SCOTUS decision on Trump Immunity

Despite Donald Trump's constant claims that Jack Smith is deranged, it is clear the Smith outmaneuvered Trump and his legal team again, this time by requesting that the Supreme Court rule if a president is immune from criminal prosecution from acts committed while he/she is in office.

I say outmaneuvered because anyone following any of the four criminal cases that are ongoing against Trump know that his main focus is to delay as much as possible until after the November 2024 election. What is curious about this tactic is that it assumes that should Trump win the next presidential election, he will be able to either pardon himself should he is convicted of anything, or squelch any ongoing federal investigation by commanding his attorney general to do so. 

In other words, he will pervert our judicial and executive branches because, well, because that is what a king or dictator or whatever word he would prefer to use, does.

Whether the Supreme Court might stand against him will become apparent in the next few weeks once they decide on this immunity case.

I recently expressed my opinion on Trump's First Amendment defense. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/08/trump-and-first-amendment.html

To return to my initial assertion about Jack Smith, he knew that should the Court of Appeals rule against Trump, he would immediately file an appeal to the Supreme Court, so jumping right to that august body was extremely clever. While it remains to be seen if the March 4th trial date is viable, at least this temporary pause to allow SCOTUS to weigh in, should enable the trial to take place sometime close to March 4th, as this should be the last vestige of hope for anymore delays.

As for what the nine members of the Supreme Court will decide, I truly believe that they will act as a strong guardrail for democracy, and reject the notion that a president is immune from criminal prosecution for acts committed while serving the people.

I use the phrase "serving the people" because this is the concept that eludes Trump. A president is our most important public servant. His duty above all, is to uphold the constitution. More than anyone we elect, his actions should be for the good of the country, never for himself. It is a concept that Trump has flouted over and over again, both before, during and after his term as president. He is as completely self centered as anyone you will meet, which is blatantly obvious in as simple a thing as his propensity to take credit for anything good, and deflect blame for anything that doesn't work out.

However, that reasoning is not based on the law. If it were as obvious to the millions of Americas who continue to support Trump as it is to me, this post would not be required, as Trump would have already slithered off to some balmy tropical island somewhere to live out his life in disgrace. Sadly, that is not the case.

So legally, how will SCOTUS adjudicate this situation. 

If precedent is any indicator, the SCOTUS decision during the Nixon presidency which forced then president Nixon to release the tapes that provided proof of his complicity in the Watergate scandal, provides some insight. Of course, this current iteration of SCOTUS has already shown some inclination to reject precedent (see Dobbs decsion). 

Still, I find it almost unfathomable to believe that the nine most important judges of the United States of America, will rule that a president can break any law he/she wants and be immune from prosecution. And I especially believe that these particular nine judges, a number of whom claim to be constitutional originalists, will decide that the founding fathers thought that an American President should not, cannot, be granted the powers of a king, immune from the ramifications of any criminal activity. Those signers of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights didn't think King George should be granted such power, so certainly didn't think any future president of America would be empowered in such a way either.

Remember, the Supreme Court justices are not deciding guilt or innocence of the charges, just that it is constitutional to bring those charges because a sitting president can not do anything they like, such as being free to "shoot someone on Fifth Avenue " without ramifications. 

Frankly, I believe that SCOTUS should rule 9-0 in this instance, and allow the judicial process to play out. Perhaps it is enough that Trump thought he was acting as president to actively plot to subvert the peaceful transition of power because he truly thought the election had been stolen, an assertion that I discuss in the already alluded to post above, but that is the reason for a trial. To lay out the facts of his guilt and to allow a defense of why he is not guilty. Short circuiting this process by ruling that Trump shouldn't even be put on trial, denies the foundations of our twin tenets, that no one is above the law, and that American democracy is our country's most important trait.

That being said, I have no doubt that justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson will vote to allow the trial. I also believe that the three justices that Trump appointed, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will not bend the knee, as Trump believes they should, and will also vote to allow the process to play out. And, I firmly believe that Chief Justice Roberts will also side with the idea that no man is above the law. 

As for Justice Thomas, I would prefer that he not recuse himself as many Democrats have requested. I would like him to prove to the American people that he is able to make a legal decision based on the oath he took to uphold the constitution, and not kowtow to the whims of his wife, or the influence of the billionaires who have illegally lined his pockets with gifts and privileges. Of course, there is a chance he will agree but file a side opinion that softens his vote, or even that he will file a dissenting opinion and vote to allow Trump to act above the law in the past (and then, most certainly in the future), but it is a chance I am willing to take.

As for Justice Alito, I have no real positive belief that he will vote with his colleagues to call the bluff of someone trying to be the first American dictator, but again, prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt that he values our democracy. More importantly, I have to think that he might value his legacy as a respected jurist, more so than his recent tendency to jettison any interpretation of our founding documents that is not rooted in white male dominance and superiority.

Should however, my opinion be proven wrong, and the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, rule that Donald Trump, as president, is immune to criminal prosecution for anything he did while president, then we may be lost. 

I already know that Trump will claim victory next November regardless of how the electorate votes, and that Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House will do everything in his power to subvert the counting of the electors per Trump's bidding, but should SCOTUS rule that Trump, as president, is king, then any future challenge to the next attempt to steal the presidential election will be mute.

Let's hope that respect for the law, respect for our democracy, and respect for the founders and the documents they created, win the day, at least for now.

Abortion disgrace in Texas

So, for all those Independent voters and perhaps center left Democrats and center right Republicans who thought that sending abortion back to the states was a reasonable compromise, and that those (generally GOP controlled states) would fashion abortion guidelines that allowed for women to access this medical care when their doctors' thought it medically necessary, the truth has now been revealed in stark reality. At least in Texas, legislators and one odious Attorney General, it is crystal clear that they are not interested in women's health or even the well being of a fetus.

It is all about controlling women and treating them as second class citizens, good only for their capacity to make babies. Period.

For those of you who have not followed the case of Kate Cox, she is a married woman, mother of two children who went to court to seek approval for an abortion, as her pregnancy had passed the six week restriction that is current Texas law.   

You see, Texas legislators had demonstrated their lack of knowledge about a woman's reproductive system (many women don't know they are pregnant within six weeks), or the modern state of maternal medicine which is able to identify fetal anomalies (but which can not be done until 14 to 18 weeks into the pregnancy), when they passed their draconian six week ban. 

In Kate's case, fetal testing had determined that her baby has a fatal condition that would result in death either during the pregnancy, or very soon after birth. There was no scenario in which the child would live. In addition, the pregnancy was negatively effecting her health causing her to be admitted to a hospital emergency room multiple times. 

As a result, her doctors recommended an abortion. Unfortunately, there was some trepidation on the doctor's part as the medical necessity to save the life of the mother exception written into the Texas abortion ban, did not clarify this point. Kate's doctors knew that her life was not necessarily at immediate risk, and, since the Texas abortion ban included severe penalties against any hospital or doctor who participated in an abortion, they were hesitant to authorize one, instead recommending that she go out of state for her medical care. 

Think about that for a second. Doctors who knew the risk of Kate's continuing pregnancy for her life and future ability to have a child (her past birth experiences were by cesarean section), advised her to leave her home state to get the medically necessary care she required out of fear that if they provided such care, their personal lives could be subject to harm via loss of license, loss of hospital affiliation and significant fines. 

But Kate wanted her care to occur in her home town where she could have the support network of her family as well as the familiarity of the doctors with whom she has been associated during her child bearing years, so she went to court to ask for approval for the abortion.

The presiding judge, upon hearing of the details of Kate's situation, granted the request, even though the state's lawyers fought against granting the exception.

(As a side note, there is already a case in Texas court where a number of women are suing the state to revise the abortion ban to detail when the exception clause can be exercised. The Texas state defense in that case is centered on those women not having "standing", which means they are not currently pregnant so shouldn't have the right to sue.)

In other words, Kate seemed to be the perfect candidate to challenge the law since she is pregnant. Or was pregnant.

Unfortunately, as soon as the judge granted the exception, that aforementioned attorney general, appealed the decision to the Texas Supreme Court, as well as issuing threatening letters to Kate's doctors and the hospitals where they practiced. 

As a result, Kate went out of state for her medical care which was fortunate as the Texas Supreme Court, after waiting almost 3 days, summarily ruled in favor of the state and disallowed the exception as granted by the lower court. The court ruled that the fetal anomaly did not qualify for an abortion as specified in the law as Kate's condition was not immediately life threatening.

In essence, a woman in Texas, and a number of other states, needs to be inches from death until an abortion can be granted, and even then, if an Attorney General disagrees with the "immediate possibility of death" diagnosis, or can find one doctor to contest that diagnosis, the women, her doctor and the hospital where the abortion is performed, may still be held criminally liable for murder. In America!

What is truly sad is that as we speak, women are dying in America from childbirth. We are dead last in maternal death rates when compared to the other "modern" countries. In fact, the United States maternal death rate is four times or more higher than such a long list of countries, it would make you vomit, if you were actually pro-life. Here is one such source for this info.  

https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/field/maternal-mortality-ratio/country-comparison/

Unfortunately, it will now get worse as doctors will be forced to wait until the very least moment to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother in a number of states due to their misogynist abortion bans.

I have used the label Abortion on four posts since the Dobbs decision was rendered. Links are below if interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/abortion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/more-on-abortion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/05/one-last-thought-for-now-on-abortion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/09/pro-fetus.html

In one of them, I suggested that we need to voice our demand for the return of the right to an abortion at the ballot box, and since then, every single referendum which sought to create a state constitutional right to an abortion has overwhelmingly been approved by the voters, even in red states like Ohio and Kansas.  

Bur we can't stop there. I am generally not a fan of the one issue voter. I believe that it is virtually impossible to agree with any candidate on every issue (if you do you are either a sycophant or just uninformed), but rather you must prioritize the issues in terms of importance to you, as well as look at the overall record of opinions by any candidate to determine percentage of common perspective.

However, I am waving this requirement as of now. Please, regardless of viewpoints on the other critical issues of the day, I implore all voters, especially women, and men with daughters, nieces, grand daughters or female cousins, to gauge your voting choice on whether a candidate supports a woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions, in consultation with her family and doctors, without government interference.

Until we elect public servants who legislate in this manner, we will continue to hear stories like Kate's, and worse, stories concerning women who lack the means to go out of state for their health care, but instead die in emergency rooms from complications that could have been prevented, and stories about babies born with fetal anomalies that result in their painful deaths soon after birth.

Pro-life my ass!

 

The Ahistorical Bunch

A few days ago, I heard a commentator on a TV opinion show use the word ahistorical. She was referring to a specific group of Americans but also was in reference to others throughout the globe. The topic was a discussion about a recent statement by one of the presidential candidates who said that he would only be a dictator on day one to accomplish two specific goals, and then would stop. She thought the fact that he was cheered lustily by the in-person event attendees demonstrated people who were demonstrating their ahistorical perspective.

I have labelled three other post under the heading Perspective in the past, and thought it might be interesting to read them again. If you believe that as well, here are links to those posts. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-night-sky.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/08/luck-and-perspective.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/06/widening-perspective.html

There have been all kinds of warnings from various thinkers and social commentators on the dangers of not studying or attempting to understand history, the most well known, something to the effect that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

When we heard that women's sad reference to what she perceived as people who were ignoring the danger of a dictator ruling our country, my wife and I almost simultaneously turned to each other in understanding of this commentator's lament, but also both blamed our education system for not instilling an interest in history.

Is it too late to alter the way history is taught from the boring memorization of people and dates in time about events that seem so long ago, to a deeper understanding of why those people and events were important, and how those people and events have influenced us today? 

Certainly, there is an ability question to address. Advanced concepts can not be taught to children that have not developed the ability to think critically and understand complex concepts. Still, so many children have already been turned off by history once they have that ability, that they only take a history course because it is mandatory, and value passing the class only so far as that it checks off a box that moves them closer to their degree. 

Does this mean that everyone should be a historian? Obviously not, but perhaps as is true with many people who spend their lives studying one particular subject, we should at least respect their opinion when they offer it. 

That is one of the biggest problems that I see in America today, the point of this post. There is a growing segment of people who have been told to distrust a variety of people who have spent their lives researching certain topics, especially in the sciences.

And, what is truly scary, is that much of that mistrust is being sewn by educated people who have realized that the average person doesn't always know where to turn for their information, or even what information they should seek. 

Manipulators, con men, political aspirants, and just plain power hungry individuals seem to have gained the upper hand in their ability to mislead and misinform. Worse, as I am fond of saying, they start with a kernel of truth so as to fool those without the time or ability to pursue its validity, and take it to a place that is beyond true.

I recently saw an article about some GOP party members who are upset about RNC Chairman Ronna McDaniel, and her inability to get out the vote for GOP candidates, citing their losses in 2018, 2020, 2022 (a much less red wave than expected) and even this past November in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the abortion question in Ohio. 

Well, when the leader of the party has spent the last 7 years telling voters that voting by mail is fraudulent and voting by machine is rigged, then how exactly is McDaniel supposed to encourage voting? Is there some fraud within our elections? Of course, voters are people, and people sometimes cheat. But is it rampant? No. Were there hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes cast in 2020? No. Yet a certain losing candidate has taken a kernel of truth, there is some fraud in our election system, and convinced millions of Americans that our elections are rigged!

Casting doubt on our institutions, our elections, our justice system, the FBI, our scientists and other experts in their fields, is exactly how a dictator erodes confidence in the foundations of a country. Once no one can be trusted to fix our problems, the dictator has an open door to absolute power. 

Of course being ahistorical precludes understanding this playbook, but be assured, the tyrant knows it, front cover to back cover.

  

Countering Rising CO2 levels

Great article in the November edition of National Geographic concerning the new technologies being developed to counter the rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

What I especially enjoyed about the article is that it explained the issues concerning both the problem itself, and the attempts to counter it, in words that were easily understood, despite the complexity of the overall problem. 

Most people understand the overreaching situation, that since the breakthroughs of the industrial revolution that enabled incredible advances in energy extraction, transportation and distribution, improvements that powered an amazing array of enhancements to the lives of all people, there has also been a substantial increase in CO2 levels in our atmosphere. In other words, the very thing that has been a major factor in drivng the breakthroughs of our modern times, has also created a scenario that is producing as much or more negative consequences as those positive ones to date.

There are two general approaches to addressing the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, slowing the accumulation, and removing what has already been added. Remember, data suggests that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been at or below 280 parts per million for thousands of years, but since the mid 19th century has risen to 450 parts per million, an increase of more than 50 percent. As this number has risen, the added carbon traps more and more heat, resulting in an increase in the temperature of the Earth.

I won't go into all the negative ramifications of rising temperatures. Suffice it to say that there is overwhelming evidence that this problem needs to be addressed, and that the issue is, if not completely man-made, being exacerbated by human activity.

But, humans are nothing if not adaptable, and there is no reason to believe that the same intelligence and innovation that was at play to create the advancements of the industrial revolution cannot be applied to reversing the process.

Of course, reducing our carbon emissions is first level. As greener sources of energy have become more cost effective and efficient, we have made major inroads into producing energy without fossil fuels. Unfortunately, our global energy requirements continue to spiral upwards, offsetting much of the gain we are making in generating green energy. 

That fact is why carbon capture and carbon removal advocates have become more vocal. Perhaps a few decades ago we could have focused more aggressively on reducing emissions while investing in greener technologies, but now we need to address the issue from both ends.

Carbon capture refers to processes that capture the carbon dioxide being emitted at the point of its creation in the industrial process, whereas carbon removal focuses on taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Regardless of which technology being described in the article, and there are many companies, and a number of nations that have made great strides in these areas, there is a range of approaches that promise low to high potential at low to high expense. Of course, all new technologies are expensive at first, see computers and smart phones, but like all burgeoning industries, carbon removal requires huge investments, private and public, now, in hopes that as the cost reduces, more money will flow, more advances will be made, and so on. As more than one entrepreneur who was quoted in the article stated, it is the classic chicken and egg conundrum, in that you need lots of money at the precise time when return is at its lowest.

After reading the article, I am very encouraged that, not only does the technology already exist, but the passion and intelligence of those seeking solutions will produce even better answers. 

But, with most of our shared problems, I worry that we don't have the will to do so. From an underlining distrust in science that certain forces selfishly choose to embolden, to the profit motive of the fossil fuel industry that has prevented the cost of climate change to be applied to those creating the problem, to our public servants who either choose to ignore the science or prefer to accept donations from those responsible for the ongoing calamity, thereby eschewing their responsibility to enact laws to protect their constituents, I see more obstacles to turning the tide towards reducing carbon in our atmosphere than aids.

Let's hope I am wrong, and the scientists and business people who were detailed in the article win the day for all of us.      

Rosalynn and Jimmy

It was with great sadness that I received the news that Rosalynn Carter died last week. While never achieving the popularity of Jackie or Michelle, Rosalynn was as avid an advocate for the everyday American citizen as any first lady, especially in the area of access to mental health support. And, of course, along with her husband, she helped create and run the Carter Foundation, as well as working with and expanding the reach of Habitat for Humanity.

Her life story, and Jimmy's as well, demonstrates that success does not preclude service, for both of them placed service above grasping for money or power or influence. Their lives and example are in stark contrast to those we see splayed out on the internet, on Tic Toc, on X, on virtually every media outlet where clicks and hits are far more important that improving the lives of others.

I have written twice in the past about former president Jimmy Carter, but never mentioned Rosalynn in those posts. (See links below).

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

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

Why? Certainly not because Jimmy didn't say over and over again how Rosalynn and her were a team, and that she was an equal partner in all he did. More likely because she stayed in the background, sacrificing any personal acclaim, knowing that Jimmy's success were hers as well. And, of course, like most men, we rarely acknowledge the contributions a wife makes for a successful man. 

Since February when it was announced that Jimmy went into hospice, I thought it gratifying that he was still alive. Once or twice, I even thought it odd that he was still with us, as my own experience with people entering hospice resulted in those loved ones passing fairly quickly. Now, with the passing of his dear wife Rosalynn, I understand why he did not leave us right away. He didn't want her to be alone. 

While Jimmy certainly didn't want to experience life without his beloved wife, he knew it would be harder for her, especially in light of the dementia diagnosis that was just made public. He sacrificed his own upcoming loneliness to spare her from even a second of time without him by her side.

Sacrifice.

It is not a very popular word these days. Not a concept that is taught all that much, nor displayed by our leaders, whether they be political, social or economical. Ask what you can do for your country seems to have been replaced by ask what is in it for me. With the passing of people like Rosalynn Carter, and, with his life partner gone, soon to be Jimmy Carter, our world will have two less examples of what it means to be an elected official, and what it means to be a Christian. 

Sadly, their lives, while they will be remembered, and even praised in the weeks following their passing, will also be forgotten far too soon, and emulated far too in frequently.

They say that talk is cheap, and perhaps so too are the words that have preceded. I am far from selfless, far from having lived my life in the service of others. One might even say that it is worse to know better but not do better, than not to know better at all, and so do worse. 

If, on Judgement Day, there is a simple tally displayed, random acts of kindness on one side of the ledger, acts of cruelty or simple neglect on the other, I have no doubt that Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter's tally will be very one sided, and that they will be welcomed with open arms.

I am less sure about myself, although I have been holding more doors open for those behind me, reaching for groceries for people who find them just out of reach, waving other drivers to go first at intersections with 4-way stop signs, and other such small acts of kindness. 

I know those ticks on the positive side of my ledger are small, but small ticks on the positive are better than no ticks at all. And, like all muscles, as we execute even the smallest of helpful acts, as we work our sacrifice muscle more and more, and as it grows stronger and more confident, bigger and bolder acts of kindness will result, and our ledgers will begin to tilt even more to the plus.

Just imagine how much more peace, how much less suffering there would be if we all began to work on our own ledgers, if we all looked to Rosalynn and Jimmy for how act human, and humane.

 

Elections 2023

In case you missed it, there were elections in America earlier this week. I say in case you missed it, because voter turnout was light. Most races produced turnout in the 30-40% range, which is the percentage of registered voters who voted, not the percentage of the voting age population (VAP). The percentage of VAP is usually 10-15% higher. In other words, a 30-40% turnout is another 4-6% lower when one considers the actual number of people who could vote.

I had an interesting conversation with one such person, someone who does not vote, does not even pay attention to elections, or so he claimed. I suppressed my desire to berate him for his nonchalant attitude, instead describing to him my interpretation of the shenanigans that were involved in the lead up to Tuesday's Ohio vote to enshrine reproductive rights in that state's constitution. 

This was all news to him, so I tried to impartially convey how there had been a vote during the summer for Ohioans to change the rules for amending the constitution from 50% plus 1, to a 60% level. Now, it was common knowledge that the hope of those sponsoring this change was that by raising the threshhold, it would effect the ultimate vote on abortion that was scheduled a few months later, since they figured that while pro-choice voters would be able to achieve the 50% plus 1 level, they might not make 60%.

Fortunately, enough voters saw through this trick, and voted down the measure to increase the percentage needed to pass a constitutional amendment. As a result, the amendment to guarantee reproductive rights for women in Ohio passed, 56.3% to 43.7%. One its face, the vote was fairly definitive, yet indicates just how insidious was the summer vote to raise the level to 60%. Had that vote gone the other way, reproductive rights would not be the law despite the majority of voters preferring it. Can you say tyranny of the minority?

But I digress.

Today, leaving the grocery store, I saw a headline on the front page of one the newspapers displayed at the exit, asking the question, what is the next move for the GOP on abortion.

Isn't it obvious?

The party needs to abandon its unpopular attempts to ban abortion. Regardless of how it is phrased, telling women, who make up a bit over 50% of the electorate, that they must cede control of their bodies to the state, will never be a winning strategy, not to mention going against the GOP long held beliefs of less government intervention in citizens lives. 

Interestingly, the second issue on the Ohio ballot was to legalize recreational marijuana for those over 21. That passed 56.8% to 43.2%. It too would not have passed had the summer vote to raise the threshold not been rejected. And, again, reflects the GOP contradiction about government involvement in our lives. 

(In case you haven't noticed, the GOP ONLY cares about getting government out of our lives when it has to do with guns and money.)

Other proofs that abortion restrictions are a losing platform for the GOP, occurred in the Kentucky governor race, and the judicial races in my home state of Pennsylvania.

In Kentucky, Andy Beshear, the Democrat incumbent governor, won reelection, partly due to his differentiation of his approach to abortion compared to that of his rival who advocated for a 6 week ban. Add to his win, in a very red state, with the Ohio abortion vote, also a very red state, plus the rejection of abortion restrictions in previous state wide elections in Kansas and Montana, and the trend is clear.

And not just for referendums. In Pennsylvania, every state judicial race on the ballot was won by a Democrat, most who referenced the possibility that a judge from the GOP would rule against reproductive freedom, especially the race for PA's vacant Supreme Court position where the majority was in the balance.

I have categorized this post under the heading Religion and Government, as I firmly believe that these attempts to restrict freedom is the result of a certain brand of religious people who prefer a theocracy to a democracy. Who advocate for their religious beliefs to be the law of the land. Who gain power by dehumanizing certain groups of Americans, then couch their prejudice in righteous words and cherry picked phrases from out of date religious tomes.

You also see this in action with the recent anti-trans legislation that is flourishing in certain areas of our country, along with the push to ban books by Nazi-like groups such as Moms for Liberty. 

Fortunately, at least in this past week's election, the voters are seeing through these attempts to deny freedom, and have booted out those who fooled them with their fake support of parents' rights and protecting children. When one parent has the power to decide who is safe at school, and which books all children can read, it reflects a desire for power and control. And who to ostracize from society.

Towards that end, I was happy to see the candidates endorsed by Moms for Liberty lose in my current school district, and the one from which we moved a few years ago which my children attended. Fortunately, the aphorism, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, did not hold for those who voted in those school districts. Now, all the parents and children in those two school districts will have school district leaders who believe in advocating for all parents and students, not just those who agree with their far-right agenda.

Original Sin

Something I read in "The Dawn of Everything" book I mentioned in a previous post, reminded me that a few times in my writing past I had a tickle of an idea concerning original sin. I say tickling, because I can recall thinking about it, perhaps while driving, or in the shower, but hadn't pursued composing a post about it. 

But, as I said, something about reading a perspective of history that attempts to explode all the interpretations that have been so thoroughly interwoven within our shared beliefs about humanity, has prodded me to embark on this post.

If you google "original sin", you will see many variations of the same theme. 

Webster defines it by referring to it from a Christian perspective:

The meaning of original sin is the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human being as a result of Adam's fall.

This is basically what I was taught in the 8 years I spent in Catholic elementary school. Of course, there is the part about how Eve ate from the apple first after being tempted by Satan, then tempted Adam to do the same. I always considered that the ultimate blame-someone-else excuse for poor behavior, but, over time, have associated that part of the story with the misogyny that is embedded in Catholic teachings.

But I digress.

Researching the concept of original sin, is not an easy, or straightforward endeavor. Some assign its creation to St. Augustine of Hippo, who was born about 350 years after Christ, after Augustine's conversion to Christianity. Some disagree with the idea that original sin is solely associated with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but just reflects man's tendency to do wrong. Others reject the concept of original sin, preferring to acknowledge that we are born imperfect, with a tendency to sin, but that we did not inherit the sin committed by Adam.

Then of course, there are other non-Christian religions that do not believe in the concept at all.

It is hard for me to imagine not having learned and been indoctrinated by the belief that man is sinful, and so needs saving from his indiscretions, and that Jesus was born to die for our sins so we can have the chance to live in heaven with God. The whole idea is almost like breathing itself, it is so much a part of what I was taught. 

I recently had a conversation with a work colleague who was adamant in her belief that she was saved due to her belief in the redemption of Christ. She was openly aghast at my having turned away from the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. She quoted the bible as proof that her beliefs were right, which, of course, didn't prove anything to me since she was also convinced by her faith that none of the other great spiritually advanced beings from history provided that door to heaven that she believed was hers through the sacrifice of Jesus.  

Of course, I respect her beliefs, am glad that she believes she is saved. I mentioned the short group of essays that I combined in An Atheist for Christ, but she just made a face and didn't really want to pursue that topic. Here is a link to the post containing information about that effort if you are interested.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/02/an-atheist-for-christ.html 

After thinking about Augustine, and original sin, I wonder if perhaps, Augustine felt that he needed to create a narrative whereby people would be compelled to believe in the words and actions of Jesus of Nazareth. Perhaps he thought that just teaching that we should emulate Christ might not sway people to be kind to others, but by tying Christ's sacrifice to the concept that humanity needs a way to earn eternal life due to our fall from grace, our original sin, Augustine felt more secure that Christ's teachings would be followed. 

Maybe Augustine was just being realistic, or perhaps honest in his evaluation that men needed the stick as much as the carrot. He may have concluded, perhaps rightly so, that without the threat of eternal damnation, humanity wouldn't be motivated enough just to follow the lessons from the Sermon on the Mount. So he linked Christ's death on the cross to our imperfect nature, thereby giving us all the chance to spend eternity with God. It's a nice, tight circle. Man is born pure, becomes stained, God sends his son to provide redemption, man is "saved". And all we have to do is have faith in the story.

But what if we sever that link by eliminating the need for redemption? Does that change the need for us to listen to those who are more spiritually advanced? Does that change the importance of the message of Jesus, to love one another? Can someone live their life following the lessons of Christ, without believing he was the Son of God?  Again, that is the thinking behind my compilation An Atheist for Christ.

If we assume that literally millions, if not billions of people have been born, are alive, will be born sometime in the future, and have never, or will never be instructed about the life of Christ, yet will have been, or will be taught lessons very similar to those taught by Christ, are we to also assume that those who spend their lives in words and actions that resemble Christ's, while never having recognized that He died for their sins, will be denied entrance to heaven? 

Or perhaps it is all relative, those who live spiritual lives will go wherever it is they believe reflects the reward they have earned, whether it is heaven, nirvana, or just a place with a warm bed, an interesting book, and a nice soft light to read by.

I have always struggled with the possessive nature of organized religions, the belief that their dogma and structure is the one and only way to a return to God's grace. It seems steeped in arrogance. As if the Creator would spend eternity thinking about creation, providing us with an incredibly diverse range of plants and animals, enabling us to think and feel and imagine, and then would tie it all together with a restriction that there is only one way to feel Her presence. 

And then there is the phrase religious war, as ridiculous a concept ever created, yet the driving force behind so much pain, suffering, and death in our history, not the least of which is the ongoing violence between Israel and Hamas.

It all sounds like control, not love. Original sin, the need for salvation, the quest for the one true path. Control, not by the Creator, but by men over other men. After all, what stronger foundation for controlling the thoughts and actions of humanity is there than to link it to a divine origin?

If, at the end of the day, the only reason for one's compassion towards others, or the only justification for following a specific ideology, is to avoid eternal damnation, perhaps the true intent is being missed. Perhaps the message of all the advanced spiritual beings that have spent time on earth is being lost in a morass of rules created less to help achieve happiness, eternal or otherwise, and more to advance the ability of people who seek power and control over the masses.

We all have vices, faults, weaknesses which result in actions that hurt others. I would be fine with the concept of original sin were it to be a concept that helped us acknowledge our imperfections. Perhaps even to point out that despite our flaws, we are still capable of wondrous acts of kindness and compassion. 

But when the concept focuses on our need for salvation, followed by a need to believe in a specific set of doctrines and dogma to attain that salvation, followed by the declaration that anyone who does not follow that specific set of beliefs is not saved, cannot expect eternal happiness, I turn away. 

Again, it all seems more like men controlling other men, and it makes me seriously wonder if Augustine (or whomever created the concept of original sin) was wrong to link the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus to our need for salvation.  

I have discussed religion in a number of past posts. Here are links to three of them.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-intermixing-of-religion.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/gay-catholics-and-other-odd-labels.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/06/following-letter-was-published-in-my.html

Nature's Beauty and Longevity

Earlier this year, Nora and I were invited to my niece's wedding in Mesa, Arizona. We had missed the wedding of her older sister, due to Covid, so we thought we might attend this one. And, since we would be flying there, we thought it might be nice to visit some national parks in the area. After some debate, we began planning a few months ago, and using the itinerary of a good friend who went west last year, we hammered out the details. 

We just returned this past Monday.

After staying at an airport hotel the night before, where we left our car for the next seven days, we flew to Las Vegas last Tuesday. Upon arrival we immediately picked up our rental car, then drove to Virgin, Utah which is near the Zion National Park. We spent a wonderful day hiking in Zion, stayed at the same hotel that night, then drove to Tropic, Utah which is near Bryce Canyon National Park.

After another full day of awe-inspiring sights at Bryce, we drove to Page, Arizona that night so we would be nearby the Lower Antelope Canyon for our pre-booked tour the next morning. Again, magnificent! After the tour, we drove the 15 minutes to Horseshoe Bend National Park, walked around a bit, succumbed to the exhaustion that the previous days hiking had created, then, after a nap, drove to the Glen Canyon Dam, which, while human created, was still impressive.

The next day we drove to Gilbert, Arizona by way of Montezuma National Park, relaxed a bit once we arrived at the hotel, then met the family for the rehearsal dinner. The next day we found a local preserve to walk through, an amazing place which seemed to house all the waterfowl that could possibly live in such a dry state as Arizona. Finally, the happy occasion, a beautiful ceremony, good food, nice toasts to the happy couple, and much conversation.

The week ended with the flight back to Philly, then the ride home with a stop at a local restaurant for some dinner.

In the movie, French Kiss, the main female character played by Meg Ryan, is riding on a train through France, and while looking out the window at the magnificent scenery, waves her hand and says "Gorgeous!"

Nora and I found ourselves waving our hands and saying gorgeous so many times last week, that it became a joke as, wherever we went, around every turn, the vista was other worldly, magnificent, truly inspiring. Nature's work at its best.

Yet it is important to remember that canyons such as in Bryce, soaring cliffs such as in Zion, incredibly colored rocks such as in the Lower Antelope Canyon, were all created over thousands of years. Natural processes such as erosion and tectonic movements need time as one of the ingredients to create such impressive sights.

It is a lesson that humanity needs to be reminded of, often, as it certainly seems that we are far more driven by short term, immediate gratifications. Perhaps it is the natural reaction to the fact that we only have, individually, 80 to 90 years at our behest. Certainly that is a fraction of the time that a river has to carve out a canyon. 

Still, do we not think of future generations, when we imagine a better world? Do we not want the legacy for our children and grandchildren to be one of hope and opportunity? 

One the flight out to Vegas, I engaged in a lively conversation with my seat mates. At one point, I repeated my lament that the promise of the baby boomers, of which I am one, did not transpire. We were given all kinds of advantage yet have fallen far short in improving the world. As it turns out, make love, not war, was just a slogan to make ourselves feel better, not a true way of life. We became just like the leaders whom we protested against, trading our aspirations for a better world for large 401K balances, gated communities, and, worse, disdain for our children who call us on our hypocrisy but whom we label spoiled, or lazy. As if children don't emulate their parents.

I previously mentioned that we stopped at the Montezuma National Park on the way to Mesa. This park houses some rock formations that were the homes of the people who lived in that area centuries ago. 

We are generally very dismissive about the true natives of our great country, preferring to glorify the Europeans who came here in the 15th and 16th century, but people lived on the lands now called America for hundreds of generations, before being "discovered" by Columbus and his contemporaries. We ignore their accomplishments, their harmonious relationship with nature and the environment. Even the name of the national park, Montezuma, reflects our ignorance of the people who lived there. Montezuma was just the European's lazy connection between all "natives" regardless of where or when they lived. Montezuma never lived in the area of this castle, but that didn't stop those invaders who came there from naming the area for him. After all, weren't all those savages the same anyway?

It makes me wonder how differently we might be treating the land and our environment if our ancestors didn't exterminate the original Americans, makes me wonder if we would have maintained the link between nature and the environment which existed for thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans. Perhaps if less conquering and more listening had occurred, we wouldn't need to be reminded that there is nothing that can't be accomplished with time and effort. Wouldn't need to visit national parks to see how nature reminds us of this when we visit a place of natural wonders.        

I am saving this post under the title Environment, a label I use for all posts that refer to reflections about nature. Before creating this post, I read a few of my past entries; here are links to three of them.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/06/seeing-forests-and-trees.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-ozone-layer-and-other-environmental.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/cost-of-harming-nature.html

Israel, Palestinians and Hamas

I have been thinking of this post for a few days now, both in terms of whether to compose one, and, if so, what to write. At this point, I would be negligent to not comment, as this story is the most compelling situation in the world today, and may remain so for the foreseeable future.

First, as most people have done, it is clear that the actions by Hamas need to be condemned in the strongest terms. Regardless of any perceived justification, purposefully slaughtering families in their homes, and revelers at a music festival is horrific. It not only confirms the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization, but it does severe harm to the Palestinian people themselves, who may be lumped together with Hamas by those who do not understand the complexity of their situation, and/or prefer the knee jerk reaction of revenge.

It is extremely difficult to understand how this kind if atrocity can be be perceived by the leaders of Hamas as anything other than a huge step backwards, a PR blunder of the highest order. Perhaps in the bubble of Arab hatred towards the Jewish people, there may be some rejoicing, but, as so many people who prefer to only listen to those who echo their own sentiments eventually discover, to attain sympathy and non-partial support for one's perspective, you must first listen to and acknowledge that not everyone thinks alike.

As is usual in this type of disastrous action, thousands of innocent people will suffer. First, of course, all the Israeli (and other nationalities) people who lived in proximity to Gaza, those on the front lines of the brutality which played out last weekend. Followed by the thousands, probably tens of thousands, of Palestinians who will die during the upcoming ground war.

Will Hamas be eliminated from the Earth as is the stated goal of the IDF? It has been tried before, although not with the expected ferocity of the impending onslaught. But, while it is certain that the Hamas leadership will suffer great losses, the hatred which fuels their group will not be extinguished. If anything, should the Israelis kill as many Palestinians as I believe they will, hatred will only increase, on both sides, as the bodies of dead Jewish soldiers are returned to Israel, and as the bodies of Palestinian women and children pile up in Gaza.

There will be no winners, only losers. And, sadly, the cycle of hate will go on.

In the meantime, in America, I have read many reactions that demand that we side with Israel. Now, clearly, siding with Hamas is not going to result in much agreement, but it is important to separate Hamas from the Palestinians. In other words, to hold two thoughts in one's head, outrage at Hamas, support for the effort to recover hostages, and root out Hamas leadership, while also expressing support for the 2.2 million people who are now taking the brunt of the Israeli response.

There are those who might say that the Palestinians elected Hamas to represent their interests, and so they should have known better than to associate with such a hate filled group. That they should bear the brunt of what their ill advised electoral choice has spawned. Perhaps. 

But for those who think this, I doubt if they are willing to assign blame to the Israeli citizens who knowingly chose to live so close to Gaza, who made their electoral choice clear last year and when they chose the hard right Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. Some have theorized that Hamas chose this moment to invade due to the instability present in Israel this past year, due to Netanyahu's attempt to weaken the judiciary (giving himself more power), in addition to his support of continued oppression of the Palestinians while advocating for further expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. 

If it is true that the Palestinians should have known the Hamas was a poor leadership choice, then is it as true that the Israelis should have thought the same of Netanyahu? 

I certainly can not claim to be anymore knowledgeable of the decades long animosity between those living in Israel and Palestine as the average American. Their mutual hatred seems to be part religion, part territorial, part cultural. An endless cycle of fear, killing and revenge. But I certainly do know that if violence is the only acceptable reaction to violence, then this conflict will never end. Especially when the hatred that is so evident in this situation translates so easily into the dehumanization of those on the other side of the fence.

Is there some kind of resolution, or a path to mutual tolerance, if not acceptance?

When my son was in elementary school, he was fortunate enough to participate in the People to People Student Ambassador Program, an organization founded during the Eisenhower Administration in 1956. The goal of this, and other similar exchange programs, is to provide young people with immersive, educational travel experiences so as to broaden their world view and, hopefully, learn tolerance of other people and their cultures.

History is replete with examples of individuals who, sometimes by choice, sometimes by unforeseen circumstance, find themselves living with people with completely different lifestyles and traditions. Most often, those people not only learn about others, they learn about themselves as well.

There is a New Testament quote that questions why so many people can see the splinter in the eye of others but not the wooden beam in one's own eye. In other words, why can we not see our own faults when we seem so sure of others?

The point of seeing life through the experience of someone else, especially someone whose beliefs are different from your own, is not just to understand that our creator has given us the chance for a life experience full of diversity. It is also to realize what restrictions we place on our own lives when we do not reflect on the beliefs which we cling to, and often use as an excuse to mistreat those who are not like us. 

I have commented in more than one previous post, that it can be very difficult, very uncomfortable to go outside one's own realm. That fear of others may in fact, have been part of the human condition that allowed us to survive in those first thousands of years. But it seems clear now, that this preexisting condition, if you will, is waning. Some humans seek out new experiences with people of different backgrounds, seemingly from birth. Others learn by doing, or getting the chance to do so as we provided to my son.

Are there such active programs between Israel and Gaza? I tried to find some examples and did see a few mentions, so at least there are some people trying, but clearly not enough. 

I stopped writing at this point as we had old friends to dinner. Before returning to my computer to finish, I read an article from the current edition of the Smithsonian, an article which I did not know was in the magazine until this morning when I opened to it.

It is called "Songs of Survival" and it recounts a small part of the history of the Terezin concentration camp in Poland. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this camp, I would suggest you do some research on your own, or at least read the article. 

In a nutshell, Terezin was a stopping off point for thousands of Jews, a place where they were sent before being transported to the death camps. In other words, the Nazis used places like Terezin to store Jews who were forced from their homes, before sending them off to die. The concept is almost as evil as the end result.

It also happened to be that most of Europe's Jewish artists, musicians and intellectuals were sent to Terezin. The point of the article is that while there, these prisoners tried to maintain the slimmest of connections to their humanity by engaging in painting, writing and composing. And, fortunately for us, some of those efforts, specifically some of the music which was composed, were salvaged. And, are being performed today. 

It is an inspiring story, one which reminds us that the human spirit is capable of surviving unspeakable horrors.

But incredibly sad as well when thought of in the context of what is lost when humans choose to dehumanize "others". It is easy to imagine the wondrous music and art that was not completed due to the slaughter of Jewish artists, writers and composers during the Holocaust. 

But is it any less horrible, when we consider the possible accomplishments that will not be achieved due to the indiscriminate murders which occurred at the hands of Hamas terrorists, and the loss and destruction that is about to occur as the IDF begins its ground war in Gaza?

Is it always necessary to enact revenge when we are wronged? Clearly there are examples of individuals who have chosen forgiveness to break the cycle of violence begetting violence.

Here is a link to an article about 10 everyday people who experienced horrible loss yet chose to forgive those who committed the acts.

https://listverse.com/2013/10/31/10-extraordinary-examples-of-forgiveness/

And of course, a very famous quote by someone who died an excruciating death on a cross:

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do".

I am posting this entry under the heading War and Forgiveness. I previously posted something under that title about 9 years ago. In that post I mention an event which was going on in the Middle East although I am not specific about it, although the point of the article was about Jackie Robinson, how he was treated, and how he responded. Still, it would not be hard to conjecture that the Middle East reference was related to the current crisis, as this situation has been with us for decades. Here is that link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/08/42-and-hopefully-counting.html

Revenge stories are as old as written history. When I googled greatest stories of revenge in history, there was no lack of response. It seems as if multiple people and organizations had compiled their own lists of horrific examples of revenge. Perhaps some day, it will just be as easy to find a plethora of examples of the greatest acts of forgiveness in history. Wouldn't it be inspiring if in 20 years, Israeli forgiveness of Hamas brutality, were on the list? 

The Irish and the Choctaw

As I stated in my last post, there are many facts that we have been taught that, while true, are not truly presented. One of those is the famine that occurred in Ireland between 1845 and 1852. I remember learning about the Irish Famine in school. A potato blight was generally blamed, potatoes being the food staple of the rural Irish of the time. 

I don't recall ever asking the obvious question "why couldn't they eat something else", although I wonder if the answer might have been that while the potato was the food mostly effected, other crops also failed, an answer I probably would have accepted. After all, why would a poor harvest of one crop cause over 1.5 million people to die?

Anyone who has spent any time researching this disaster knows a significantly different truth, unfortunately. It was that truth which was referred to in an article I just read in the September/October edition of the Smithsonian Magazine.

The Irish famine was not caused by just a potato blight. As I stated above, how could a poor harvest of one crop cause so many people to starve? You see, the Irish farmers of the time grew many other crops, mostly to sell to pay rent, buy clothes, etc. The potato was the staple of their diet because it was easy to grow and so could provide the basis for their meals. 

Remember, at the time, Ireland was a British possession. To that extent, most Irish farmers did not own the land they farmed, they rented that land from their (mostly) English landlords, who then sold the foodstuffs produced by these tenants. 

So, the real truth is that the Irish famine was not caused by a lack of potatoes, but a lack of food. Food that was readily being produced by those same farmers but was turned over (sometimes at gun point) to be sold by the landowners from whom they rented.

How awful, you might say. I guess it is no surprise that this inconvenient fact was left out of the history lesson taught to elementary and middle school students. 

How could so many people be left to die when there was actually food available? Well, when you do not consider certain people human, when you have been indoctrinated all your life, your parents life, your grandparents life, etc, to consider the Irish farmer as not worth considering, then their death, even of their children, does not register. 

When empathy for other is lost, all sorts of disasters and travesties follow. One might even say that a lack of empathy, whether from an overt refusal or merely a lack of reflection, is the cause of all of the genocides that humans have perpetrated upon each other.

It always begins with code words like "them", or "others", or perhaps we label them as barbaric or illegals or lacking in adoration of a certain deity, but in the end, once we dehumanize a person or group of people, horrific treatment follows.

Sadly, we are are not immune to our own versions of this behavior. The story of a certain Florida governor who tricked immigrants from Texas into boarding planes so he could make some sick kind of political point, is one such example. And, the fact that more than one TV personality on that "news" channel that rhymes with Pox, laughed about it and thought it was a great ploy to own the libs, or whatever crazy justification they posited, makes it even sadder, because whether the pundits agreed with treating other humans so shabbily or not, they knew that their audience would applaud such an action, never even considering how they would feel if someone treated them with such callousness.

Or those who stand behind the American flag and decry providing arms and money to the Ukrainians in their fight against an invading army. So what if civilians, children, the elderly, pregnant women, are being killed, we should take care of our own first. As if working against bullies who try to take whatever they want is not a shared belief that makes us human, makes us "great". 

For all those who revere the greatest generation for defeating Hitler, sounds like they are ignorant to what makes a generation or country great.

Which brings me back to the Smithsonian article. You see, its focus wasn't about the real causes of the Irish Famine. It was about a little known story about how the Choctaw nation, upon hearing about the starvation in Ireland, sent money to the impoverished people to assist. 

Talk about self sacrifice! The Choctaw themselves lived in poverty, having been forced to leave their land via the Trail of Tears. They barely had enough for themselves, yet donated precious money to help another people, people they had absolutely no connection to. 

So, add this little tidbit to the history that most people don't know about.

Perhaps it is better that we not know how horribly we have treated the indigenous people who were here before the arrival of the Europeans, or how we enslaved generations of Black people to work our plantations. That way it is easier for us to consider suggestions about rounding up immigrants who have come here for a better life, and expelling them, violently, if need be. Or even better, arm American citizens and line the border, shooting anyone who tries to cross.

After all, once we cross the line of dehumanization, there is nothing we can't due to "those" people. Once we have jettisoned all aspects of empathy, no inhumane treatment is off the board.

The truly incredible thing about our current immigration morass, is that so many of those who are the loudest about the dangers of these "others", are very recent descendants of those who were the others in the late 19th and early 20th century. 

Unlike the Choctaw and the Irish people who still celebrate the incredible gift that was sent to Ireland when they were in such terrible need, far too many Americans have forgotten their own personal history, as well as our national history so well stated on the Statue of Liberty.

"Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

As emblematic of the meaning of empathy as anything I could conceive of or write.

Here are four other posts discussing Empathy.   

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/02/bo-knowsempathy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2022/10/empathy-and-evolution.html

https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/7395038039066334365/4086742329331846297?hl=en

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/farewell-peewee.html

Life Changing Events

First, some house keeping. I had my best month ever in September, in terms of "hits" to my blog. Over 8100, which exceeded my previous best by 1500. The vast, vast majority were from Singapore, as I have previously mentioned. So, again, please feel free anyone from that country to leave me a comment telling me why the interest.

As this will be a philosophical post, I checked some that I have written before. Here are links to four that I thought might generate some interest.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2020/09/idealism-vs-realism.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/11/intellectual-leprosy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/04/opinions.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/01/atlas-shrugged.html

Most people, when asked to retell events which they recall as life changing, can come up with a few. Perhaps the day they met their spouse, or their wedding day. The birth of a child or their children. Maybe graduation from high school or college, the purchase of their first home, a special trip. For some, world events such as D-Day, 9/11, the assassination of a world leader, or world influener. Perhaps even the day of a particularly exciting sporting event.

I commented once, many years ago, that discovering Laphams Quarterly was one such day. Not that I can recall the actual day, but the fact that this wonderful magazine existed without me having the least inkling. It was life changing, in that in the intervening years I have read and been exposed to ideas, concepts, opinions, and facts (this is especially important) that have altered my perception of the world and its workings.

I recently began reading a book that is replicating this feeling. A book whose title I found in that wonderful 2021 Christmas gift from my daughter who filled a glass jar with 100 titles in order to provide me with new reading material. 

"The Dawn of Everything; A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber and David Wengrow is the title.

At this point, I am about two thirds of the way through it. I find I can only read so much at a time so as to absorb its mind blowing words, but I also don't read it everyday because I don't want to finish it. As if, by putting it down, and away, I will lose the importance of its meaning over time, as I read other works, and as I am bombarded with the endless nonsense that we must wade through, nonsense that so easily passes for news, so easily is thrust upon us as if the world of data and information is experiencing a massive bout of diarrhea, with no end in sight.

It is hard to summarize what I have read so far. The 2 Davids, as I like to refer to them, are relentless in demolishing virtually everything I have been taught throughout my life. 

For instance, there is a lot of interest in aliens right now. Not just as to whether they are with us in secret today, but how many times they have visited in the past and which of the unexplained man made wonders of ancient times must they have built. Since we can't seem to build a house or a road to last more than a few decades, how could pre-industrial man have built the pyramids, etc, which have lasted thousands of years? Must have been aliens!

Now, the 2 Davids don't necessarily address this phenomenon, at least not yet, as again, I still have many pages to go. But what they do address is the idea that men who lived thousands of years ago couldn't have accomplished these tasks alone. That they weren't smart enough, or didn't have the right tools, or the right math. 

And it isn't just the building of great architectural structures that they address, but philosophical concepts of equality, social structures, gender relations, government, justice and fairness. 

In other words, this book takes on the entire sphere of propaganda that we have been taught via all our current institutions, religious, political, national, social, cultural, etc, and turns them all on their proverbial heads. 

But don't get me wrong. I don't view the author's purpose in a negative light. They are not anarchists trying to upend our very existence, or back to nature freaks who think we should go back to living in caves. I view them more as educators trying to explain that its the conclusions that we have been taught about history, especially humanity's progression from hunter gatherers to farmers and city dwellers, that is off base. And, that this progression should be considered with less of a value judgement (ancient men were less smart, more barbaric and violent, not capable of complex thoughts about life, for instance) and certainly not as a function of inevitable evolution where today's version of man is "better" than previous ones. 

Or not worse for that matter. Just different.

We have been indoctrinated (a loaded word in today's 24 hour news cycle) to believe all sorts of "facts" about how men lived before the miracle of modern technologies, how men interacted with each other, how the genders valued each other. But regardless of the teacher (religious, political, cultural, national), we are always taught that we are evolving towards a more egalitarian existence. That we are becoming more enlightened in terms of recognizing the value of diversity in man, as well as the environment.

Well perhaps that is too strong, but that certainly, we are more kind to each other than our ancestors of 10,000 years ago were to each other. That concepts like democracy and freedom and equality didn't exist before the Europeans crossed the oceans to "civilize" the barbarians they "discovered".

Graeber and Wengrow address these kind of conclusions, and attempt (successfully, so far, for me) to provide some different conclusions that fit the facts just as well, even better in some instances.

Pick up the book, if you can. I will share more thoughts about it when I have finished.  

Reagan vs Biden

I recently saw a Facebook post from one of my acquaintances which portrayed a man with a shovel approaching the grave of Ronald Reagan. When asked why he would want to dig up the ex-president, he replied something like, "even dead, he is better than what we have now."

Since my friend is of similar age as myself, I wondered if he remembered that all these statistics about inflation and mortgage interest rates that reveal 40 year highs, reference the early 1980's when, you guessed it, Ronald Reagan was president. In other words, it was during Reagan's two terms, from 1980 to 1988, that these new high numbers are being compared. 

So, assuming that their may be other interesting facts, as opposed to rose colored glasses memories, I thought I would research some economic data, comparing Biden's current term to Reagan's first term and the overall administration from 1981 to 1988. 

Here is what I found.

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/inflation-rate-cpi

Since 1960, inflation exceeded 10% only 4 times; 1974, 1979, 1980, 1981 with rates of 11.05%, 11.25%, 13.55%, 10.33% respectively. Nixon was president in 1974 (he resigned in August of that year), Carter in 1979 and 1980, Reagan (elected in Nov 1980) in 1981. The 1970's. as a decade, featured horrendous inflation, averaging 7% per year during that decade. In comparison, from 2010 to 2019, inflation averaged less than 2% (about 1.8%) each year. 

Since 2020, inflation has increased, 1.23% in 2020, 4.7% in 2021, and 8% in 2022. Now, we can debate how much influence Biden's policies had on rising inflation. Certainly, injecting lots of money into the economy to keep average people afloat during the pandemic, and afterwards, was a factor. But, considering that high inflation was not specific to the US these last two years, then clearly outside factors, supply chain disruptions, war in Ukraine, among just two, also led to higher inflation world wide not just here. 

Like Biden, Reagan inherited economic problems from his predecessor, high inflation being one of them. From that high of 13.55% in 1980, inflation under Reagan declined to 10.55% in 1981, 6.13% in 1982, 3.21% in 1983, then, other than 1986 when it was only 1.9%, inflation ran between a low of 3.55% in 1983 to a high of 4.3% in 1984, finishing at 4.08% in 1988. During Reagan's 8 years in office, 1981 to 1988, inflation averaged about 4.6%. A good achievement when compared to the 1970's 7% per year.

We only have 2 years for Biden, 2021 and 2022 which have averaged over 6% each year. If 2023 comes in around 4%, that would equate to about 5.3% for the first 3 years. Comparable to inflation during Reagan's first 3 years which averaged about 6.4% but we must give Reagan a partial pass since he inherited such a high rate from Carter.

Using the same source, macrotrends, GDP growth for 1981 through 1983 (1982 was a negative year) averaged 1.7%. But, beginning in 1984, GDP growth averaged almost about 5.4%. Overall, GDP growth for the 8 terms for Reagan averaged around 3.5%. As comparison, GDP growth for Obama's 8 years averaged under 2% while during Clinton's 8 years GDP increased an average just under 3.9%. 

Since Clinton's GDP growth was better than Reagan's and inflation only increased an average of 2.6% during those 8 years (compared to Reagan's 3.6%) perhaps that cartoon I referenced earlier should have shown the man asking Clinton to come back rather than digging up Reagan...

Again, with only 2 years of GDP growth for Biden, 5.95% and 2.06% which averages to about 4%, that is comparable to Reagan's 8 year average, much better than his first 3 year average but less than those last 5 years.

How about unemployment?

https://www.thebalancemoney.com/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506

While Reagan inherited high inflation and lowered it during his first term, unemployment, while high at 7.2% in 1980, increased during Reagan's first four years, averaging 8.725%. While it gradually came down during his 2nd term, the lowest rate was 5.3%, and the overall average unemployment during his 8 years was 7.43%.

As comparisons, unemployment averaged around 5% during Clinton's 8 years, about 5.5% during Bush 2's presidency. Even during Obama's 8 years which started with the 2008 economic meltdown, averaged less than Reagan's 2 terms, at just about 7.2%, although the last 3 years averaged only about 5%.

Under Trump, unemployment continued to drop, averaging only about 4.5% for his 4 years, even including the pandemic year of 2020. But again, with only 2 years data, unemployment under Biden has averaged below 4% which far outpaces Reagan's first 3 years (about 9% average). In fact, there has not been a presidential term with a higher unemployment rate that Reagan's 8 years average since the Great Depression years ending in 1941.

I wonder if that guy with the shovel would still want Reagan considering that data set?

In 1980, having voted in my 2nd presidential election, I was not a home owner, not all that focused on economic issues. Hey, I was an irresponsible young man. But by 1989, I was married and looking for our first house. The only thing we qualified for, mortgage wise, was a variable rate negative amortization deal. In other words, the interest rate was to change yearly, and, even if it didn't go up or down, our payment was less than the actual interest which was accruing which meant our debt was increasing every month. As it turned out, the 11% interest rate gradually lessened, and we were able to begin increasing equity in the home within 2.5 years as opposed to the original 5 year estimate. 

I don't need stats to know it was tough going then, and while home interest rates are over 7% now, after being under 3% for quite a while, they are not 11% as they were in the 1980's. 

I have a theory that in 20 or 30 years, the Biden presidency may be compared to Reagan's. Both were considered too old when in office, both inherited a mess from the previous president, both came across as the steady, grandfatherly type, a form of stability needed in a time of turmoil. 

Whether Biden's economic numbers fare well should we end up with 8 years to compare, is unknown, but I imagine that in terms of inflation and unemployment, I would favor Biden having the advantage. Should the economy break out after inflation gets back under 3%, he may end with a clean sweep in the three areas I have detailed. 

And then, who knows, perhaps a cartoon of a man with a shovel approaching Biden's grave will be circulating on the internet in 20 or 30 years with the caption, even a dead Biden is better than the current resident in the White House. Let's hope that the source of that cartoon has actual numbers to justify the sentiment.