another scene, the character Sarah (Glenn Close) worries if their past idealism and beliefs were just "fashion." This is extremely poignant in that Sarah had a brief affair with Alex, yet was married to Harold who is far and away the most successful of the group. Before we get to know Sarah in more depth, there is a scene in which she is crying in the shower the night after the funeral. Is it just Alex she is crying for, or also the loss of her true soul mate? A man she did not marry, in favor of one who was able to provide her with children and the ideal comforts of the American dream.

There is also the words of Harold at the funeral. Just before he breaks down and is led away by the minister, he alludes to the belief that Alex was too good for the world. That, in combination with a news clip the friends find in Alex's possessions which recounts how he turned down a prestigious opportunity as a promising physicist, again leads us to think that Alex was not able to remove his ideals from the direction of his life.

And then there is the scene in the kitchen with Nick, Sam (Tom Berenger) and the husband of Karen (JoBeth Williams). It is clear that Karen and her husband are not exactly passionate lovers at this point in their marriage. We find out during the movie that Karen openly admits she was drawn to her husband as a reaction to what she alludes to as a difficult childhood, ostensibly due to her father's infidelity. Her husband is solid, loyal, provides a good life for her and her children. 

When he comments to Nick and Sam that perhaps the problem with Alex, the reason he decided to take his life, is because he was unable to make all the compromises to "set his priorities straight." And, lastly, that "no one ever said it would be fun, at least, no one ever said it to me." 

As a side note, I had a serious crush on JoBeth in my youth. Seeing her in this movie reminded me of that, and helped counter the idea that in the movie, The Big Year, she plays a grandmother. Yikes!

In some ways, the Big Chill fascinates me in that most of the friends, baby boomers who "experienced" the social upheavals of the 1960's, whose generation promised to change the world, are financially secure, have well respected careers. Meg is a lawyer, Harold a businessman, Sarah a doctor, Michael a writer, Sam a famous actor. 

Whether their ideals were fashion or not, almost all of them made choices that allowed them to live comfortably. While I can't go so far to say that my Big Chill friends and myself were far less successful, most of us are living comfortably, we are far less accomplished as the characters in the movie. Was that done purposefully, to present in stark contrast what Alex could have done if he "set his priorities straight" or stopped "wasting his life?"

While there was not a suicide in my group, there was a friend who lost himself at some point. His death created our group's Big Chill moment which I discuss in a post from September 2022.


Idealism. 

It certainly seems true that we jettison the ideals of our youth as the realities of life swarm upon us. We can't just quit a job that doesn't challenge or fulfill us, if we have a mortgage or a family. Must sometimes hold our tongue in the face of unfairness when it occurs at work. Worry less about a company's ethics or practices and more about their dividends. Identify with a politician who tells us who to blame rather than challenging us to make the world better for everyone, not just those who resemble us in their beliefs.

Perhaps no other generation faced such difficult decisions, in terms of maintaining one's ideals, than the boomers. Frankly, as I have said before, I don't feel we did such a good job. 

At the end of The Big Chill, the friends promise to stay in touch more regularly than they had in the recent past. Nick decides to live nearby Sarah and Harold, with Chloe, in the house that she and Alex were working on. One might say that they realized who their real friends were, who was the most important people of their lives, even if they never fully resolve their doubt as to whether they abandoned their ideals. 

For us in the real world, continuing to turn our back on the ideals related to promoting the building of character over portfolio, and to gauging ourselves and our society with a yardstick that is less material and more spiritual, is far more important than celluloid friends who lament, for a weekend, that they may have compromised those ideals. 

But at least films like The Big Chill presents us with a chance to look at ourselves in the mirror while reminding us of the times of our youth when it was all in front of us.
 





Tuesday, January 9, 2024

The Weaker Sex

In my last post, I lamented at its end that I have crossed the line into believing that we have lost our democracy in America. (See link below)



In this post, I will backtrack ever so slightly from that opinion, but only slightly in that I will offer a reason why we may yet extend the life of our democracy, although extend is not necessarily the same as saving our democracy.

First though, I did some research concerning the topic of the decline of masculinity by entering the google search "decline of masculinity". The range of opinions defining and offering solutions to this problem was astounding. As was the fact that lamenting about the loss of masculinity, or should I say the battle of defining male masculinity, has been with us since the birth of our country. 

While I hesitate to assert that any of the articles I perused struck me as the most enlightening, or the most accurate, I did enjoy the one I read in Politico. Here is a link to that article from July, 2023.


If we assume then, that the crisis of male masculinity has been ongoing for as long as America has existed, and perhaps as long as men and women have existed, is there anything special about the current anxiety concerning the loss of masculinity? Or put another way, what factors that exist today are different from those that were cited by those mourning the decline of the male gender in the past?

The one that jumped out at me was education, and the effect that education has on a person's ability to alter his/her life. Obviously, at the start of our nation, education was almost exclusively for white, males, specifically, white males of certain households. While a very few women from families of means were "allowed" to be educated, everyday men and women were rarely represented in institutions of higher learning, and certainly not people of color. 

As education became more universal, women, sons and daughters of the working class, immigrants, and minorities were now exposed to advanced learning, which in turn, allowed them to pursue occupations that provided higher incomes, and access to business and government jobs that altered the demographics of who was making the rules, and consequently, who was benefiting from those rules. 

If one were to assume that being the breadwinner for a family was one of the definitions of what it meant to be a man, it is clear that as the percentage of women attaining 4 year and graduate degrees increases, then the percentage of families with the male as sole or primary breadwinner will decline. Today, while the male is still the sole breadwinner for a family a little over half of the time, almost 30% of households feature an equal income level between the man and woman, while 15% of the time, the women makes more money. 

And, since the percentage of women enrolled in higher education is well past the 50% mark and pushing 60%, it is certainly not inconceivable that 50% of or more of women may earn as much money as their husband sometime in the near future, which will put quite a dent in the concept of masculinity being tied to supporting one's family through a higher outside income.

Assuming that construct is less than satisfying in the chase for a definition of masculinity, and since there are female executives at the highest levels of the business world, and a host of women presidents and political leaders in the world, what does that leave for men to claim as their own domain?

It has only been about 30 years since the term "man cave" was coined. Ah, the man cave. Often the basement or the garage, but generally the least hospitable place of the home which men were allowed to decorate as desired, get as big a TV as would fit, and hang out with their buddies watching sports and drinking beer. 

Not necessarily a horrible existence, and certainly a great place to yell at poor sporting performances by the home team's group of men, and the referees who are supposed to render fair judgments, but a far cry from dominating the halls of business and government.

If I were prone to a particular kind of conspiracy theory, I might conclude that the man cave was a clever way for women to throw their husbands a bone.

But I digress.

One area where men still statistically dominate women is suicide rate. Men kill themselves at almost 4 times the rate of women. Drug use is also higher among men than women, and, since there is some evidence that women seek treatment at a higher rate than men, the actual difference may be higher than is documented. 

And of course, men die by violence, especially gun violence, at a much higher rate than women, but even worse, men are responsible for an overwhelming percentage of violent deaths, both against other men, and women as well.

Now, aggression in men has long been assumed to be genetic, part of our heritage as the physically larger gender, and entwined with our hunter gatherer past. 

If dominance in business and government, and at home in terms of income, are less a part of the definition of masculinity, does that leave only the physical manifestations of a gender with higher testosterone levels?

Clearly, as has happened multiple times since America was founded, and in fact throughout history, the definition of masculinity is changing, has changed. 

But be clear, so has the definition of femininity! Is it any less challenging to be a women in today's society than a man? And, is the focus on masculinity just another manifestation of the patriarchal nature of our society? 

Frankly, I can't imagine that the role and definition of what it means to be a woman, hasn't changed at least as much, if not more so, than what it means to be a man. 

The Weaker Sex. What is my point?

Currently, we have a presidential candidate who has smashed through all the norms of our political discourse. Someone who refused to graciously congratulate the winner of a presidential election that he lost. Someone who ignored his constitutional duties to provide a peaceful transition of power to the next administration. Someone who suggested that if his vice president, a man who steadfastly defended him throughout his four year term, did not do the "right" thing by illegally ignoring the state electors chosen by the American people he would be disappointed, and then tacitly agreed with the rioters on January 6th who chanted Hang Mike Pence. Someone who joked about being a dictator for only one day.

What is amazing to me is that the republicans who are standing up to him are almost exclusively women, not withstanding Adam Kinzinger. It was Cassidy Hutchinson who was the star witness of the January 6th committee hearings, not Mark Meadows who was by Trump's side far more often than Hutchinson. 

It was Liz Cheney who sacrificed her political career to serve on the January 6th committee and objectively evaluate the evidence uncovered while a host of her mostly male GOP counterparts first condemned the actions of the mob on January 6th, then kissed the ring of the Mar a Lago resident, and began a process of rewriting history to pretend that Trump didn't ignite the mob with his words then watch gleefully on TV when they ransacked the Capitol.

It appears, at least in this one topic, that it is men who are the weaker sex, as they allow their desire for power and influence to overcome their duty to their country and fellow citizens. 

Perhaps then, a new definition of masculinity should include a resistance to the absolute powers of a dictator, and an understanding that their position as the only educated gender, the only leaders in business and government has passed. But that doesn't mean they are less important. 

On the contrary.

Acknowledging that power and influence and rule making and following the rules makes everyone stronger when it is shared might be a good start to redefining masculinity. That America is greater because of the diversity of its leaders, economic and political, and that the household is greater when everyone under the roof has equal opportunity, might be a good trait of that definition.

The realization that it is not a zero sum game where sharing in the benefits of our society means men get less if women get more, or when white men lose influence because women and minorities now have a say in the direction and future of our country might be a far better standard to gauge a man's masculinity.

Which brings me back to my claim that there still may be a way to temporarily extend our democracy. Our only hope is that women, who make up about 52% of the electorate, will continue to be the stronger sex and vote for candidates who accept the results of elections, and who believe that women should be treated as first class citizens, and not merely baby factories subject to (usually) male generated restrictions concerning their bodies and their health care.

Anything short of a resounding victory in November for these principles will not bode well for America.