Epstein Files

An acquaintance recently asked me why I haven't posted about the Epstein files, given that is such a huge story, and has been for quite a while. 

To be honest, I am not sure exactly why, although, to be honest, I don't think that Trump is neck deep in Epstein related dirt. Certainly he was a friend, and not just in passing. It is obvious to many that Trump has no moral compass. Using women for play is just one of many flaws in his personal make-up, so I guess I preferred to focus on the danger he represents to our 250 year experiment in democracy.

Perhaps this indicates my own bias in that I consider his attacks on the institutions of our government and the guardrails that have protected our unique form of government more important than his sexual escapades. 

That being said, let me be clear. Jeffrey Epstein provided a service to a group of men who deemed themselves above, not just the law, but above any of the accepted morals of our society. They abused women, many underage girls, because they could, but also because they had a perverted belief that it was something they deserved, something that men of power and money have done throughout history, as Trump testified in his deposition during the E. Jean Carrol assault trial.

As the emails are revealing, Epstein's advice was sought after by many very rich, very powerful, very entitled men, some who sought sexual gratification, and some who sought a way to gain favor with Trump. As these revelations continue to become public, one can only hope that there is some kind of accountability, and not just the loss of one's royal standing. 

Real, hard punishment. And I don't mean prison time. Not that I wouldn't support seeing some of them in orange jumpsuits, but I would much prefer hitting them where it hurts the most. 

Isolation, shunning even, so that they can no longer be the giants of industry or politics that they believe themselves to be. And very, very large fines. Millions of dollars. 

Like the occasional example when the masses boycott certain products, we need those who do business in America to stop doing business with men like this. To set an example that such behavior, such attitudes that place people like that above the law, above responsibility for their sordid actions, will no longer be tolerated. People who engage in sex trafficking, especially when children are involved, and yes Megyn, anyone under 18 is a child, are loathsome indeed. But without the customers, there wouldn't be a business. 

Is it possible that in the future, at least in my lifetime, that the peer pressure of those who consider sex with children a crime that cannot be tolerated, will eliminate underage sex trafficking? Perhaps not, but it can only begin when people ostracize those who participate in the activity, on either side of the equation. One might even say that such a movement, to truly identify and isolate people like this, could enable us to actually claim to be a Christian nation.

Whether Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, President, ex-President or a woman like Ghislaine Maxwell, they should all be held responsible in ways that do not allow them to be active in everyday society, whether that results in a prison sentence or just by being shut out of our society. Outcasts. If we could somehow make legal the application of a scarlet letter upon their brow to indicate their worthlessness, I would heartily vote for it. 

More importantly, the saga of a man like Jeffery Epstein is a black mark on all of us. He represents greed, and power, and privilege run amok, and while some of it may have been hidden, we all know that the rich and powerful have been playing by different rules for all of history. 

Shame on all of us for believing that rich people are somehow better than us just because of their wealth, regardless of how they accumulated such wealth. We excuse their behavior because they have convinced us, the everyday folks who do all the real work in America, that without them all would be lost. A sort of too big to fail logic applied to people, not just humongous corporations.

Is Trump guilty of ignoring Epstein's horrendous treatment of women? Of course. Not because he may or may not have known about the underage girls but because he accepted, neigh, relished, the idea that men like himself are allowed to engage in such activity. As are all of those whose names are being revealed in the files. They all knew he was a slime ball, but valued his use to them to gain some advantage. 

In some ways, the men who only used him to get sex are less horrible than those who sought his advice to gain political insight or access, although I wouldn't want to be any of them when they face their day of judgement.

Moving forward, I don't expect an email that implicates the current president in the sex trafficking aspect of the scandal. I just can't imagine such an email being released, if not completely redacted so it is impossible to link to Trump.

Of course, it doesn't matter to me. He is as guilty as any and all of the men who partied and associated and sought guidance and ignored Epstein's crimes. While it is certainly ironic that a sex scandal may mark the beginning of our communal break from the spell Trump has cast on so many people, it really needs to be more than just a few men who pay the price for the likes of Jeffrey Epstein.

Whether that occurs, is the real question. 

 

 

Diane Keaton

When I first heard of the passing of Diane Keaton, already over a month ago, it hit me hard. Certainly not as hard as a family member or longtime friend, but still I felt truly sad.

I imagine I wasn't the only person to feel that way, that, in fact, it is very common for regular people to mourn the death of famous actors, or athletes or musicians, or other such people whose work they admired. Or whose life represented something beyond just respect for their accomplishments.

While I can't know for certain why other people get upset when someone like Diane Keaton passes, I can surmise why I felt sad, almost tearful, when I heard the news.

Keaton represented the type of woman that I, as a young man, was attracted to, perhaps even searched for as a life mate. 

Now, I know that sounds kind of ridiculous when one understands that what I admired about her was not really Diane Keaton, but the characters she played in the movies, especially Annie Hall.

I had been musing about this post, considering the direction and details of it, since her death, but had let the idea drop away as is evident since I have posted seven times already since her passing despite a search for Diane Keaton movies that resulted in my watching a number of her films in the two weeks or so right after her death.

Most I had never seen before, Manhattan and Interiors being the two I enjoyed the most. A few were not that good, to be honest. I still haven't had the opportunity to see Sleeper again, or Play It Again, Sam which might be an indication that I enjoyed Keaton characters that Woody Allen created for her. Perhaps it also suggests that the love that Allen felt for Keaton was transferred to the film goer in general, and myself in particular, for although they dated but never married, Keaton was a longtime defender of his less than acceptable relationship scandals while he often ran his scripts and ideas past her first, his respect for her opinions being so profound.

If I am totally honest, there may even be a bit to the idea that if Woody could successfully woo Diane, even if in the make believe world of movies, then I might find success in winning over a woman like her. In that example, Woody's well known lack of self esteem reflected my own, yet somehow he is still able to be attractive to Keaton, as it turns out, in film and real life.

What really surprised me is that I was unaware that Diane Keaton was in the Godfather movies, being one of the eight people in America to have never seen any of the those films. The fact that she was in those movies while also appearing in Love and Death and Sleeper illustrates the range of her acting ability. 

Another odd juxtaposition of roles are those she played in the aforementioned Annie Hall and Looking for Mr Goodbar both which released in 1977. I am hoping to find the latter on some streaming service some time soon, perhaps right after seeing the former again.

Over the years, as I aged along with Keaton (just to note, she was born a dozen years before me), I enjoyed her in Baby Boom, the Father of the Bride movies, the First Wives Club, The Family Stone, and Somethings Gotta Give, among others.

I also hope to see Reds again sometime in the near future although I recall losing interest in parts of the movie when I first saw it. 

So, again, why was I attracted to Keaton, or to be more realistic, her acting roles?

Since retiring, I have been watching a lot of movies, most notably older movies, older being defined as released before 1970. One that I enjoyed the most, starring my favorite black and white movie female actress, Katharine Hepburn, is Bringing Up Baby with Cary Grant.

I mention Hepburn because Keaton reminds me of her. Both versatile actors, both attractive but not glamorous, perhaps best of all, both seemingly approachable, more like the girl next door as opposed to a  Hollywood starlet.

And, perhaps, most important to me, both able to play comedic roles, which I interpret as not taking themselves too seriously.

As I said in the beginning of this post, Diane Keaton represented to me the kind of woman I wanted to be around, perhaps even marry, despite my understanding that it was her roles that created that desire. 

Whether she was anything like those roles in her real life, we may find out as time passes and various people in her life open up about what she was really like. Hopefully, I won't experience too much bursting of the balloon should the reality not match my fantasy. But as someone famously said, la-di-da, la-di-da.

 

 

  

 

Mrs Dalloway and the Mailman

A few weeks ago, I borrowed two books from the library, Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, and Mailman, My Wild Ride Delivering the Mail in Appalachia and Finally Finding Home, by Stephen Starring Grant.

As far I as know, I have never read a Virginia Woolf novel. Woolf was born around the same time as my paternal grandparents, and died at the start of WW2. Mrs. Dalloway was published in 1925 while Mailman... was just published this year, a hundred years later. There was no connection, in my mind, why I chose these two books, other than I had read a review of Grant's book and thought it sounded interesting, while I had read something which mentioned Woolf, and her standing in the world of literature, and realized my oversight in never reading any of her efforts.  

First, Mrs. Dalloway. 

To be frank, I struggled through the book. As to why, I have a few thoughts. As it says on the jacket, and perhaps in the mention that led me to search out this book, Woolf spends the entire novel tracing the day of a woman, Mrs. Dalloway, as she spends her time recounting and thinking about the people and things she encounters, as well as shopping and planning for the party she is throwing later that night. 

In comparison, Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises, also published 100 years ago, and which I recently read and discussed, took place over the course of a few months. But more importantly, at least as it applies to why I moved through that book more easily, there was action. While also some internal thinking that was reflected upon in The Sun..., it was nothing like Woolf's constant stream of thoughts, and almost random connections of the physical world and what popped into the head of the characters she creates.

Whether my preference for a bit more action is a product of being a man, or an American, or a human alive in a world with a 24/7 news cycle and instant gratification, or a combination of all of those, I am not sure. While my own writing is no way similar to Woolf's in terms of her descriptive powers, especially when detailing the environment, everything from the people in it to the world happening all around them, I do tend to have rather long sentences that my grade school English teachers would have scowled at when attempting to diagram them into their parts. (Does anyone else remember that exercise on the blackboard, breaking down a sentence into its parts, noun, verbs, etc?)

As it happens, both Hemingway and Woolf took their own lives, right around the age of 60. Whether that kind of timing is indicative of an age when truly gifted people find it difficult to prolong a life that no longer allows them to be creative, or is a coincidence, I can't say. But what is more typical is that Hemingway chose a more violent mode to end his life (gunshot) while Woolf chose a more passive vehicle, drowning. 

One thing I did notice as I read Mrs Dalloway was that I felt more engaged when she focused on some of the past relationships between the characters, especially the scenes involving Clarissa Dalloway and Peter Walsh, as well as those reflecting on the interactions between Sally Seton and Clarissa. For me, those interplays were at the heart of how all three people's lives developed over the years and came to be in the present time, when Mrs Dalloway takes place.

Another reason for my lack of enthusiasm for Mrs. Dalloway is that there is no real conclusion at the end of the book. Of course, the plot of the story isn't such that it leads to a conclusion, being a day of observation and reflection. Clarissa spends a lot of time in her head, justifying why she rejected the love of Peter Walsh, Peter spends a lot of time wondering why she did that, and why he still cares, but neither seems to come to any conclusions as to why they still think about it. Perhaps that is the point, or perhaps I have missed something in the meaning of the book. One thing is for sure, if I had been assigned it in high school, I would have liked it even less. At least now I can appreciate some of its themes through the lens of my own 60 plus years of life.

Finally, maybe the resignation as exhibited by Clarissa and Peter, reflects the shared experience of those who lived during World War 1. I know his WW1 experiences altered Hemingway's life and outlook, although he reacted through hedonism as opposed to seeking  normalization, or at what society calls normal, which Clarissa, Peter and Sally successfully find, if boring and less than rewarding. 

While I can't say it was my favorite book of the year, perhaps even one of my least favorites, I did enjoy the way Woolf incorporated those characters' past into the present. It reminded me of my recent mission to contact my friends of yore, but also about how so true it is that we can't go home again, at least when it comes to friends from decades ago.

Where Mrs Dalloway was serious and somber, Grant's Mailman... was light and featured a number of comical recollections. The author, a very successful ad man, found himself unemployed and without health insurance in his fifties, during the pandemic. He decides to apply for, then accept a job working for the United States Postal Service delivering mail in his hometown of Blacksburg, Virginia, a place he had escaped from a number of decades prior.

During the pandemic, my experience, as well as my wife's was not typical. Nora was working as a floating pharmacy tech at a few local assisted living facilities. Once they suspended the techs from traveling to those places, she was reassigned to work in the warehouse picking the prescriptions that were sent to the clients of her company. In other words, she worked right through the lock down.

I was employed by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) as a general manage of one of the stores. We were given off, for a month with pay, then brought back to pick orders as part of their curbside delivery experiment, which morphed into a direct to home shipment process. Again, except for that one month, I worked through the pandemic. 

And so, fortunately, we did not experience a loss of employment or a change in income.

For Grant, who is laid off his very well paying job with only a few months health insurance coverage as part of his severance package, his entire life is upended overnight. That is the sort of desperation he was experiencing when he took a blue collar job with a government agency at the very time when so many blue collar workers were being forced to work/be exposed to COVID, and when the government was not considered a trustworthy entity.

Add to that the fact that he would be delivering mail in areas that were already isolated in a number of ways, and one can imagine the culture shock that awaited him.

The book was delightful, a word I am pretty sure I have never used in describing a book I have read. But also insightful, not just about Grant as he navigates the incredibly difficult job of rural mail carrier, but as he rekindles his relationships with people, real people in the real world so unlike that which he had lived in as a consultant, but also with his family, especially his daughters whom actually work with him for a short time delivering the mail.

I was fortunate enough to have a similar experience as a child, and young adult, working with my father as he delivered knives in the various restaurants, delis, butcher shops and convenience stores in Philadelphia, an experience which I used in a story which I wrote in college.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/12/my-dad.html 

Even though Grant did not deliver the mail all that long as he was able to acquire a job which allowed him to return to his "old" life as a white collar worker making a six figure income, he reflects fondly on the lessons, and experiences of that brief time, admitting that while economically difficult, they had exhausted their emergency funds by the end of his time with the USPS, he was proud of the work he did, and glad for the people he encountered and the hard working postal employees he met.

He realized an appreciation for the people who actually do the work in this country as opposed to what he did, well paid as it was, which did little to help others.

Interestingly, I just borrowed Bull Shit Jobs by David Graeber from the library, a book which discusses the idea that far too many jobs are worthless, do not really help anyone or produce anything meaningful while the jobs that really matter, jobs like postal workers, hair dressers, child care workers, teachers, policemen, etc, are valued far less than they should be. I will let you know my thoughts when I am done.

While I retired from the PLCB over four years ago, I have been working for a local grocery store (yes, we sell groceries), for the last three years. I work three days a week, on shipment days. We break down the skids onto U-boats, those funny looking carts with a U handle on each end and a metal flatbed about a foot above the ground, separating the product by aisle, such as pet products, paper products, laundry products, baking items, etc, then "pack out" the shelves (grocery store jargon) with the goods. 

It provides exercise, walking and lifting, some interesting interactions with customers, especially requests to reach things on the top shelf, our clientele being on the short side, and even some job satisfaction when I help people find something they need, or after a good day of filling shelves so they are neat and organized.

In this way, and also in that eighteen months when I delivered newspapers before most people woke up, I can understand Grant's realization about who does the real work in America. While I must say that I was a bit disappointed to read that he goes back to his former life, the money being the biggest factor, he at least went back with a better feeling for his neighbors, their problems, and what is most important in life.

A similar lesson as was presented in the movie Good Fortune, which I reviewed a few posts ago.

Perhaps in just that small way, Mrs. Dalloway and Mailman... were similar in that the people coming in and out of the lives of Clarissa Dalloway and Stephen Starring Grant, even though one was fictional and the other real life, still detailed the inner thoughts of everyday people. 

I am fortunate that I could leave my job tomorrow and it wouldn't dramatically effect our lives, economically speaking. But so many of the people I work with, my job being in the retail sector, are not so lucky. They work hard, as do the vast majority of blue collar workers, but are generally underpaid, especially when we read of the salaries that those who own large retail businesses earn, often hundreds of times more than the very people who do the actual work.

It is similar to the appalling treatment that federal workers are receiving from the current administration. For the first few months, there were daily proclamations from Musk and Vought and Trump about the bloated federal work force. Literally thousands of federal workers were threatened, belittled, bribed into retirement, or worse, were labelled as DEI hires which meant that they weren't qualified to be employed in the first place, and would be eliminated.

Not to mention the white collar workers, DOJ lawyers, FBI officers, various middle management staff, who were told that they weren't loyal enough to the president, the Constitution and the taxpayers who funded them, be damned.

Now, six months later, the DOJ is having a hard time finding qualified lawyers, the various scientific arms of the government are struggling to find qualified scientists and researchers, and, most glaringly, the FAA is hundreds of air traffic controllers short of the level of staffing needed to monitor our skies.

When one's employer fires people for no good reason, or alters the qualification standards to include sycophants first, competence second, or just blatantly tells you that you suck at your job, it should be expected that people will quit, or retire, as soon as viable. But more importantly, word gets out that the employer not only tolerates, but has created a hostile work environment, so the pool of replacements suffers. 

So, when I see Sean Duffy complaining that dozens of air traffic controllers are retiring every day at four and five times the normal rate, or when sick outs increase because those "essential" workers are not being paid while the House of Representatives, the very body whose job is to fashion and pass a budget, is on a paid vacation for six weeks, it should come as no surprise. In fact, rather than empathizing with those workers the president tweets in all caps that he might dock the pay of anyone who calls out even while threatening to not approve their back pay.  Can you say asshole!

I've said it before, and I will say it again. The American worker, those doing the real work driving buses, taking care of our children, tending to our sick (nurses, not as much doctors), and elderly, standing behind counters in retail environments, cooking our take out orders, delivering our mail, need to organize. Or perhaps strike.

At the least, take a day or two off. Demand not just respect, but livable wages. And a more equitable share of the vast amount of money that is created by your hard work.  

If only... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Election 2025

Before diving into my analysis of this past week's elections, I read my post election discussion from last November. Here is a link

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/11/election-aftermath.html 

A few of the points I made in that post stuck out as I read it. First, I reminded my readers that Harris lost Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin by a total of 250,000 votes. Out of the 150 million or so that were cast that is less than 1/2 of 1% of the votes cast. My point was that Harris wins the electoral college if those 250,000 Americans vote for her instead of Trump, regardless of whether she still loses the popular vote. That fact reminds me of the lie that Trump and his acolytes continue to tell about the 2024 election being some kind of mandate.

Another point I made regarding the possibility of a Democratic recovery had to do with how Trump governed, specifically in those critical areas of costs and immigration. 

I had created two posts meant to provide the new president with advice, both along the lines of Take the Win. What I meant was that as inflation continued to come under better control, as it had been the last year of Biden's presidency, take credit for it. Sadly, he decided to institute his crazy tariff obsession which has stalled progress on reducing inflation, is even causing an uptick. I am not exaggerating when I say that the Fed would have lowered interest rates sooner, and perhaps more often by now, if not for Trump's tariffs. The blame for that delay lies squarely at his feet.

As for immigration, the flow of illegals has practically ceased, but rather than stopping at the border, he has unleashed his own form of gestapo police in ICE clothing, masked, to boot. Here are links to those two posts. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/01/dear-president-trump-take-win.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/05/take-win-2.html 

Which brings us to the recent elections. While I agree on two fronts with the president, that the government shutdown and the fact that he was not on the ballot are two factors which lead to the beat down for the GOP, it is also certainly true that the victories by the various Democratic candidates were also a repudiation of the administration's policies, specifically the tariffs that are harming small businesses as well as everyday consumers, and the daily stories of ICE agents snatching undocumented people off the streets of America, some right in front of their kids as they are dropped at school, some at the actual immigration hearings where they are following the rules by appearing, and some at their places of work. 

Clearly, those people are not the worst of the worst. As I said in one of my posts above, showing ICE agents accompanying illegal immigrants from American jails directly onto deportation planes would have been a win. What is happening now, especially in conjunction with sending the National Guard, or actual soldiers into American cities, completely eliminates any credit he could have gained from sticking with his worst of the worst campaign rhetoric. And exposes the lie of that claim, as it is clear that there aren't millions of undocumented people committing crimes in America. Just a large quantity of people trying to make a better life for themselves and their families who violated the law by taking a shortcut into our country.

One might even speculate that providing a pathway to citizenship for anyone who has been in our country for four, six, ten or more years while emphasizing that anyone who enters illegally from now on will not be provided such a pathway, could have been a part of Take the Win.

But no, the reality is that Trump's true motivation is bigotry, pure and simple, and cruelty to send a message that "those" people should not come to our pristine (can you say white) shores.

Had Trump followed my advice, had chosen to Take the Win, his party would not have performed so badly. 

Further, if I am JD Vance or Marco Rubio, and think that they will automatically inherit the MAGA vote in 2028, I might think again. With Trump not on the ballot for that election, what makes them think they will do any better than those representing the GOP banner did this past week?

Now, of course, there is a whole year until the midterms in 2026, let alone the three years until the next presidential election. So much can and will happen in the meantime.

I expect a market down turn, not just because Trump's tariff policies are upsetting the economy, here and abroad, but because the AI driven market surge is due to peter out. In other words, we are in a bubble that will eventually burst. The only question is by how much and for how long. Should there be a 10-15% drop early in 2026, a drop that is not recovered until mid to late summer, the DEMS will certainly win back the House, and close that gap in the Senate. If the president thinks it tough to get his agenda passed now, it will get all the more difficult then. 

The real concern the White House and the GOP should feel is that the very demographics which helped them win in 2024, Latinos, young people, especially young men, and Blacks, switched sides this past week, by many percentage points. Should the economy continue to favor the rich, should unemployment push closer to 5%, should young people and minorities continue to find "affordability" to be a problem, whether the president acknowledges it or not, the 2026 midterm may look like the 2018 midterms when the Democrats regained the House by gaining 41 seats. Since, as of now, they only need 3, it is a fair bet that they will gain those seats. That if why Trump has ordered various red states, led by Texas, to redraw their maps to potentially create more GOP seats.

It is also why he is pushing Senate Republicans to nix the filibuster so he can push as much of his agenda in the next year as possible. While many seasoned GOP Senators know the folly of such an act, know that when they are in the minority they will lose any leverage they might have to slow a Democratic agenda from being fulfilled, Trump does not care about anything other than his perceived legacy. What happens to the legislative process, or to the country for that matter, is not a concern for a narcissist like Trump, only what he can do, NOW.

What is truly amazing is that day after day, the White House brags about how much money tariffs are bringing into our coffers yet claims there is no money to fund SNAP. As if this administration hasn't been moving money around since day one to reflect its priorities. As we speak, the DOJ is arguing that forcing the government to find the money to help American families buy food, Americans of all political affiliations, would do harm to the government, more harm than children and the elderly and the disabled and veterans would feel by having to skip meals. I would call it evil, except that, as I have stated many times, cruelty is the point. And to emphasize that point, with all caps and an exclamation point. Trump brags about his $300 million ballroom, and holds a party the night before SNAP benefits are to expires for all his rich friends. 

The good news, perhaps, is that the electorate is beginning to wake up, as this past week's elections seem to indicate. I am still hesitant to declare this the beginning of the end of the effectiveness of Trump's barrage of lies, as the WalMart Thanksgiving basket demonstrates. 

If you missed that particular prevarication, someone from WalMart, I assume, perhaps one of the owners who earns tens of million of dollars a year by underpaying their employees while forcing their vendors to operate with minuscule margins, told the president that the "basket" of items to create a Thanksgiving dinner cost 25% less than last year. The truth, of course, is that the basket from 2024 included many more items than this year's and that some of the items from last year were replaced with store brand items, not name brands. But, as has been famously said by many people before me, Americans aren't interested in details, so the story was presented on Truth Social, and in Fox outlets all around the country. 

Of course, I doubt that Trump has shopped for groceries in this century, but even some people who do their own shopping continue to believe these kind of lies, despite what the receipts from their own shopping trips tell them.

Please, Mr President, Take the Win.

Return the tariffs to pre-April numbers, then let people trained to negotiate complex trade deals work with our trading partners to correct the situations that need addressing.

Put your pardon pen aside, and stop sending the message that white collar crime is just all right with you.

Focus ICE on transferring illegal alien criminals from our jails to save local and state municipalities money, and transfer the real worst of the worst to their country of origin, even if you have to pay those countries to house them, as that rate will certainly be less than the cost here.

If you don't want to grant a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers or people who have been here for eight or ten years without breaking any laws, then at least let them be. Perhaps the next president will have a heart that doesn't need a microscope to detect.

Favor the fossil fuel industry, we know you love them, but leave the green energy systems and projects and incentives that are lowering the cost of energy by reducing the demand side of the supply-demand dynamic that controls the cost of all products alone.

Finally, golf.

Golf at your own courses, even if it costs the American taxpayers money, paid to your businesses, to provide security. Golf at your other favorite courses as well. Golf oversees. Golf in Greenland, Canada, Panama and at all those great courses that the Saudis have in their countries. I am willing to pay my taxes for you to break every record there is about rounds golfed by a president in four years. 

Just stop governing, we all know you don't like it, and Take the Win.  

   

 

The Tush Push, and Tariffs

That I am a Philadelphia Eagles fan is no surprise to my friends, and perhaps those who routinely read my blog. So the controversy surrounding the Tush Push should be familiar.

But for those who are not football fans, the Tush Push could be construed to be some type of reference to gay sex. As to whether there is a bit of latent homosexuality embedded in a sport like football, with all the references, the gang tackling, the piles of men upon men during many plays, that is a different topic for another day.

The Tush Push I am referencing, concerns a play being successfully used by the Eagles to gain a yard or two, especially on third and fourth down, in which the offensive line is arranged very close together, and low, the quarterback leans in even more closer to the center than usual, and one or two other players stand close behind the quarterback. At the signal to hike the ball, all the offensive linemen plow forward and down, the quarterback propels himself in an almost perpendicular line behind them, while the two players behind him push forward, often by applying thrust to his behind. The Tush Push.

Suffice it to say, it is very successful, so much so that the owners of the teams voted this past off season to outlaw it. Fortunately, for the Eagles, the effort fell two votes short and did not pass, providing us with another year of people complaining about the play.

Anyone who has watched football over the years, knows that a quarterback running or diving straight ahead behind his line has been a staple for decades. All teams have used it, most still do. So, one can say that the Eagles version is just that, a version of the quarterback sneak.

What is different however, is that the Eagles have Jalen Hurst behind center, a man who has the leg strength unlike any quarterback who has come before him. His weight lifting prowess, especially lifts which rely on strong legs, is legendary. That is why other teams struggle to imitate the play as the Eagles execute it.

All that being said, it is also true that the NFL is a reactive sport, in that when something is successful, especially on the offensive side of the ball, the specialists who coordinate the defensive side of the sport, are generally quick to react, quick to find a counter. We saw that with the RPO, run-pass option play, that, while still being used by some teams, was initially unstoppable. 

It amuses me to think that the play needs to be outlawed, that some defensive strategist will not come up with a solution that will be quickly copied by everyone else, although I would bet that next year the rules will be changed to counter its success, perhaps as simple as making it a penalty for an offensive player to push the quarterback from behind at the time of the snap of the ball.

Regardless, as this season progresses, the Eagles would be foolish not to begin developing plays which look like a tush push, but become something different. We saw that earlier in the year when Hurts stepped back and executed an underhand toss to our star running back who went around the left side, untouched, into the end zone. In other words, we need to be both ready for next year's rule changes, and begin to fool defenses this year as they continue to try new ways to stop the play. 

In addition to pulling out and running a run play to the outside, perhaps a quick pass play to a receiver who breaks out of the mass of humanity before a defensive player can react. 

Or simply, line up everyone in a tush push formation, then quickly spread out the formation as if you are going to run a standard play, only to have the QB return right behind the center at the last instant to execute a traditional quarterback sneak.

In other words, the Eagles need to adapt now, to avoid the eventual formation contrived by some defensive coordinator which stops the play, or the owners change the rules making the play, as it exists, illegal.

So, what does the Tush Push have to do with tariffs?

If you follow the news, you may be aware that last week a TV ad was run by the Ontario government which featured the words of Ronald Reagan trashing the idea of using tariffs. Immediately, our thin skinned president called it fake news and announced a 10% increase in tariffs on Canada. You know, a purely economic decision.

Now, as is the case of practically every advertisement you might see on TV, whether for toothpaste or cars or beverages, there is some truth to the words you hear, some exaggeration, some lies by omission, and some outright non-truths.

In this case, it is true that Reagan said all the words featured on the ad in a radio address he did in 1987. He did not believe in using tariffs in the long run to address economic disparities between countries, in general. However, he said those words during a speech in which he was defending the application of tariffs on Japan to counter their exporting low cost automobiles into America. He defended that action as a way to give American car companies the time to reduce their own prices, and/or make their cars more attractive if even slightly more expensive. His goal was to temporarily provide them relief, not give them reason to continue to make cars that were too expensive or just not popular. 

Of course, all of this is lost on Trump but that is no surprise as his actions belie so many of Reagan's beliefs, as a conservative, simply because, Trump is no conservative.

I often joke that Bill Clinton was the best republican president of my lifetime. I say this because of a number of laws that were passed during his two terms, but none demonstrate it more that NAFTA. The North American Free Trade Agreement, which took effect on January 1, 1994, was a pact between the United States, Canada and Mexico, and was an extension of the agreement between the US and Canada which was negotiated by Reagan and signed in 1988. 

NAFTA was an extremely bipartisan bill. It received 234 votes in the House, 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. In the Senate it was 61-38, with 34 GOP and 27 votes for its passage. You could even say it was more popular with Republicans than Democrats, even though there was a Democrat in the White House, although, as I said earlier in this post, a president from the Democratic party with Republican leanings. 

Has there been such a vote, with such agreement (and disagreement as there was a similar breakdown between the parties in who voted no) in history? Certainly, in today's world where bipartisan is defined as two or three, perhaps even as many as half a dozen defections from one party to support a bill authored by the other party, something with that dynamic could not occur. 

You see, for all of my life, free trade has been a foundational tenet of the conservative mindset, and therefore the GOP. That is why I say that Trump is no conservative, at least not on that subject, as he has enacted tariffs against virtually all of the world, or at least all of the countries that actively trade with America.

What boggles my mind is that it was corporations that took advantage of trade pacts like NAFTA, or Trump's version called USMCA, by sending jobs offshore to countries with lower standards of living, lax environmental rules, and little to no worker protections. In fact, as I have stated before, so often this offshoring of jobs was defended by conservatives who claimed that consumer prices in America stayed low while workers in those poorer nations were able to earn better wages by working to make products for America. 

Both of which are true. It is undeniable that the standard of living has increased in many Asian countries due to American companies manufacturing products there and clearly cheap products are being purchased in America at an incredible rate. Can you say WalMart?

Still, there is a long term price for such short term thinking, and so Trump is correct when he says we should make more things in America, but wrong when he blames other countries, and then enacts tariffs to punish them for "robbing" us. We may have been robbed, but it was by the large corporations that sent the jobs overseas, not the countries who allowed them to provide jobs to their workers. In fact, one could even say that by allowing American companies to provide these jobs, they were merely following a Make (fill in the country) Great again. They didn't care about Americans losing their jobs, only that their workers were employed. Vietnam First, one might say.

And, of course, the corporations didn't care either because that business model was profitable, very profitable. 

However, and this is the link to the Tush Push, countries, like defensive coordinators, adapt. If a tariff is punishing an industry in their country, they counter with their own tariffs. Or find another source for their products. That is the essence of what Reagan was saying in that radio speech. That, in the long run, tariffs are bad for the global economy in that it creates reasons for even more tariffs, which keep the cycle going. A cycle that results in higher prices for everyone.

Sadly, Trump is not capable of adapting. He is the tariff president, proudly proclaims so, and will not back down. He may resort to signing as executive order to counter the negative consequences of his actions, but will never admit that his policies are wrong. 

My fear is that the world is starting to learn how to interact with Trump, how to outmaneuver him as they stroke his ego with platitudes and concessions that were in their benefit to begin with. Trump starts a trade war, other countries react, then negotiate with him to return to the status quo while he pretends that he accomplished something. He is like the arsonist who sets a fire then takes credit when he puts it out. 

A good example of that is the controversy surrounding soybean purchases from US farmers by China. In the announcement from the White House, the administration reported that China would be purchasing 12 million metric tons of soybeans for the remainder of 2025 while praising Trump's use of tariff threats to solve this crisis for the farmers who were afraid that their soybean crop would rot in the fields and silos. 

Unfortunately, even with this big purchase, this year China will only have purchased a little over 18 million metric tons of soybeans, well short of the 28 million metric tons which has been averaged the last five years, and will mark the lowest amount of soybean purchases since 2018. 

And why did China cease its purchases? As a reaction to Trump's tariff war! 

So, at least for the soybean farmers, things are worse. As to whether there might be gains in some other areas, such as rare earth metal sales, it remains to be seen how things will wind up. The problem however, as Reagan stated, is that our trading partner reacted to the unilateral application of tariffs, in this case, hurting American soybean farmers. As the negotiations continue, I expect there will be compromises and concessions on both sides. That is the point of talking. 

Sadly, Trump believes more in manipulation, coercion, threats, and bullying as opposed to discussion. While this has worked for him in his interactions with the Republican party, it will be less successful on the world stage, perhaps even counterproductive with China where their leader answers to no one, can even choose to hurt a part of his population to make an international point. There are not meaningful elections in China for Xi to worry about.

Their are other suppliers of soybeans, other trading partners that large economies like the EU and China can engage with to sell and buy their products. 

Like the tush push, other plays that can be used to win the game. The question is, how long will the American electorate continue to believe the dual lies, that Trump is a great businessman, and that he cares about addressing the economic problems that face our country, problems that require real solutions based on actual concepts that go beyond, do-what-I say-or-else, or worse, I-know-more-about-everything-than-anyone.

I have posted with the title of economics a few times. Here are links to two of them, written in 2019. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/03/a-womans-worth.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2019/04/debt-as-weapon.html 

 

Diversity

Two interesting articles, one each in Smithsonian and National Geographic, inspired me to title this post diversity. But first, I checked my blog to see if, and when, I used the title Diversity in any past blogs.

I was disappointed to find only two, both from 2015. Links to each below. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/02/foreigners.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/10/strength-of-diversity.html 

I was even more disappointed, even dispirited, if that is possible in my current state of throwing-up-my-hands at the constant examples of America's decline, to find that the sentiments I expressed are not only relevant to today, but indicative of the incredible lack of progress, nay, backsliding, that has occurred in our country as the result of the influence of the America First mantra, and the misguided attacks on DEI, the D standing for diversity.

The article in the Smithsonian focused on a relatively new science called aeroecology. (I had to add this word to my dictionary, by the way, to remove the indicator for a misspelling, another indication that this field of study is very new).

In a nutshell, aeroecology is the study of the ecosystem which exists in the air. Here is a link to the article. 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-science-aeroecology-tells-more-about-amazing-creatures-humans-can-ensure-survival-180987151/ 

Without going into the nuts and bolts of the piece, suffice it to say that there is a lot going on up there, just above our heads, and a lot for us to learn, about the species we share this planet with, as well as the  knowledge we gain and then apply to ourselves, simply by paying attention.

The specific item that most caught my eye, is the opening story about how birds are effected by the beam of light that emanates from the Trade Center Memorial. And, how by studying those effects, especially in connection to cyclical bird migrations, simple solutions can be provided to both memorialize the tragic events of 9/11 while also saving the lives of birds who are experiencing disorientation due to the light beams. 

Another example is the research that has suggested that bird collisions with wind turbines can be significantly reduced by painting one of the propellers black. A much better plan that to stand in the Oval Office and claim that wind power is killing birds so we should stop investing in it, an excuse, of course, that has nothing to do with caring for birds, and everything to do with pushing the narrative that green energy is too expensive or not environmentally sound, or whatever else the current resident of the White House can think of to help his friends in the fossil fuel industry.

While that article just brushes against the topic of diversity, the idea being that we need all kinds of energy sources, that we can't rely on just digging in the ground, the October National Geographic article about tigers who have changed their stripes, hits at the core of the topic.

In that report, there is an excellent visual of the area in India where tigers have lived, a map which shows the various tiger reserves and how they are "connected" via natural corridors which enable the residents to move between them.

Why is this important?

To prevent inbreeding, or, in other words, increase diversity.

As I stated in my post from Feb 2015, nature rewards diversity, in this case by providing a larger gene pool when tigers from different lines are able to mate and reproduce.

Unfortunately, in the case of one of the tiger reserves, Similipal, not only are there are no continuous links to the nearby tiger reserves, the closest reserve has no tigers left. As a result, there was a coat color anomaly that was spreading through the population; tigers with an all black back, as if they are wearing a black coat or cape. 

That's right, tigers more black than striped.

Fortunately, that recessive gene is not dangerous in itself. The progeny with the black coat do not seem any less healthy than other wild tigers. What worries those who are studying these tigers is the potential susceptibility to a genetic disease that will be harmful, perhaps fatal. In the words of one of the leading researchers, this kind of genetic isolation was a ticking time bomb. As a result, there is an active program to relocate tigers from other preserves.

But not just any tigers and not just from any preserve. This is where the true science comes in as there needs to be some DNA mapping and comparisons to tigers from other reserves, and even tigers from the past, a part of the research that involves taking DNA samples from tiger hides kept in various collections and museums. There was also  some work comparing the DNA of the common house cat, all to understand the development of various diseases that are passed along from one generation to another, defects that are magnified when inbreeding becomes the only source of new life.

Of course, like any human intervention in nature, there is only speculation, scientifically based speculation, but still speculation that relocating tigers from other reserves will be the answer. In the bigger picture, tigers in India are starting to recover, thanks in part to the assistance to provide that inter-connectivity between reserves. Still, one can't help but wonder if one day such a color mutation results in all black tigers, and the realization that the striped tiger of our experience might only be alive in pictures for some future generation.

Which brings me back to the shortsighted foundation for the current attacks against diversity, equity and inclusion, which frankly, if you were to ask someone who is anti DEI which one of those three they dislike the most, diversity, equity or inclusion, they might struggle choosing one since those concepts, on their own, seem, not only fair, but American. I chalk it up to a population that prefers to latch onto acronyms and headlines and shortcuts when deciding whom to blame, as opposed to actually thinking about the words themselves.

Kind of like antifa which is short for anti-fascism. 

I mean, really, who in America is pro fascism? Considering the loss of life, nationally and globally which resulted from the battle against fascism during WW2, one would think that most Americans would consider themselves to be ant-fascists. Against fascism.

Again, no connection between the words and the way it is being used by people whose only goal is to create as many US vs THEM scenarios as possible.

Diversity.

Sounds like a no brainer to be in favor of it, whether it be in reference to food, music, what we watch on TV or read about. Literally in all our life's experiences, things outside our particular routine is what we all seek, out of curiosity, or for pleasure, or just as a respite from the normal, perhaps boring, but necessary routines of our life.

So, perhaps, the next time you are conversing with someone who is complaining about DEI, ask them, at least as it relates to diversity, whether they prefer monotony in their life.     

And, perhaps do some research on the attacks against your own ancestors when they first came to America, attacks by people claiming the very same thing that the bigots of today are claiming, that people from Europe with their traditions and culture and beliefs, would dilute the America that existed at the time. Would change what it meant to be American, a claim, that is certainly true as the America of the 1930's was very different than the America that existed in the 1880's before the great migration of Europeans to our shores.

Of course, I think it became a better country, more diverse, one might say. But hey, when your real motivation to being anti-immigration, is based on race, based on not wanting people from shithole countries, to come here, not wanting people with a color mutation different from their own to share in the American experience, which itself, has been a continual melting pot of people, traditions, cultures, it is simply racist. 

And, considering how nature works by demanding diversity to produce stronger progeny, just plain stupid. 

  

Good Fortune

Nora and I went to the movies this past Tuesday to see "Good Fortune". If you haven't seen it, but planning to, you may not want to read this post until after doing so. 

The basic plot of the movie is that an angel named Gabriel, played by Keanu Reeves, who is the texting and driving angel, meaning that he lightly taps on the shoulders of people who are texting and driving to refocus their attention to the road, thereby preventing an accident, is dissatisfied with his job. 

He wants to do something bigger.

He wants to save a lost soul.

As it happens, he has been observing a young man named Arj, played by Aziz Ansari, who also wrote and directed the film, who is having a hard time, and starting to doubt his way in life. He is living in his car, his conversations with his father always seem to include comments on how great his cousin is doing, his job at a local hardware store is less than rewarding. 

As luck would have it, however, he meets an extremely rich person named Jeff, played by Seth Rogan, while performing his other job, doing tasks for people who are too busy (or lazy) to do them themselves. In this case, Arj is hired to clean out and organize Jeff's garage. As is happens, Jeff is looking for a new assistant, so they agree to give Arj a one week trial. Things are looking up.

In addition, Arj meets a young woman at the hardware store, and asks her out to dinner. Jeff suggests a restaurant but it turns out to be extremely expensive, and Arj makes the mistake of using the company credit card to pay the bill. Even though Arj tells Jeff that he has spoken to Jeff's accountant about repaying the money, Jeff fires him.

At this point, Arj is back living in his car, he now has lost his task job, and, to make matters worse, after falling asleep at a local Denny's, he comes out to the parking lot to find that his car has been towed. Since he doesn't have the money to get it out of the impound lot, he now has no place to live either.

This is when Gabriel reveals himself to Arj in hopes of rescuing him, as Gabriel thinks that Arj may do something drastic, that he is truly a lost soul.

In an "It's a Wonderful Life" set of scenes, Gabriel shows Arj what he would be missing in his future, what he has to live for. Sadly, those scenes, one in which Arj works for a delivery company that passes out piss bottles for the drivers since the schedules are so tight, there is no room for bathroom breaks, one in which he is married to the girl he recently met, Elena, but they are living at her mother's house, don't do much to convince Arj that life is worth living.

So, Gabriel switches Arj's life with Jeff's to prove to Arj that just because Jeff is rich, he is not happy. 

That is the lead up to the scene that you might see as an ad for the movie, where Gabriel tells his supervisor, Martha, played by Sandra Oh, that when he gave Arj the comfortable life that Jeff led, it did, indeed, solve his problems. 

When Martha demotes Gabriel to human, by taking away his wings, for switching the lives of Arj and Jeff,  Gabriel reveals the truth of the switch to Jeff, because he cannot regain his status unless Arj agrees to switch back. Arj agrees but asks for a few more days living the good life, because he wants to take Elena to Paris for the weekend.

Then, unfortunately, Arj has a car accident, while texting and driving, and is left in a coma. Since he cannot agree to the switch, Gabriel is stuck as a human and Jeff is poor. 

At this point, Hollywood steps in to help right the ship, so to speak, although there are many funny scenes with Gabriel working as a dishwasher, getting his first pay check (why is the actual amount so much less, he asks his boss who explains taxes to him), and Jeff who takes a job delivering food for a company that he previously owned but making very little money.

Arj is not able to date Elena because she is still fighting to make things better at the hardware store by trying to unionize it, and Arj has inadvertently taken on the demeanor of the privileged rich. Also, Arj's father no longer knows him, so, while he can interact with him as a friend, he is no longer his father.

Still, when Arj recovers, he avoids Gabriel and Jeff; he remembers those future scenes and has no desire to live that life.

The turning point comes for both Arj, and fittingly, Gabriel, when Arj realizes that he misses Elena, and for Gabriel when he meets his boss's,wife, someone he saved from an accident when she was texting and driving. He realizes how important that life had been.

In some ways, I thought Gabriel's epiphany much more powerful than Arj's.

So, in the end, Arj agrees to switch back, instantly returning to the Denny's parking lot where he had first found his car was towed. Immediately, someone from Denny's offers him a ride.

In the meantime, Jeff finds the unpaid bill for Arj's car at his house and pays the debt, plus, as the majority stock holder of the food delivery company, he changes the working conditions for his employees, a result of his having performed the job himself.

The film ends with Arj living the life he was shown, but living it happily with Elena, whom he loves, despite where they lived, and, due to the effect of her striving to gain better working conditions for her and her workmates, he quits the delivery job, inspiring all of this co-workers to do the same.

A happy ending.

But is it realistic?

Of course, the point of going to the movies, of entertainment, is to suspend reality, at least for a little while. And, while I applaud the moral about always trying to improve conditions, for oneself and one's fellow workers, have, in fact, often bemoaned the success of the rich and powerful to convince working class people that unions are bad, unnecessary, even as they suppress wages and limit benefits, I can't get my head around the idea that Jeff would actually change his behavior just because he spent a few weeks living in the real world.

Possible, perhaps, but likely, no.

Just look at what is happening as we speak with far too many of the really rich people who are either bending the knee to the wannabe king by donating to his inauguration fund or his devastation of the White House, or are actively supporting him as he continues to grant them tax breaks, and allows them to bend the laws to their advantage. 

Too many of the those who could actually make a difference in limiting Trump's attempts to dominate law firms, universities, corporations, are falling in line, simply because they value their riches over the future of America. 

They are supplicant, when they have the means to resist.

Maybe Good Fortune will resonate with enough regular people to remind them what is really important in life, love, knowledge of and contentment with one's identity, and, that you can't take it with you is a reminder of those beliefs. Even more so, perhaps more people will realize that the accumulation of wealth might be a goal promoted by the angel who was jettisoned from heaven.  

That the real definition of Good Fortune is less about money, and more about happiness and a balance between striving for comfort and improving the lives of those who flit in and out of your life. 

And about eating a really good taco with friends and those you love. 

 

 

No Kings Protest

Today there will be another No Kings protest, marked by thousands of individual marches and demonstrations taking place in all 50 states, attended by what will certainly be millions of people, perhaps even tens of millions. 

Unfortunately, Nora has an all day activity that was planned months ago, and since she is driving there and we only have one car, neither of us will be attending, unlike the one that was held this past June. 

Here is a link to the post I did after that event. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/06/protests-and-civil-disobedience.html 

Since I won't be there, chanting and celebrating my First Amendment right to assemble, I thought I might delineate the many disagreements I have with the current administration, and some of the more egregious actions that have occurred, and are ongoing.

But first, a comment on Speaker of the House Mike Johnson's recent assertion that it is the GOP that is the party protecting our Constitutional freedoms.

Johnson uses as his comparison, the restrictions that occurred during the pandemic, presumably the suppression of various medical treatments that were awash on the internet, and, of course, the lock downs, the encouragement of social distancing, and the wearing of masks.

While, in retrospect, it is debatable that keeping kids out of school was a wise policy, in the long run, given the data that now shows that kids were not prone to COVID, and that perhaps emphasis on the reduction  of illness, hospitalizations, and death would have been a better message, as opposed to prevention, which seemed to suggest that a vaccine would prevent the illness, there is a point to be made that some mistakes were made by federal and state officials.

And, to be blunt, that telling Americans what they should do, in any sphere of life, rarely goes well. If nothing, we can be a rebellious population, even to the point of acting like two year olds who repeat the word often told to them as they begin to explore their world and become mobile - saying NO.

We love to say no, even when we are told something that is for our own good.

So, again, Johnson might have a point of two when saying that there were some restrictions placed upon Americans from 2020-2022. Of course, the fact that Trump was president in 2020 when the lock downs occurred, that his administration worked with the vaccine manufacturers on Project Warp Speed to develop the vaccines, and gave them immunity for side effects, by the way, seems to be facts that he forgets.

Also, the simple facts that over a million Americans died from COVID from 2020 to 2022, that during a few different stretches, 3 to 4,000 people were dying every day, just as many who were killed on 9/11, and that the scientific community was continually learning how to combat this unique virus, also seem to elude him.

Were mistakes made? Certainly, in the name of saving as many lives as possible, and in an abundance of caution, our national reaction may have been too aggressive. But that is hindsight. When bodies were piling up outside morgues and we really had no clue how to treat the people who were gasping for breath and dying in droves, the best advice was all we had.  

To me however, I believe that far more lives were saved because of the recommendations as to how to combat the spread of the disease. Hopefully, we will not have a similar pandemic in my lifetime in which no coordinated national actions are taken to reduce its spread, thereby having a comparison to know for sure, but I vehemently disagree with Johnson using those restrictions and recommendations as examples of a government suppressing free speech.

More importantly, after Johnson's impassioned statements that the No Kings rallies were a wonderful example of how American freedoms are being protected by this president, he went on to describe the protests as gatherings to express a Hate America agenda. Now, certainly, he has a right to his opinion, but when a government official, in fact, the man who is third in line to the presidency, states openly that people who disagree with his political viewpoint hate our country, that is not an example of defending our Constitutional rights. Worse, it gives tacit approval for those who agree with him to justify any type of violent counter protest or activity against those America Hating people. 

Even further, Johnson also likes to couch his rhetoric as a reflection of God's will, as if he has a direct line to the mind of the Almighty. The fact that, perhaps, some people believe that God is encouraging them to attend No Kings protests today, doesn't enter his mind. Or that their understanding of the founders very specific desires to cut ties with England and its King, may be driving them to the streets today.

Lastly, and most importantly, most of the people protesting today, not only don't hate America, they love America, or at least what their perceptions of what America was and could be again, without Donald J. Trump in the White House.

Johnson completely whiffs on his interpretation of these protests, as the reality is, Americans only engage in public displays of their opinions because they love America. Those that don't vote, or don't care, or think their actions won't matter, stay at home. 

Mr Johnson, we don't hate America but we do hate what America is becoming under the leadership of Trump. Perhaps someday you will be able to understand that attacks against Trump's cruel policies emanate from a love of America and what she can be, as the vast majority of people who will be chanting NO KINGS believe.

As promised then, and in response to an acquaintance who asked me why I don't like Trump, here is my list, in no particular order, as is my First Amendment right to express.

- Executive order declaring that trans people are not people which is resulting in them being kicked out of the military and being denied health care, among other things 

- Firing of DOJ lawyers who worked on cases with Jack Smith. This action, remaking the DOJ with people who will do his bidding reached a new low in the last few weeks when he replaced the US Attorney in eastern Virginia with one of his personal lawyers, an insurance lawyer, to boot, who promptly indicted James Comey and Tish James, after the previous DOJ attorney, a longtime Republican, failed to do so, citing a lack of credible evidence

- Targeting FBI agents who investigated and helped prosecute January 6th criminals. Also, those who were photographed kneeling during some of the George Floyd protests

- Pardoning the January 6th criminals, en masse, even those who admitted to beating up police officers, even those who were caught on tape battering those officers and vandalizing the Capitol building

- Threatening Canada, Greenland, Panama

- Selling out Ukraine, favoring Russia, although this assertion needs context. I think the real issue is Trump will never forgive Zelensky for not investigating Biden, and, of course, Trump has a serious bromance with Putin, so in some ways, this is more about supporting his buddy, and dissing an entire nation of people because he has a grudge against their leader

- Similar to above, attaching a huge tariff against Brazil because their legislative and judicial branches had more guts than ours, as they indicted and jailed their ex-president when he tried to remain in power illegally, a man who supported Trump

- Treating the two plus million Palestinians as so much garbage, due in part to his deep seated racism, but also due to his love affair with strongmen who have no qualms about killing large sums of people to remain in power

- Executive order altering birth right citizenship. Punishing children for the sins of their parents, as un-Christian an act as you will ever see a president enact, not to mention in violation of the Constitution.

- Freezing monies already approved by the previous Congress. Again, unconstitutional as Congress has the power of the purse, allegedly.

- Tariffs against virtually every country in the world, many for no reason other than a personal like or dislike of their leaders (see above for Brazil), some in direct violation of his own treaties (like for Canada and Mexico), some with vague references to trade imbalances that are justified with a calculation that is unrealistic at best, nonsensical at worse, but all, bordering on unconstitutional considering that they all represent a tax on American businesses and consumers, which, again is supposed to be within the purview of Congress

- Attacks on the federal work force. Although his attack dog, Elon Musk has retreated from Washington DC with his tail between his legs, OMB head Russel Vought has famously said that he wants all federal workers to be afraid of losing their jobs. As this attack of public service continues, it may very well take a generation before Americans regain the belief that serving their country is a noble cause, and worth the sacrifice in monetary compensation

- Deporting people without due process. Again, perhaps unconstitutional, but certainly not in keeping with America's lofty sense of justice and fairness

- Allowing DOGE to access sensitive data. We really don't know how this may transpire, but should there be a massive breach of taxpayer and citizen data, there should be no surprise if the source was allowing people loyal to Musk, not America, gain access to government data bases

- Ending USAID programs. Many Americans most likely don't care about this atrocity since so many have bought into the selfishness mantra of America First, but it will result in the death of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or people across the globe, especially children. So much for a kinder, gentler hand

- Revoked legal status for migrants who used the CBP One App to apply for asylum. Again, probably flying under the radar, but this extremely mean policy basically said, too bad if you followed the law before, the law has changed. Talk about pulling the rug out from under someone. I would imagine no American would stand for being told they were being arrested for committing an act, in the past, that used to be legal, but isn't now, but when "those" people are described as invaders and criminals, we fail to be outraged

- Scrubbing federal data bases of references of "woke" subjects and references, such as war heroes that were black, or the name of the airplane that dropped the atomic bomb on Japan (Enola Gay), and, of course, any reference to climate change

- Revoking student visas, and rejecting apps for students applying to American colleges if they have expressed any opinions that the administration doesn't like. So much for freedom of expression

- Executive order boosting coal. So ridiculous, it's hard to fathom such a backwards action

- Extortion of law firms and universities. At first, this one was working. But now it seems that there is some unity, at least among the academic world, to resist trading federal dollars for how they develop their curriculum, who they hire, who the admit into their schools, etc, although the business community is still all in on capitulating to Trump's demands, this being most recently displayed at the White House when a bunch of rich corporate types wrote checks to Trump to pay for his ballroom.

- Firing and take over of the Kennedy center board as well as attacking the independence of the Smithsonian

- Firing of a slew of inspector generals whose very job is to find fraud, waste and abuse. This act in particular demonstrated how much of a fraud was that whole exercise played out by Musk and Trump. Musk wanted to neuter many of the federal departments that oversaw his business interests, and Trump just wanted to eliminate any oversight into his criminal activity

- Hiring of a bunch of Fox personalities. When asked by a Trump supporter why that bothered me, I asked them how they would feel if Biden had recruited from CNN and MSNBC to fill some important posts in his administration. It seemed like that individual hadn't considered that could happen, didn't seem to think about such a possibility when defending Trump's Fox obsession. Not to mention his naming people like Linda McMahon and Kristi Noem for important cabinet posts. Perhaps all those attacks on DEI are correct, there must have been a white male somewhere with more experience to run such important departments

- Blowing up boats and killing people in contradiction of international law, and providing no evidence or proof to support the action. The fact that the admiral in charge of that area recently resigned, may indicate that there is no real proof, just Trump and Hegseth flexing their manliness, while Congress completely abdicates their constitutional obligation of oversight, and consent

Amazingly, that is not even close to a full list of things that have made me conclude that America is in decline, as I have stated so many times, or that Americans have lost their way. 

Shock and Awe to such an extant that it is too hard, too sad, to keep track of all the horrendous actions being taken, becoming normal, due to the lack of any accountability for Trump.

As I said in the post referred to above, I don't know if protests, even massive ones, are enough. I still envision that some type of violence, real or provoked, will enable Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act, or some other form of martial law and that an America citizen will be killed by a national guardsmen or soldier during one of Trump's deployments. The fact that it will almost certainly happen in a blue state, will be no surprise.

And, with all the active gerrymandering going on in red and blue state legislatures, even the 2026 and 2028 elections may not matter, may not reflect the will of the people, or the fact that at least 60, perhaps as much as 65% of Americans are not happy with this administration.

If it all results in some type of performative election, as they have in Hungary and Russia, places whose leaders Trump admires most, then maybe we will have the ultimate example of a breach from our Constitution, the election of someone who is not only not allowed to run, but is unqualified and unpopular, but who holds all the cards, as he likes to reference.

I guess time will tell, but in the meantime

The decline continues.   

 

 

Jane Goodall and the Warrior Ethos

After reading about the great military meeting that took place a few weeks ago, as ordered by Defense Secretary Hegseth, I planned to post some comments. 

But then the death of Jane Goodall was announced and an out of the box kind of thought seeped into my head about combining my thoughts about the two into one post.

Not sure if it will work, but here goes.

First, in order of importance, Jane Goodall.  

If you would like to read a really nice tribute, and summary, of Jane Goodall's life, paste and copy the link below. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/2025/10/jane-goodall-fame-research-conservation/684433/?utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20251002&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&lctg=67f130672e8e571a90087893&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Dail 

Jane Goodall was born the same year as my mother, 1934. I say this because I did not realize this until seeing it stated in the above article, and in the various obits that appeared after she died. 

Why does this matter to me? I guess because I am continually amazed at the accomplishments by women of this era, those born in the 1930's and early 1940's, who were attempting to continue the legacy of those brave and forward looking women who lobbied, and sacrificed, for the right to vote which was finally achieved just a few decades before.

An anecdote which is at the beginning of the article I mention above, relates the story of when Goodall was offered a job by the famed anthropologist, Louis Leakey, to study chimpanzees in Africa, British colonial authorities balked at the idea of a young women being alone in the forest, so her mother offered to go with her. That was in 1960!

Of course, I was only a child when Goodall began her amazing work in the jungles of Africa, but when I learned of her, as a young adult, I thought of her as a young women, not much older than I, even though the age difference was 24 years. I guess I always considered her more of a cohort, in age, than someone of my mom's generation, which makes her career and her influence over the years even more remarkable.

The article also mentions the disdain that many of Goodall's male colleagues had for her work. She treated her subjects with respect, even naming them. To me, that demonstrates the strength of her research, and the humanity as well. She didn't think less of the animals she was studying. 

When she was the first to prove that chimps used tools to retrieve food from tree stumps, and that they had reworked that stick into the tool to help the process, it was ground breaking. To me, that kind of discovery could only be obtained, be open to, by someone who looked at her subjects through the eyes of a humanist, not just a scientist. The very thing that some of her colleagues didn't like about her, groused about her, that lack of scientific training, is the very thing that allowed her to observe without preconceived notions of animal's inferiority to man.

Considering that Darwin's theory of evolution was a hundred years in the past, it's a wonder that so many of the (male) researchers of the day were not able to look at chimps with an eye to finding similarities to humans as opposed to how inferior they were to us.

So it should come as no surprise that Goodall became an advocate for saving the habitat of chimps, and all the animals with which we share this planet. 

Even more than that, Goodall became an advocate for making the world a better place for humans as well. Her organization Roots and Shoots focused on improving the living conditions for those who lived close to and among the animals most in need of protecting, which emanated from her belief that if the people had better sanitation, better living conditions, better ways to grow their own food, they wouldn't need to eat those animals, or clear the land where those animals lived.

Which brings us to Hegseth and his military meeting.

While there was some speculation that he might announce a bunch of firings, it turned out the purpose was to tell the leaders of the United States military, how to do their job. And specifically, how we need to get back to the macho version of the military that an insecure person like Hegseth, and his boss, Trump, deem necessary to demonstrate our collective manliness.

The phrase, "me thinks he doth protest too much" rings loud, considering the president served nary a day in the military due to a medical exception, while Hegseth, after serving, (and I give him credit for that), spent the last ten years railing about how soft the American military has become, by allowing women in combat, investigating sexual harassment claims by women in the military, and promoting women and people of color to positions of authority over any white male.

But even more importantly, so he says, the military has stopped creating and building the warrior ethos that needs to exist, both to scare our adversaries, and to vanquish them in battle.

Now, if I wanted to be sarcastic, I would say that Hegseth spent too much time reading the history of Sparta, or the conquests of the Roman Legionnaires.  Or that he must have really enjoyed those stories about throwing young boys into a pit to fight, as a way to separate the warriors from the weak.

Considering Trump's obsession with having his face on coins and mountains, perhaps they share that fixation on all that is Roman.

Also, if sarcasm was the goal, I might ask if Hegseth and Trump are planning a ground war anytime soon, as it seems that the nature of war, when both sides are adequately armed as is the case for Ukraine vs Russia, has turned to remote attacks via drones, long range missiles, targeted bombings. So, while it is quaint to think of our armed forces as the biggest, baddest men on the block, don't we also need really smart people, even nerds, if you like, to program the technology that is in use today. I certainly don't see a near future with battles featuring hand to hand combat with bayonets drawn, do you?

But let's get to the real danger of Hegseth's philosophy which, I believe, is bad for America, and especially bad for our armed forces.  

First, for the individual soldiers who are attracted to the idea that a warrior ethos makes them a better man, they might want to ask themselves if such an attitude will make them better fathers, husbands, citizens, when their military career ends. 

While a belief system that inspires our soldiers to think, act and lead like warfighters might lead to victory on the battlefield, it hinders the adjustment that veterans face when taking the next hill or killing one's enemy, is no longer a viable coping mechanism when dealing with the daily demands and tribulations of life.

Just ask any of the family members of the 17 veterans who kill themselves every day, a number that is staggeringly higher as a percentage than for non-military people of the same age. 

Or perhaps we should look to the number of veterans that are homeless in America, a number that has decreased in the last few years, thankfully, but is still indicative of a group of Americans that struggle to cope once outside the military.

Do we really think that making them emotionless warriors who are trained to kill without thinking, will provide them with a better mindset when dealing with noisy children, a daily routine that is less than exciting, various family members who may disagree with them, or any of the innumerable problems that face us everyday where violence is not the solution?

Hegseth wants a strong army, fine, but he seems to think that the soldiers who make up that army are plastic soldiers that can be replaced with a new batch when they become worn, or weak.

Of course, for a man who has a history of treating women like play toys, again, like his boss, perhaps that is consistent. 

Even worse, America is also a victim of such thinking, as this administration seems to think that being the bully of the globe will make everyone else respect us more, and do what we want. Like the tariff chaos that is ongoing, Trump has forgotten the kindergarten lesson that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Perhaps I am wrong, but the bullies I encountered in my life, whether as a child or an adult, did not earn my respect. Perhaps fear, but not respect. And certainly not a desire to see them succeed. So it should come as no surprise that this America first selfishness that goes hand in hand with "my way or the highway" is driving our traditional allies away. 

Or perhaps Hegseth and Trump think that "turn the other cheek" and "treat others as you would want to be treated" are too woke for their world view of warrior ethos.

I truly believe that most Americans would prefer that we treat our fellow Americans, as well as the other 8 billion people who share our planet, as Jane Goodall engaged with the primates she lived with and studied. That we should hold out an open hand to help rather than a closed fist to hurt.

Unfortunately, I also believe that many Americans, perhaps more than half, are on board with treating our enemies inhumanely. That all is fair in war, including killing civilians, bombing schools and hospitals, stealing children from their homes, because, well, I guess because that is what they would do to us. 

And, if there is one thing that Trump is superior at, it is telling us who we should hate, who we should consider less than human, who is out to get us. 

Whether it is the people in the boats that he is blowing up in defiance of international law, or the two million Palestinians that he thinks should be killed, or moved, or starved, or the immigrants who come here to seek a better life but are from a country that isn't white enough, or the federal workers who don't kiss his ring, whether they be in the DOJ or FBI, or any department that democrats like, or the countless number of Americans who love America but despise how Trump is remaking our country, Trump has an endless list of those we should hate, and consequently treat as if they were less than human.

So sad that people like Hegseth and Trump talk about America first yet enact policies that place Americans last. Even sadder that people who are on board with such cruelty, claim to be Christians as well.

And so the decline continues.