Alison Bechdel

I have been accessing the Chester County Library System these last few months, "holding" books from other libraries in the system so that they can be transferred to my local library in Spring City. 

A few weeks ago, I picked up two books, one from a writer I have already mentioned, Elaine Pagels, about which I posted earlier this month, and a book by Alison Bechdel.

Bechdel is an American cartoonist who began documenting the life of herself and her friends in a comic strip known as "Dykes to Watch Out For" in the 1980's. The book I borrowed was titled "The Essential Dykes to Watch Out For", a compilation of various episodes from her long running strip. 

To say that Bechdel's efforts was/is groundbreaking is a monumental understatement. Besides creating one of the first representations of lesbians in pop culture, she helped popularize the Bechdel test which established a measure used to assess the representation of women in fiction, especially in film, the application of which clearly demonstrated the lack of women and their relationships in media. 

To pass the test, the film needed to feature at least two female characters who have a conversation about something other than a man. A bar seemingly low enough, but one which was not eclipsed very often.

"Dykes..." on the other hand bombards us with the details of the relationships between the mostly female characters, in addition to their political and social opinions. A perspective not common in the vast majority of movies, and frankly, history itself. 

In addition to this unique viewpoint, reading the compilation took me down memory lane, as all the critical issues since the 1980's were discussed, protested against, worried about, and survived, if even only barely.

In some ways, I was humbled, as Bechdel's characters most often act upon their strong beliefs. They go to rallies, form discussion groups, conference with others with similar ideals, and, of course, still manage to hold down jobs, pay their bills, establish long term relationships (even marry when finally legal to do so), and raise children.

They confront the establishment and the forces that try to prevent them from living their fullest lives, while living those lives despite their own character flaws. This is particularly demonstrated by the character Mo who is certainly a reflection of the author, but not immune to having her faults displayed in living color.

What struck me hardest however, was the simple fact that so many of the obstacles that Bechdel's alter egos faced, have not changed all that much. While it is true that the gay community is more widely accepted, the trans community is now the target of the same discrimination which hampered gay and lesbian people forty years ago. 

Even worse, the political situation surrounding the continued capitulation by Congress of its legislative and oversight duties, has worsened with the current administration. Today's Congress is even more spineless than before.

While I can't imagine how Mo, Ginger, Tina, Lois, Harriet, Clarice, Sparrow, etc would navigate the problems we face today, I am confident that they would be in the streets with their No Kings signs, and on the front lines protesting the assault on our environment.

I posted this under the label Equality, a label I have only used twice before. Below is a link to one of those, from early 2017. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/02/rudy-and-selflessness-of-majority.html

My biggest take away from "Essential Dykes..." is that Bechdel opened a window into a lifestyle that was unknown to me, while confirming my belief that the people within that community shared the same values, fears, and goals as myself and my family. 

But also, just like in the movie Rudy referred to above, it is only by association with those that are perceived to be different can we truly achieve the ideal of "all men are created equal". 

While I am not privy to Bechdel's reasoning for her comic strip, I would like to think that she wanted to demonstrate how many ways in which the gay/lesbian community was like the straight community, while also depicting some traits that made them different as well, traits not just related to which gender attracted them.

It is a point of view that we seem to have lost in America today, replaced by the emphasis on how we are different, who is more different, and the attachment of blame in conjunction to how those differences can be emphasized. 

Polarization on steroids.

And so the decline continues. 

  

Cruelty, and Shortsightedness

Back in May, I posted the following opinion concerning the intent of the Trump Administration in its dealings with, well, everyone. In it, I acknowledge that I was a bit surprised, not at the blatant cruelty exhibited by Trump's MAGA policies, not even at the admission by him and many of his acolytes who openly state that making it uncomfortable for illegal immigrants to remain in America is the point, but by the overt cruelty being shown to Americans, whether they work in the federal workforce, or identify as transgender, or merely disagree with the current administration's policies.

Trump, along with people like Tom Homan, Stephen Miller and Russel Vought, have no qualms about treating people, Americans or otherwise, with disdain and inhumanity in the name of their ideology. They are as far from Christians as one can be without actually wearing a swastika. 

As I have said a number of times in past posts, I no longer wonder why everyday Germans allowed, even participated in the attempted genocide of the Jewish people, as we are seeing, first hand, how millions of people who believe they will spend eternity in heaven, are OK with allowing the most vulnerable in our country, and around the globe, to suffer and die. 

Here is a link to that post about cruelty. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2025/03/cruelty-is-point.html

I originally was going to title this post Cruelty, and Stupidity, but thought I would soften it, a bit, in hopes that some who might have not read it, choose to read it.

So, again, I am mortified at the cruelty of so many of Trump's MAGA policies. But this kind of disagreement might be considered emanating from, and evoking deep emotions.

But they are also, from a rational, or logical viewpoint, shortsighted, or stupid, if I may be so bold, for a number of reasons.

Take tariffs. A tariff is a tax on an imported good which is designed to raise revenue, or equalize the cost of the same product when manufactured in the home country, or to influence trade policies between countries. 

The tax is paid for by the importer, which, unless that business decides to absorb the additional cost, is passed along to the consumer. Now, if all or most of that tax is passed along, everyday people pay more for the same product, leading to higher inflation, at least until a domestic manufacturer can match that new price, which won't necessarily equate to a lower price, but could result in more jobs at home. This seems to be the point of Trump's trade war, to bring jobs back to America.

But at the same time, he publicly reprimands, or threatens, any business that chooses to pass along that tax, which will not make the product more expensive, but which will also not incentivize a company to move the creation of that product back home. 

At that point, the revenue becomes the point, which is fine, but it also means that either the business paying the tariff has to sacrifice profitability, and most likely job expansion, or will be forced to pass along the cost due to pressure from stockholders, creating inflation.

As for attaining better trade pacts, again, certainly a laudable goal, but Trump's proposed tariff rates are not a reaction to high tariffs by our trading partners, but due to trade imbalances. America is the largest buyer of goods in the world which has created a dynamic in the business world in which providing the goods and services we demand, at an affordable price, is accomplished by seeking the cheapest labor costs, either by moving jobs to the Southern states of America, or more commonly, offshore.

I can remember many business people bragging about increasing the standard of living in poorer countries by their moving manufacturing to those places. It was a win-win, cheaper products for Americans, better profits for the business community. Heck, I worked for a small business from 2000-2008 which imported over 90% of our product from China. During the busy season, we had upwards of 40 people in the office and warehouse. It was a small business, began in a garage, that was built into a profitable company that provided a living wage to dozens of Americans. The American dream, or at least a piece of it.

All because the labor market in China enabled sporting goods to be manufactured, and shipped to America, at a price that was competitive with other sporting goods wholesalers. And, again, this practice was defended by conservatives as good for everyone, as it is certainly true that poverty levels in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, etc, were reduced through these efforts.

And, lets not forget that the vast amount of MAGA paraphernalia is made overseas.

So, if Trump wants to remake the global supply chain, that is certainly his prerogative, having been elected again, but it can not possibly happen without higher prices for the American consumer, and perhaps even a lower standard of living for all those overseas workers who are no longer employed, in addition to Americans who will not have the same purchasing power during the transition. 

So, on one hand, he can't brag about revenue while pretending that the revenue isn't paid for by the American consumer, then tout his trade agreements as negotiating strategies to bring manufacturing jobs back when those pacts are dependent on businesses whose only concern is going to be where they can get a guarantee of stability in trade policy. They won't make 3 and 5 year plans to build plants in America, with Trump's on again, off again, pattern. Let alone his recent tendency of TACO.

Plus, and let's not forget this detail, executive orders to raise and lower tariffs are considered unconstitutional. The court cases are still in motion. So again, does a forward looking corporation take a chance on a multi-billion dollar investment with a completion date in 2027 or 2028, when, in the meantime, these tariffs may be ruled to be an executive overreach, illegal, in other words, or, taken off the table, should there be an election in 2026 and the Dems win the House, or in 2028, should Trump actually leave the White House?

For me though, the greatest example of shortsightedness by the Trump Administration is its attempt to deport a few million people in the next few years when we consider that our birth rate is declining at the same time that our county is aging, and retiring. We need more workers, not less, yet Trump is deporting the very people, immigrants, who have formed the backbone of the American workforce for generations.

So, while AI may replace some jobs with robots, we will still need people willing to work in the lower paid jobs that have always been filled by newly arrived people to our country, while also needing more advanced skills for those who remain in the workforce. 

Which highlights another, and I will call it stupid, Trump focus, which is to make life miserable for young people who have student loan debt, while also discouraging our teenagers to attend college by reducing and eliminating programs which offset the costs.

At this point, there are actual times when Trump or one of his talking heads actively discourages young Americans from attending college. Can you imagine that, advocating for less educated people? I guess when the demographics of those who vote for you consists of a high percentage of voters without a college degree, it might make sense. But to pretend that such a shift away from college is good for America, let alone the businesses who require future workers with advanced knowledge, engineers, scientists, etc, not to mention our shortage of nurses and doctors, is foolish, in the extreme.

It is bad enough that young people, 35 years old and under, face difficulties in attaining home ownership and establishing funds for their futures, but to then make it harder for them to afford college, and the still documented economic advantage that a degree provides while also making student loan payments harsher, and eliminating public service forgiveness programs, is again, incredibly myopic. 

Speaking of public service, again, why would any young person seek such a job, considering that attacks on the federal work force. Despite the lie (I should say, another lie) about the evil deep state propagated by Trump and his allies, we will always need people to work in public service positions knowing the financial compensation is less than similar jobs in the public sector. Yet, the goal seems to be to scare our young men and women from such ideals. Again, no surprise from a person who is completely transactional in everything he does, but one would think that our elected public servants, regardless of party affiliation, would understand and appreciate what these people do for America. 

I certainly understand why the rich rail against IRS agents considering that it is the wealthy who avoid their taxes, to the tune of billions of dollars of uncollected dollars. What surprises me is that everyday voters buy into the lie that the IRS is coming after them, when there are many studies that show that slashing IRS staffing leads to less taxes being collected, generally from the rich who have clever accountants who hide money offshore, and/or use other tricks not available to regular tax payers.

But how does the everyday voter not understand that we need dedicated people to enforce pollution standards, inspect meat packing plants, work as air traffic controllers, audit our nation's books, guarantee fair labor relations, etc, etc, etc. The actual truth is that the federal work force, numerically, did not increase all that much from 1982 to 2023 while the overall population of the country has increased by 100 million people in those 40 years. See link below.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/204535/number-of-governmental-employees-in-the-us/ 

The reality is that we need more dedicated public servants in our federal work force, yet the Trump Project 2025 based philosophy is working against that requirement from both ends, eliminating jobs, in many cases without really knowing what those jobs entail, and discouraging the younger generations from considering those jobs as careers.      

Lastly, and most critically, is Trump's insistence that climate change is a hoax, but even worse, the capitulation of Congress to this ridiculous claim. For those of you still learning about the big, beautiful bill, there are multiple assaults in this area. 

First, the repeated attempts to claw back monies approved and in many cases, promised to businesses and individuals to install and maintain green energy projects, especially wind and solar as well as the elimination of subsidies going forward, even those that make roof top solar arrays less expensive. 

Also, whether merely as a reflection of how much money the fossil fuel industry pumps into our elections, or just because Trump is incapable of understanding how alternate energy sources work, he is doubling down on coal. While I imagine that none of his family will ever find themselves working in a coal mine, he doesn't seem to mind sending mostly red-state Americans to such dirty, dangerous jobs. 

So, while the demands on our electric grids continue to expand, he wants to eliminate the industries which have been responsible for the majority of growth in our country's energy creation.

As Forrest would say, "stupid is as stupid does."

In May of 2011, I wrote a story called The Energy Conundrum. At the time, it was set in the future, in the 2030's, a time not that far off as I type this today. It is the story of American shortsightedness as related to energy. Too bad our elected leaders didn't heed its message then, even sadder that Trump, the GOP, and millions of my fellow citizens are blind to its message today. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2011/05/energy-conundrum.html 

 

 

Oppenheimer

I finally watched the Oppenheimer movie that came out last year. Even though there was a lot of hype about it, "greatest movie of the century" etc, I enjoyed it more than I expected.

If you haven't seen it, and are planning to do so, you may not want to read this post as I will dive into the film. 

First, I hadn't remembered, or noticed, who was in the movie, so I was pleasantly surprised a number of times when I realized that Emily Blunt portrayed Kitty Oppenheimer, Matt Damon played General Grove, Gary Oldman was President Truman, and Robert Downey Jr depicted Lewis Strauss, in addition to others who had lesser roles, such as Tom Conti, Josh Hartnett, Rami Malek, Kenneth Branaugh and Casey Affleck. In many cases, I did not recognize the actor, the make-up and character they portrayed overriding the preconceived image of them in my head.

It was truly remarkable, just from this perspective.

More importantly though, the movie presented a story in which the main character, J. Robert Oppenheimer, is a flawed hero, a story line which I truly enjoy. And, to me, one which is far more true to life than the infantile perceptions that seem to permeate our society today, whether be about our founders, our country, or our current leadership. 

I've called this out, even in terms of glorifying the messenger for the message in the case of those who have brought us advanced spiritual lessons, but it is much more overt when people pretend that the founders were connected to the Divine, or that nothing bad has ever happened in America due to our special place in the Creator's eyes, or that every statement and action by our current president must be for the good of Americans just because of his constant statements to that effect and his red hat.

While I recognize that Hollywood alters reality to tell a good tale, I assume that Oppenheimer's struggles with his relationships, and his discipline in terms of the actual, scientific work in which he engaged, are relatively accurate. Certainly, it is true that he was a complicated person, someone who could seemingly listen to and argue for both sides of a debate with equal aplomb. 

As the movie progressed, he seemed wishy-washy at times, jettisoning what appeared to be a strong belief without concern if a new perspective, or influence, on that issue allowed him to move forward with his goal. 

After effectively leading the wide spread teams that eventually created the atomic bomb, an event that the vast majority of Americans at the time thought was justified, despite the horrific loss of life both at the time of the bombing and in the years afterward due to radiation poisoning, Oppenheimer lost his security clearance, along with his job and standing in the scientific community, because his reluctance to fully advocate for the development of the H-bomb, and his insistence that the technology be shared with our allies, in particular Russia, was interpreted as disloyalty to America.

The fact that one of the scientists that he recruited for the Manhattan Project, was indeed a spy for Russia, didn't help his cause, especially with the influence of Joseph McCarthy and his Red Scare tactics that drove hundreds of Americans out of government work, even civilian work in some cases, merely because they had at one time been affiliated with the American Communist Party, or associated with people who did. In Oppenheimer's case, his brother and sister-in-law, his early lover (Jean Tatlock), and even Kitty, his wife, were all at one time, registered members of that party, although, he, while making monetary donations, did not officially join.

It was so bad that in one of the more critical and shameful scenes during his security clearance hearing, General Grove, the man who had chosen Oppenheimer to be in charge of the testing and development of the A-bomb, was asked if he would clear Oppenheimer today, with the new guidelines that presumably included references to past associations with communists. Grove admitted he would not, based on the current protocols, while also expressing his belief that Oppenheimer was loyal to America, then and now. It appears that Grove is pained to admit this, knowing that such a technicality might have produced a different result without Oppenheimer leading the program.

Would America still have mastered the technology that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki without Oppenheimer's leadership and inquisitive mind? Probably. Would we still have achieved that goal before the Germans? Less probably. 

Yet, less than ten years later, Oppenheimer loses his security clearance precisely because that same inquisitive mind was able to entertain and discuss different political and economic systems with his friends and family. 

It is this kind of myopic thinking that seems so prevalent in America today, and not just in the GOP. I read an interesting article about the success of Zohran Mamdani in the recent New York City Democratic primary for mayor. The article referred to an alliance between Mamdani and Brad Lander, two people with very different perspectives on the Israel-Hamas war. Yet they were able to focus on those things they had in common, rather than that one issue so that due to the primary using ranked voting, each man encouraged his followers to rank the other second, and/or not rank ex-Governor Cuomo at all. As a result, Mamdani's seven point lead after first votes were counted almost doubled when second and third ranked votes were included in the final tally. 

It is a lesson the extremes in both parties need to heed but especially the Democrats, as it is clear that millions of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 stayed home in 2024, while the GOP rallies behind everything Trump says and does, even when they have a history of disagreeing with a particular issue. While I might call that being spineless, it is politically effective, which, in the end, is the basis for a coalition's success. Disagree on the details, but always vote in unison when it matters.

Clearly, the absurd sway of McCarthy in the mid-50's in America, had it occurred in the mid-40's, might have resulted in a completely different ending to WW2 because McCarthy was all about one issue, rooting our communists, regardless of how that process was employed. All or nothing, no deviance.

What is even more interesting, is that in many ways, Oppenheimer was correct in his calls for cooperation and transparency with Russia, in terms of nuclear proliferation, rather than an all out arms war. While many in America might conclude that it was Russia that folded, and that both countries respected the MAD doctrine, even while accumulating enough nuclear weapons to obliterate the world hundreds of times over, it is also true that seven additional countries now possess nuclear weapons, and that others may soon join the list. 

Would things have been different had the adversarial relationship been replaced with one of cooperation and trust? The realist would say no, precisely because America and Russia did not trust each other despite the simple fact that for 80 years we have trusted them to not start a nuclear war, and vice-versa. 

As the movie progressed, Oppenheimer seemed to regret his decision to help unleash the nuclear age, not because he didn't realize it would happen with or without him, and not because he didn't believe in its use, but because he didn't trust governments, and the men who ran them, to grasp the obvious; a nuclear war is not winnable. The movie portrays his struggle with his place in history as someone who thought that once used, any sane person would realize that such power should never be used militarily again. 

Sadly, if we are to believe those who rant that Iran must never get a nuclear weapon, even if we have to bomb the hell out of them, because they will use it at once, then Oppenheimer's regret is proven. Even more so because should Iran develop a nuclear weapon and deploy it, should cooler heads not prevail, and I have zero faith in our current president to reflect such restraint, then the even more absurd proposition that a nuclear war is winnable could be tested. 

In a pivotal scene with Einstein, after WW2 was over and Oppenheimer was still riding high on his fame, there is a discussion between the men that the Downey Jr character had interpreted as the beginning of the campaign by Oppenheimer to turn all the important scientists against him. In reality, the conversation was more a reflection on how awards can sometimes indicate the end of one's career and influence, but mostly two men who knew that their work in physics had fundamentally changed the world, yet whether it was for the better or worse, was still up for debate.

Finally, towards the end of the movie, Kitty admonishes him for believing his one-time brilliance in helping America end the war against Japan, would give him carte blanche to say and do whatever he wished. It is sad that she was right although I don't think Oppenheimer ever really learned that lesson.  

 

Gnostic Gospels

As I have mentioned before, I began a subscription to The Atlantic a few months ago. In addition to the emails I receive daily with incredibly interesting articles by talented writers, I have received three monthly magazines to date. 

In the May edition, I was introduced to Elaine Pagels through a book review; The Atlantic has a few book reviews in each issue.

Pagels is an American historian of religion. She has conducted extensive research into the origins and history of Christianity, as well as Gnosticism, and so has written many books concerning these topics.

Gnostic Gospels is one such book, and the one which I recently read.

First, anyone who has read my posts, knows that I am a lapsed Catholic. While I admire and attempt to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (see my literary effort called An Atheist For Christ), I do not believe in the two most basic tenets of Catholicism, that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died and rose from the dead to enable us sinners to gain eternity in heaven.

While it is possible that I had encountered Gnostic teachings at some point in my life, I never identified as a Gnostic, per se, although I have, at times, associated with being an agnostic, which, as I have now come to realize, is not the same as Gnosticism.

In December, 1945, an astonishing archeological discovery was made in Upper Egypt at a place called Nag Hammadi. Within an earthen jar buried some 1500 years earlier, were Coptic translations of even earlier manuscripts written in Greek. As research into this discovery continued, it became clear that the Nag Hammadi scrolls revealed gospels written in the first few hundred years after the life and death of Jesus. Further, these gospels were suppressed by the Church, as control of the direction of Christianity eventually favored an interpretation of Christ's life that these gospels did not support. 

In essence, these gospels represented a strain of Christianity that was popular in the first few centuries after Christ's death. They detail the main differences in the Gnostic version as compared to what we now know as the core tenants of Catholicism. 

To me, while it may seem obvious that any organization or belief system had to evolve from something, and that such evolution would have included cast aside beliefs, it is revealing to learn of some of those differences. I imagine it is part of Pagel's desire to research such debates as they reveal the arguments and disagreements of those early Christians, especially those people who dictated the direction of the Church, and the real meaning and lessons of Christ's life.

Again, to be clear, Pagels is a historian, someone who has spent much of her life teaching about and researching the origins of Christianity. She does not place value judgements on the competing interpretations of the meaning of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth, but instead presents those disparate explanations in the light of how those who believed them, who preached them, advocated for the advancement and fundamental tenets of Catholicism.

Her book Gnostic Gospels, portrays those clashes as the literal battle for the direction and structure of the future Church, as well as the foundational beliefs that would be passed along concerning the life and lessons of Jesus.

Of course, as a Catholic indoctrinated into the "winning" side of that battle, Gnostic beliefs were never communicated, or if mentioned, were done so as heretical beliefs to avoid, and condemn.

As I mentioned above, the requirement that humanity needs to be saved as a result of original sin has often bothered me. Here is the post I wrote on that subject subject in late 2023.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/original-sin.html 

So, again, in 1945 these scrolls are found that reveal multiple gospels, such as The Gospel of  Thomas, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, the Gospel to The Egyptians, The Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Apocalypse of Peter, and many more, upwards of fifty two texts. All from the early centuries of the Christian era.

The book is very detailed, comparing quotes and details of events from one of these "discovered" gospels as compared to the four more recognized gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like the witness statements that often occur among multiple people in the aftermath of an historic event, these Gnostic Gospels discuss the same or similar events as those in the New Testament, but with differing interpretations and/or translations of the languages of the time. 

Remember, anything written about the life of Jesus was written in long dead languages that have been translated, a few times, as language has evolved in the past 2,000 years.

The book can be hard to get through, not due to esoteric discussions, but because Pagels knows her subject so well, and provides umpteen instances where the current, accepted version and interpretation of the life of Jesus, is not the accepted interpretation of the Gnostic gospels. 

Additionally, Pagels names names, literally those people who drove the discussions, and who made the choices that placed the Gnostic gospels outside the accepted dogma of the Church.

Pagels also elaborates on just why it was inevitable that the gnostics would lose the battle, as they emphasized the ability for knowledge, attained through individual searching, over the necessity of a structure with a hierarchy of authority, pope, bishops, pastors, etc, from whom the lessons of Christ's teachings needed to be learned and explained.

Again, for me, someone with a fairly strong anti-authority streak, the Gnostic interpretation seems more relevant, and attractive.

Whether that tendency touches on pride, and the danger of automatic rejection of anything that emanates from an authority figure, sort of like an advanced two year old who says No without thinking, well that is a different issue.

The discoveries at Nag Hammadi.

I assume I have never heard of these texts before because I did not spend my due diligence in researching my Catholic heritage in those days when I began to question its tenets, and/or because my source of such information would have been the hierarchy which suppressed those texts to begin with. Regardless, I am glad to have had this Aha moment, and grateful that Pagels has spent so much of her time in trying to understand, and communicate the origins of the religion to which I was born.   

I've written under the topic of religion many times. Two posts, link provided below, were the result of letters to the editor which were published in our local newspaper, back in 2010.

 https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2010/04/our-christian-founders.html

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

Finally, I reread a post from 2018 that was recently accessed by someone. It was not labeled under the "religion" banner, but it certainly reflects a morality, a social morality, that we seem to be getting further and further away from. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2018/05/individual-vs-group-success.html  

  

Iran Bombing

So we have bombed Iran and severely limited their ability to create a nuclear weapon. Now what?

Before beginning this post, I read a number of articles about the decision to execute the plan, about the evidence for and against the premise that Iran was "weeks away" from achieving the capability to create a nuclear bomb, and the possible ramifications of our intervention, militarily, at this time.

Like most Americans, those opinions were overwhelmingly in favor of the President's decisive action, while also expressing admiration for our military's impressive ability to execute such an elaborate plan without (apparently) the Iranians knowing what was imminent. There were even decoy planes!

And, while we know that Iran will respond in some way, perhaps by missile attacks on the various American bases in the area as was already done, or by strangling the flow of oil through the Straight of Hormuz, or simply by activating its proxies to engage in small, but deadly assaults on Americans, tourists, military personnel, business interests, etc, we hope that both sides are content with "appropriate" responses, as opposed to ones which escalate the situation.

Of course, how Americans and our president define "appropriate" on the part of Iran, and then by us should one of their efforts result in the loss of American life, is hardly predictable.

Unfortunately, that is a big problem, the idea that America, in general, and Trump in particular, have a say in how Iran reacts to being attacked. Certainly, if America was the victim of an unprovoked air raid on our infrastructure, we would not give a hoot how our enemies graded our response, yet we maintain the assumption that we have a right to evaluate Iran's response as appropriate or not.

This, of course, is nothing new. America has been arrogant in our relations with our friends and rivals for decades, and even more so since Trump's appearance on the political scene.

Still, again, just to be clear, President Trump accomplished something that every president since Reagan has wanted to do, but did not, and not because they were concerned about achieving the goal of hampering or destroying Iran's nuclear weapon goals, but because they were worried about what might have happened afterwards. 

Whether Trump calculated that Iran was at its weakest after the last week of missile strikes by Israel, as well as the dozens of assassinations of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, in addition to the fall of the Assad government in Syria, which created the perfect opportunity to strike, or whether he believes that "strength through superior power" is the only mantra that a country which possesses the greatest military on the planet should follow, he didn't hesitate, nor did he "run it up the flagpole" for consent or advice by informing our allies, or the other side of the aisle (there is some evidence that a few GOP Congressmen were informed).

Or perhaps because his birthday bash was overshadowed by the five million or so No Kings" protests which occurred the same day, and so he approved the attack to win back the narrative. 

Whatever the reason, he acted strongly, with the certainty that he was right, no doubt.

Clearly a trait which Americans respect, and, to be honest, one which I wish more Democrats would emulate.

But was he right?

The premise for our military action is that Iran, should they develop a nuclear weapon, will immediately use it against the West, most likely Israel, but also, possibly, the Great Satan, America.

We have been told this for decades, so much so that it is a given among most people, those with the knowledge of Iranian thinking and the rest of us who hear it over and over and over again.

And why wouldn't we believe it when it is simple enough to google speeches by the various Iranian mullahs and leaders who call for the destruction of Israel and America, and easy enough to find videos of Iranians burning American flags while chanting death to America as they march in the streets.

Of course, we are also told that North Korea would use their nuclear weapons if provoked, as they are certainly no friend of the West. And, the country with the largest number of nuclear warheads, Russia, has often threatened the use of their arsenal if certain events occur. Plus, the always-at-each-other countries of India and Pakistan have nuclear capability, yet have not used them against each other, despite their constant bickering and aggression towards each other.

https://www.icanw.org/nuclear_arsenals

And, finally, we have the only country in history to have actually deployed a nuclear weapon on a civilian target, twice, the United States of America.

Would Iran actually use their weapon if they develop one? It is clearly an act which would result in their own destruction. Still, I am in no position to know for sure. Perhaps the end of the world would work for them as they may sincerely believe that something akin to the rapture would result in their salvation. But that is not dissimilar to some evangelicals who seem all to eager for the end times, some who actually believe that Trump is here to accomplish such an event.

The question then is, would the concept of MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, that has, allegedly, kept America and Russia from lobbing warheads at each others' cities, not be in effect for Iran? And if so, why not?

There is a Sting song, called "Russians" in which he hopes that deploying a nuclear weapon would be "such an ignorant thing to do, if the Russians love their children too". 

Do we not believe that Iranians love their children any less than the Russians, or Israelis, or those of us who live in America?

We just can't take that chance, is the most common response to such a query. Fortunately, we don't apply that same assumption to the leaders of other countries that fund terrorism around the world, North Korea and Russia to name two. If so, we might have already tested the MAD concept by now.

Additionally, did we actually "obliterate" their ability to create a nuclear weapon, as the president stated in his late night address? 

As of this post, there has not been any radioactivity detected in the areas around the sites which we bombed. Does that mean the enriched plutonium was moved in anticipation of the attack? If nothing else, after a week of air attacks by Israel, there is some sense to thinking that Iran might have moved the fruits of their efforts, along with the scientists who brought them those results. 

Or perhaps they have one, or more, other sites at which their nuclear program has been in development. After all, just because the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had been allowed to inspect the facilities at Natanz, Fordow and Isfahan, doesn't mean the Iranians (who we distrust, correct), don't have another site.

Also, I read a really interesting and enlightening article about the advance of concrete over the past 30 years, specifically in response to the creation of the kind of "bunker busting" bombs used in the recent attack. In a nutshell, as the ability of these bombs to penetrate and destroy underground facilities increased, so did the recipes for concrete to withstand such bombs. In a classic, tit for tat, after each advancement on one side of the equation there was a response to negate it on the other side.

Did Iran have the latest and greatest concrete in place to withstand our current iteration of these large and powerful bombs? If so, and despite the obvious destruction at the sites, it may not take as much time to bring those sites back online, if the actual hardware was not reached.

Regardless of whether the sites were obliterated, badly damaged, or mostly spared due to the advancements in concrete, there will be, must be, negotiations between Iran and the US. 

But to honest, why should either party believe the other, trust the other to negotiate faithfully. To me, that is the big hole in Trump's approach, to frankly, any subject. He expects fear to be the ultimate motivator, and while, I don't necessarily blame him as it has worked for him, most of his life, and certainly works for him in regards to taking over the GOP, there is a limit to how far such a strategy will take you. And, ultimately, a limit to what can be accomplished as, the very first reaction that most people have to being told no, as the parent of any two year old knows, is to do it anyway, to resist. 

So, while it is certainly debatable to believe that an atomic non-proliferation agreement with Iran would be adhered to by Iran, at least we knew of the three sites we bombed because of previous diplomacy.

Now that we have attacked them unilaterally, what chance is there that any future agreement can be reached, or followed if signed. And, if they are able to achieve the ability to create a nuclear weapon in six months or six years, will we have a means towards convincing them to abide by the MAD philosophy, or will they actually use their weapon to enact revenge for the past weeks attacks on their sovereignty. 

At that point, then, will, just bomb them again, be our only option? 

After all, the real purpose of having a nuclear weapon is deterrence, the threat that it would be used if provoked. Isn't that why we maintain thousands of nuclear warheads, to send the message that we can end anyone (and everyone, sadly) if we are pushed? 

What is really ironic is that America has not deployed any nuclear weapons since WW2, even though we were attacked on 9/11. Does that simple fact make our stores of these powerful means of mass destruction a paper tiger? Or, are we just smart enough to know that a nuclear war has no winners. (Although, to be honest, I have little faith that Trump believes this axiom.)   

Finally, I struggle with the idea that America has the right to tell Iran that it can't have a nuclear program, for energy or self defense. We certainly would not tolerate any country telling us what forms of energy to create, what weapons to store, what military capabilities to enhance, yet presume the right to dictate to Iran. 

Why? 

Should Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and use it on Israel, as everyone fears, the consequence would be incomprehensible. Perhaps lead to a nuclear war. Devastation all around, although that destruction would primarily be the result of the USA and Russia launching their warheads.

It would be up to the leaders of America and Russia to decide to take a beat, or reject the tenets of MAD.

Considering that not that long ago, Trump berated Zelensky in the Oval Office, accusing his actions as the potential for a World War would it be ironic, or just typical of an act inspired by power and pride and hatred, should last weekend's attack on Iran prove to be the catalyst to just such horror. 

We can only hope that all three sides, Israel, Iran and America choose the least obvious, most common response to being attacked and hated.

Can you say Love thy neighbor as thyself? 

 

 

 

The Final Reckoning, Perhaps

Nora and I went to see "The Final Reckoning" a couple of weeks ago. For those of you who have not been following the last few Mission Impossible movies, this is supposed to be the last in the series.

First, we enjoyed the movie, although I felt that it was not quite as good as the last two, "Fallout" and "Dead Reckoning".

If you are planning to see the movie, you may want to wait until doing so to read the rest of this post, as I will discuss the ending. Not that it isn't easy to guess the ending of any these movies, as Ethan Hunt always catches the bad guy and/or averts world catastrophe.

One of the reasons I didn't enjoy the movie as much as some of the previous efforts was that I thought there were some moments when the movie plodded along, especially the extended time spent in the submarine.

Also, while so many of the exploits of Ethan and his team seem fantastical, the plan in which Hunt is to be rescued by the rest of the team as he floats in the frigid water under the Arctic ice, a rescue which requires exact timing and loads of luck, seemed unrealistic, again, even for this series of movies. Also, the rescue itself was not really displayed on screen; he is floating, presumably lifeless, underwater one scene then is being given mouth to mouth on an ice floe the next scene.

I mentioned this movie in my last post, in relation to our changing relationship with technology, AI in this case. This highlights another hard-to-believe scenario as we are supposed to accept that the only way to defeat The Entity, as the evil AI technology is called, is to act in a completely unpredictable way as any logical approach, any rational plan, will have already been predicted by The Entity, and therefore been addressed, before it even happens.

There is a bit of uncertainty among Hunt's team, when they wonder if The Entity had allowed Hunt to figure out where the key to disabling it was located, so that it could take it from him thereby eliminating the only plausible way to defeat it, but Hunt is, if nothing, the always positive action hero who believes that by gaining access to the key and allowing the Entity to acquire it is exactly what needs to be done to win the day. 

If The Entity was a person, one might call that playing to its over confidence, or bravado, or pride that no one could possible outsmart it.

In some ways, that could be a nice moral, be careful of technology, or a person, who claims to always know the best path, to always be the smartest person in the room.

When Grace, one of Hunt's teammates, suggests that perhaps they should try to control The Entity, rather than destroy it, I was impressed by Ethan Hunt's response in which he asks her who could be trusted to control such extreme power. I was further impressed when, after she answers, you, he immediately dismisses the thought, hopefully, in recognition that such power should never rest in the hands of any one person. Again, nice lesson considering the rhetoric emanating from the White House.

Sadly though, after a plan that requires Grace to react in the "blink of an eye", about 100 milliseconds, The Entity is captured in a hand held holding devise created by the Luther character, who, unfortunately, dies in the movie before he can witness the success, or failure of the mission.

I say sadly, because the device is given to Ethan Hunt, despite his claim that he didn't want it, and contrary to what everyone in authority is told, that The Entity was destroyed.

Since this is Hollywood, I assume that last scene leaves the possibility of another Final Reckoning in the future.

As I mentioned above, the Luther character dies in the movie. But at the end, there is a message from him to Ethan that he had recorded before he died. It is presented as a message that he made specifically for Ethan, knowing that when it was played he would be dead. It is a message of hope, that he had no doubt that Ethan would prevail because, as sappy as is sounds, he is a good man. Someone who has a history of actions that, at times, created the possibility of large scale death, but which were done to save just one person, often his wife who appears on and off in the series, or one of his teammates.

I took it as the belief, by Luther, that precisely because Ethan would risk many lives to save just one, he always knew that Ethan would prevail. That too many people justified the sacrifice of one, or the few, to save the many, as opposed to fighting with all one's strength to save each and every person because once it is accepted that this person, or those people, can be left to die, it is a short step to playing god and picking and choosing without conscience.

Again, analogous to the current administration's rounding up of all illegal immigrants to catch the really bad ones. It doesn't matter how many innocent lives are ruined in the course of that plan, as long as some criminals are removed from our country. Guilty until proven innocent one would think is not very American, but since when does the current president care about honoring the foundations of our country that has made it great.

Anyway, The Final Reckoning is certainly worth seeing as there are a number of thought provoking lessons that one could discern from the story, despite portions of the plot bordering on the truly impossible. 

 

2001 Revisited

I watched 2001: A Space Odyssey again a few days ago, again. I did a post about this movie back in 2017 which I have provided a link to below.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/01/2001-reflection.html 

That post reflected on my perceived disappointment that those who were involved in that movie, the author of the book, Arthur C. Clarke, etc, but also all those who worked for NASA in the 1960's who were challenged by then President Kennedy to put a man on the moon, and did so, within the decade, must have felt when the actual year 2001 rolled around and the reality of our space age accomplishments were far less than what 2001, the movie, predicted.

I also commented on my personal disappointment that the cooperation between nations that was exhibited in the movie was no where near what we were experiencing in 2017. It was if we had forgotten the lessons of the two World Wars and were back on a path towards isolationism within certain countries and aggression by others via economic and military means.

This time, however, I was struck by the relationship between the astronauts in the movie and the computer, HAL, and how this dynamic has changed astronomically, in the last decades.

One of the lessons of 2001, was that when a computer with advanced logic and thinking skills is told to withhold information from the crew, it becomes paranoid, begins to suspect, in this case its human crew mates, as plotting against it through actions that endanger the mission. 

After a conversation between the two astronauts which occurs out of earshot of HAL, the computer kills the co-pilot during an EV, then turns off the life support machines of the three other crew members who have not been "awakened" yet. When asked why by the remaining human on board, HAL tells him that he was able to lip read that covert conversation, and that it was clear that the humans planned to disconnect him, an action that would clearly endanger their objectives. Remember, HAL has information that is not to be shared with the crew, so it is logical to the computer that the potential actions that the humans discussed were in direct conflict to the goals of the mission.

2001.. was released in 1969, over 55 years ago. While advanced computers with thinking skills were predicted at that time, we were no where near achieving such creations.

While everyone kind of assumed many blue collar jobs in the low wage industries were certainly on the chopping block, there are many who predict that AI, which is already being used to generate everything from college papers to automatic answers to Google queries, will also replace all kinds if white collar jobs in the not too distant future.

So, while our accomplishments in space as portrayed by 2001... are far from reality, the advancements in the science behind it, technology and computing, have produced a computer in everyone's hand (the cell phone), and a low level doctor on many wrists. 

My wife and I saw the last installment of the Mission Impossible movies a couple of weeks ago. (I plan to do my next post on that topic). Without taking anything from that post, the nemesis in this last movie is The Entity, a force which emerged in the previous Mission Impossible movies.

As in 2001.., the Terminator series, among others, the Final Reckoning portrays advanced AI abilities as a threat to humanity. Like Frankenstein's monster, we create a tool which is supposed to help us in some way, but we lose control over it and it becomes a threat.

I wonder if the current anti-science vein that has resulted in attacks on the various institutions that are science based, is tied, in part, to this fear. Certainly, vaccines that have been documented to have saved millions of lives in the last 100 years, are now being questioned, even condemned, as being unsafe, not just by those on the fringes of our society, but by some of the people in charge of our national health and disease fighting organizations.

It is such a severe contrast to the time of my childhood when the future was filled with wonderful inventions that would make life easier, provide more leisure time, remove humans from doing extremely dangerous jobs, perhaps even conquer some of our most deadly diseases. This dynamic has now been replaced with, at best, skepticism that those developing those life saving instruments have our overall interests at heart, at worst, that such advancements and technology are either just another way to make vast amounts of money or actually harmful, meant to reduce the populations of people not acceptable.

Advanced eugenics, if you like.

The ironic thing about eugenics is that most people would be in favor of, even rejoice at a science based breakthrough (such as the work with CRISPR) that would enable doctors to remove the faulty DNA which causes diseases such as Alzheimers, Parkinsons, MS, etc, yet shrink in horror when someone mentions eugenics due to its associations with the Nazis attempts to eliminate specific types of people. 

I posted about eugenics in 2015, link below.  

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/07/eugenics.html 

For me, it all seems to come back to the idea that we need to remember that it is possible to have two thoughts in one's head at the same time. Respect for those in science who can think outside the box and develop tools that enable the rest of us to live better, while also acknowledging that, like any tool, that invention or advancement can be used improperly if not regulated or monitored.

In 2001.. the meaning of the monolith, that black rectangular thing that appears in the movie among the apes, and then appears again on the moon after humanity has established a presence there, seems to indicate that some extraterrestrial force exists that is monitoring, even directing, our progress on Earth.

I would prefer to think that humanity might be able to figure it all out on our own, without outside assistance, whether that aid comes from space or from heaven as it just seems too easy to excuse our mistakes, our inhumanity towards each other as out of our control. 

One more link, if I may. Created in late 2023, it discusses original sin, which is one explanation for why all of humanity is flawed, and in need of salvation. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/original-sin.html 

 

Protests, and Civil Disobedience

A few days ago, my wife and I decided to attend the local "No Kings" protest. Unrelated, however, my son was in town last night to stay over as he had agreed to help his friend move from our old neighborhood in Perkasie to the York, Pa area.

I mention this visit because JW and I had an hour long discussion last night about what it would take to change America from our current slide towards an authoritarian government. 

What was different about that late-night conversation, was that JW was more hopeful, citing the protests in Los Angeles as a sign that people were starting to wake up, while I was less so, a stark switch from most of our previous talks where he was less positive that there would be a strong enough push back from the electorate.

While we both remain frustrated by our two main political party's active restriction of other viable political parties, their dependence on monies from the super rich which then leads to policies that benefit them, and their lack of putting the everyday American first when governing, we do disagree in our perception of the democratic party as I still believe that the democratic party is more than just the lesser of two evils when deciding how to vote (not starkly less, but less).

He specifically blames the Dems for losing the 2024 election, which I partly agree with, as I have stated in previous posts, that our message was not clear enough, and that Harris did not separate herself enough from Biden's problems. But more so, I believe that the 2024 loss was more about the selfishness of the American electorate which is now OK with open cruelty to people that are different, immigrants, the LGBTQ+ community, etc, as long as their dozen eggs and gallon of gas cost $2.

It seems clear to me that hate is the best motivator for winning an election, while love/compassion is a distant second. That as long as we have a sickness in our collective souls, leaders like Trump will continue to win elections.

Which brings us to the protest we attended yesterday.

The good news is that it was well attended, despite the rainy weather. Certainly hundreds of people turned out, the majority with signs indicating their reluctance to allow a king to run our government. It was heartwarming, not just to see all the people there, but to witness the reaction by many of those who drove past the protest which lined both sides of the street. Lots of honking (for the Honk if you support Democracy signs), lost of waving, lots of smiles, lots of people using their phones to document the event.

While I certainly don't know what percentage of those who drove past did not know that this was a No Kings protest, and more specifically, that the local protest would be at that particular location, it seemed to me that many people were surprised to see all of us standing in the rain chanting "Dump Trump" and "No More Kings". And that a majority, while not overwhelming majority, supported our efforts.

Again, it made me feel a bit more hopeful. But is it enough?

Obviously, Trump will continue to assail the Constitution, will continue to deport illegal immigrants for no other reason that they entered America under the radar, with little regard to getting rid of the worse of the worse, as, I believe, many people who held their nose and voted for him, thought he would do.

It won't matter that hundreds of rallies were held in cities all around the country, attended by far more people than will be at his military fest/birthday bash. Trump will continue to demand that ICE deport a few thousand people, yes, they are people, by the way, from our country.

He will continue to spit in the face of Lady Liberty, will continue to equate racism with patriotism, and will continue to be supported by millions of Americans who think they are immune to the cruelty because they are white, or male, or wear a red hat.

So again, is today's protests enough?

Or do we need to take the next step beyond protests, and begin a program of civil disobedience?

I asked someone I had never met before who was standing next to me at the protest, when were we going to block the intersection and cause a traffic jam? When were we going to cause some inconvenience to our fellow Americans? 

She looked at me without answering, so I gave her a break and said that I thought that, while I was certainly encouraged by the size of the protest, I didn't believe it would make a difference.

To give her credit, she said that given that Trump's electoral victory was marked by close races in all seven swing states, and that even though he won them all, he won by a couple hundred thousand votes, in total, and that in four of those states the Democratic Senator prevailed, perhaps it will only take exposure to people in their own neighborhood to swing them back.

I am glad she is hopeful, but I don't share her optimism.

I think we need real action.

#OWPAT

Old White People Against Trump

There is no hesitancy among Trump and his acolytes when it comes to displaying cruelty against black and brown people. We saw that in action with the handcuffing of Senator Padilla a few days ago.

But perhaps if more old white people placed themselves between ICE agents and people of their community whose only crime is to have come here illegally, two, five, even ten years ago, the optics might galvanize the resistance, and stiffen the spines of our politicians, on both sides of the aisle, to just say no, as Nancy Reagan preached.

No to deporting hard working members of communities all across our country, no to the use of extortion against universities and law firms, no firing thousands of federal workers, no to gutting our environmental laws, no to entrusting our health care to a man with admitted brain worm disease who has spent the last few decades spreading misinformation about vaccines, no to aligning our country with war criminals such as Putin and Netanyahu.

Even better, when will the Christian community, Catholics, Protestants, Methodists, etc, begin to hear from their pastors and ministers that belief in Christ's message compels them to get out into the street and surround and protect those among us who are being persecuted?

Economics matter, certainly the result of the election last November in which the memory of inflation paid a large part proves that, so perhaps when grocery prices start to rise because the people who do the really hard jobs in our meat packing plants and on our farms are no longer there because they have been deported or are afraid to go to work, Americans might actually connect the dots ans realize that we need immigrants, just as immigrants have always played a significant part in the creation of our great country.

But just as important, optics matter. It is easy to dismiss the protests when those in the streets are the wrong color, or just young (and presumed to be) stupid, but when old white people are being arrested, or beaten, or otherwise subjected to police brutality, perhaps America might begin to realize that the lie that anyone who is protesting is being paid, is just another big lie from a man who has no moral compass, and very little grasp on any reality that differs from his perception that he is always right.

Even more so, when the real Christian community, and I know you are out there, is inspired by pastors and ministers who apply the teachings of Christ to the events of the day and encourage their flocks to reread the Sermon on the Mount, and apply the Beatitudes to the atrocities that are being perpetrated every day in our country, when Christians are being arrested for interfering in the rounding up of good people from their communities, even more Americans will wake up to the evil they are supporting.

Is it time to cross that line to civil disobedience? Is it possible to turn our country from its path towards authoritarianism without it? 

More importantly, do we possess the fortitude, the guts, to be inconvenienced as we fight against a president and his cult, as they trash the perception of America as the "shining city on the hill?"

I have posted a few times with the label First Amendment. Here is one from early 2021.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2021/01/freedom-of-speech.html 

Also, speaking of the Sermon on the Mount, here is my take on those lessons, An Atheist for Christ

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

  

Messy Divorces

Before I begin this post, I wanted to provide a link to one I wrote in 2017, just as the first Trump presidency began. As I have noted, I have been updating my old posts to reflect a larger font, using a method driven by posts which are accessed by my readers. If a post has been accessed that is still in the smaller font, I enlarge it, reading it again in the process. Someone accessed this one in the last few days.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/02/hidden-figures-not-so-hidden-prejudice.html

In this post, I warn the electorate to be careful about aligning itself with someone with such obvious incongruities embedded in his message. Someone who is a product of very slack immigration policies, yet who preaches strict immigration policies while casting aspersions on today's immigrants. And, incomprehensibly, to me at least, finds a willing audience in a population which itself is comprised of a large percentage of first and second generation Americans.

Now, here we are, eight years later, about to embark on another four years of open hostility and cruelty to immigrants, but with the added horror that it will also be directed at American citizens who dare to disagree with our leader's opinions, and worst inclinations.

As the protests against Trump's authoritarian edicts and actions ramp up, there will be more occurrences like what is happening in Los Angeles with the National Guard called to quell "disturbances". From there, it is only a matter of time before American soldiers are authorized to fire into crowds of American citizens. 

Don't say you weren't warned.

---

Divorce is a difficult process for those involved, especially if there are children included. While the divorce rate has been steadily declining in America for the past 15-20 years, it is still true that a majority of marriages that end in divorce include the disposition of children; who gets custody, who pays alimony, etc.

Currently, the news outlets are ablaze with commentary and speculation concerning a very high profile couple who are airing their differences in public; Donald Trump and Elon Musk.

Yes, strictly speaking, their current estrangement does not quality as a divorce as they are not married. But one can certainly state unequivocally, that they have been tied at the hip, in lockstep, since last summer when Musk began spending millions of dollars to help Trump win the presidency.

I don't consider it hyperbole to state that no couple's actions in recent history, have effected so many Americans, so quickly and deeply, than the actions of this power couple in the last year in general, and the last four months in particular.

And, while the general fallout of their divorce will not play out in court, at least not right away, the ramifications of their initial "separation"is already being felt across the spectrum of American life.

In a regular divorce, one of the biggest areas of debate is who will get custody of the kids. In this case, there are already clear signs that Trump has the big advantage here as most MAGA politicians and pundits are making it clear that they support the president over the billionaire. Not surprising, as they are far more invested in Trump, have far more to lose if they get on his wrong side, but still curious considering how enthralled so many of the MAGA crowd was with Musk's program to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in the government.

I mean they gave him carte blanche to access the personal records of every American citizen with nary a negative response. Don't any of them now worry that some of the data he has mined without restraint might reveal some damaging tidbits? Financial records can be very revealing when in the wrong hands.

Another big concern in a divorce is money. Often, the bigger breadwinner must provide alimony to the person, usually the woman, who may have sacrificed her own career to raise the children, or now has primary custody of the kids.

Musk is already threatening to divulge secrets to continue to get his government sweetheart deals and contracts, while Trump is alluding to "the consequences" of Musk changing his allegiance to another political party. Usually the lawyers of the battling couple will advise their clients to stay out of the limelight so as to not provide fodder which might give an advantage to the other side. 

In this case, each of the "adults" has a social media outlet which they control and dominate, so that advice is long moot. 

One might say that since both men are super rich, it won't matter much who comes out on top, financially speaking. But it could certainly matter to the kids, and not just those who are all in on Trump's TACO tariff presidency. 

All of us could experience economic blow back from their divorce. Perhaps enough Republicans are emboldened to vote against the "big, beautiful bill" that passed in the House and is being amended in the Senate. 

Among other things, lots of other things, in fact, many not actually read or understood by those who voted for it, there are provisions for increasing the national debt limit which will become even more critical as we head into the summer, changes to Medicare and Medicaid, and limits on the SALT deduction.

Or, should Trump alter his retribution tour to include everything Musk, thousand of jobs will be effected should those contracts and subsidies disappear overnight.

Funny how all those who disavowed accusations that Trump would use the government's resources to go after his enemies, are either silent at this threat, or applauding it.

Of course, it is entirely possible that some form of reconciliation will occur. When there are two such overt egomaniacs involved, anything is possible as no matter what actually occurs, each will spin a reduction in animosity as a win for them.

Sadly however, there are just as many divorces that are not amicable. Even sadder, it is Americans, regardless of political preference, who will suffer the most.

Finally, I can't help but wonder what might be really going on here. While such a public feud might warm the hearts of democrats, I can't shake the thought that this is just theater, a distraction. 

I have mostly jettisoned the moniker of evil genius when describing Trump, but still recognize that he is a master at drawing our attention away from his real intentions by providing low hanging fruit to grouse about. 

The question is, are they both so stubborn and egotistical that they would actually continue such a public dispute knowing each might suffer, at least temporarily, or is it a concerted effort by one or both to give us a nice show while they work behind the scenes on something even more nefarious, and lucrative, for them.

I often discuss wealth accumulation, even when related to winning the lottery, as a goal which I eschew. Not only don't I believe that money provides happiness, I think that for people like Musk and Trump, it makes them miserable, perhaps even lonely. 

Unfortunately, it is also addictive, and like any addiction, cannot be overcome unless one admits its existence.

In the case of Musk and Trump, it will not come as a surprise to me if it is disclosed at some point in the near future that either together, or separately, their quarrel was all window dressing while they worked to feed their shared addiction of gaining wealth and power. 

If it is truly two narcissists battling over who has the biggest di$$, I won't be surprised, but if it turns out that they have the last laugh over the rest of us, having fallen for the faux fall out, I won't be any more surprised, just disappointed that we were fooled, again.

 

 

    

Visionairies, and Beeple

I didn't post something for Earth Day 2025 in April. I keep a list of topics that I intend to address, and fully intended to do an environmental entry on or around April 22, but I kept putting it off to comment on other topics.

I am glad, as I was able to get caught up on my reading, specifically the April edition of National Geographic, and the April-May edition of the Smithsonian Magazine, both which presented me with input and revised reasons to do a post with the label Environment.

And, of course, just last week was the birthday of Rachel Carson, famed environmentalist and author who was born on May 27, 1907 and whom some consider one of the original advocates for the environment.

First, Beeple.

If you haven't heard the term before, fret not. While I was not totally surprised by its use in the Smithsonian article called Born To Bee Wild, I had never seen it used so frequently, had never realized that so many people were proud to describe themselves as such.

In essence, the article details a few of these beeple, as they, generally anonymously, go about their lives studying and advocating for bees. Some do so within the nature of their occupation, perhaps as an employee of a state or federal agency involved in some type of environment related oversight or protection. 

But many consider their time spent researching and studying bees, whether in apiaries or in the wild as time spent on a hobby, or perhaps avocation might better explain it, as the best time of their lives.

What was especially inspiring is that these beeple, while recognizing the fact that bee colonies are failing at an alarming rate, were far more upbeat than I would have expected. 

Perhaps that is the beauty of getting involved in a topic that one feels strongly about. Doing something about a perceived problem results in meeting and working with people who share your concern but also have a plan to address it. Rather than the hopelessness that many feel about the overall climate catastrophe that seems to be steaming headlong towards us, they are tackling a part of the overall issue, if even only one aspect of the problem. 

The work to understand the plight of the bumblebee, so to speak, the process of developing a plan to counter the declines in bee populations, and then engaging, with others, in an attempt to at least lessen the fallout of our "dominion" over nature philosophy, provides a sort of communal gratification. 

The phrase "actions speak louder than words" are never so on mark when it is so easy to complain and be depressed at our seemingly gratuitous assault on the natural world. 

Getting involved may not immediately stem the tide, but it allows beeple to sleep just a little better at night knowing there are doing what they can.

Speaking of which, the April edition of the National Geographic identified 33 people who are striving to make the world a better place, most of whom I had not heard of before reading the magazine.

As is true with the April-May edition of the Smithsonian, it is far better for you to read the articles than for me to give you a superficial summary.

Suffice to say, I was thoroughly impressed by, in no particular order, the founder of the outdoor clothing company Patagonia, a hugely successful actress who uses her platform to address mental illness, the founder of a well known yogurt company, an actor who uses his platform to advocate for economic opportunity to assist those born in poorer environs to protect the environment while gaining economic independence, an entrepreneur whose company inspires sustainability and ethics in the spice trade, a couple whose building enterprise is finding a novel use for plastic waste, and a woman whose app addresses food waste by linking consumers looking for a good deal with food retailers who throw out unused food.

Again, people who are not satisfied with merely complaining about our shared global problems, but who are doing something to address them, one issue at a time.

And, while a number of them have attained success in their lives first, like most beeple, there are a number of them who fly under the radar in their efforts to make the world a better place.

Make the world a better place.

Such a simple phrase. I have often posited that if it is that simple, heaven for those who are successful in that endeavor, if even only for those they encounter during their life's path, hell for those who choose me first in all their dealings, I wonder what percentage would be allowed entry through the pearly gates.

And, in contemplating such a possibility, how difficult it will be for the most successful people, the most influential people, those who effect the biggest populations, to gain entry to everlasting life.

Is it possible that Jesus's dual quotes, "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" and "blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth", were referring to just such an eventuality?

Perhaps in attaining great wealth or great renown, one burns through too many chits to be able to make them up through good works afterwards. That in the long run, the world is not a better place despite using ones riches after the fact to improve others lives. 

And conversely, that it is much easier for the everyday person to make the world a better place for those in their much smaller circle of influence. A moral not unlike the yearly lesson we are taught at the holidays through "It's a Wonderful Life".

In the meantime, I encourage my readers to engage with magazines such as National Geographic and the Smithsonian, publications which present our shared global challenges, but which also describe ways to address those issues, and the people, beeple or not, who do their best to provide answers and solutions. 

---

I have posted using the topic Environment many times to date. Here are links to the last four of those posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/05/national-parks-conservation-and.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/the-monarch-butterfly-and-selflessness.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/12/countering-rising-co2-levels.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/11/natures-beauty-and-longevity.html 

 

 

The Atlantic and Anne Applebaum

After the SignalGate controversy broke, followed by an attack on the editor from the Atlantic magazine who was mistakenly added to the chat, I decided to subscribe to that organization for both daily news and opinion articles, and its monthly magazine.

Since then, I have been happily exposed to multiple, interesting articles, and writers with whom I was unfamiliar.

In particular, in the May edition of the magazine, I have read essays, in addition to a few concerning politics, about music, religion, Ringo Starr, how porn has changed America, Dwayne Wade and the AI company Nvidia. Can you say eclectic?

Each were extremely well written and informative. I was especially effected by the Ringo Starr article. To be honest, I was never a huge Beatles fan, only gaining an appreciation for the range and depth of their music during my newspaper delivering days when I listened to the multiple hour Breakfast with The Beatles which aired on the radio on Sunday mornings.

Ringo is 84 years old now, still performing, still flashing a peace sign as he repeats his idiosyncratic phrase, Peace and Love. I read the last quarter of the article fighting through wet eyes. 

Why was I teary eyed?

Perhaps because Ringo, for all his fame, retains a significant part of the boy who grew up in difficult circumstances, someone who acknowledges that luck blew against him as a child, then was at his back for much of his adulthood. 

Perhaps because Ringo was always considered the least talented of the Fab Four, but is considered by some, to have inspired the most people through his positive outlook, persistence in making music as he feels it, and connection with every day people.

Or perhaps simply because in the near future, Ringo will be gone from this world, and we will be the poorer for the loss of someone for whom Peace and Love was not just a fad.

In addition to all that, I was introduced to the writings of Anne Applebaum.

They say a silver lining can be found in all situations, no matter how horrible. For me, discovering Anne Applebaum as a writer is the silver lining in the SignalGate scandal.

So far, in addition to the various articles of hers that I have read in the Atlantic, I have read two of her books, Twilight of Democracy and Autocracy, Inc.  

Applebaum has been around for quite a while, describing her life at the turn of the 21st century in her books, as well as the people with whom she associated, and her understanding of the conservative, pro-democracy thinking that she feels is being betrayed by the current president.

It's funny how so many people who align with the MAGA movement, dismiss conservatives like Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, David Frum, among others, who they view as disloyal to Trump, the GOP, and the conservative philosophy, completely missing the point that these people believe they are still conservative, just not aligned with Trump.

The two books I read by Applebaum do not paint a pretty picture of a world she believes has turned away from democracy, towards authoritarianism. And her extreme disappointment that she sees a similar turn in America today.

Her detailed knowledge and description of Hungary and how its authoritarian leader, Victor Orban, slowly turned a democratic nation to one in which he now controls the legislature, the courts, and who succeeds economically (and who doesn't), is revealing in light of the steps that Trump has taken since his inauguration.

What is clear to Applebaum, is that governments like the ones led by Orban, Putin, and their ilk, have never benefited the general populace. It is only through fealty to leaders such as they, that businesses prosper or not, and that freedoms are granted, or lost.

If nothing else, it is her prime lesson, for those that listen. Compliance and complacency might direct the dictator's wrath to another direction, temporarily, but leaders like that are never satisfied. Once the easy targets are defeated, the marginalized communities, immigrants, those that live, love, worship differently, new victims need to be found to maintain power, to reinforce the message of fear and submission.

So, while institutions like Harvard are resisting, so far, other universities, law firms, legislators, politicians, are bending the knee. Sadly, some are already discovering that once on your knees, there is no chance to stand again.

The good news is that the judicial branch is holding, so far. The new administration's multiple illegal executive orders and policies, are mostly being delayed. But justice can move awfully slow in a democracy. 

Our magnificent tradition of due process can play out in an excruciatingly protracted manner when it comes to determining the extent of executive power. It is a gambit that Trump and his allies depend on, all the while denying the same due process to people they have deemed enemies of the state. 

Sadly, for now, many Americans support some of these violations of our Constitution with the short sighted reasoning that those exemptions will only be applied to the "others". The fact that American citizens, even children, have already been deported because of their association with those "others", hasn't penetrated enough of the electorate for them to realize that anyone can be linked to an undesirable when absolute power is granted to one person, or one mindset.    

In the past, I have mentioned that when I first discovered the magazine Lapham's Quarterly, I was surprised and excited; surprised that I had never heard of such a wonderful literary magazine, and excited that I would now be able to read such an extraordinary publication. 

Sadly, one of the many victims of the pandemic, the magazine stopped publication a few years ago, and even more unfortunate, the impetus behind Lapham's, Harold Lapham, passed away last June. While there are plans to reactivate the magazine, in the meantime, I am very content with the newest addition to my monthly reading list, The Atlantic. 

I have written before under the topic of Media, as this post has been labelled. Here are links to four of those posts.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/07/newsoom-and-more-congressional-votes.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2016/02/truth-whole-half-or-none-at-all.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2017/03/news-facts-and-opinions.html

 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/04/would-mr-rodgers-neighborhood-be-too.html

 

The Anti-Government Crowd revisited

I have mentioned in previous posts, that I am in the process of updating all of my posts with a larger font. My process is fairly simple. Whenever I log into my blog, I check the posts that have been "hit" in the last seven days, and I open them if they were created before January 2021, which was when I began creating my posts with the larger font.

Since I began this blog in March of 2010, I clearly have much work ahead of me. But I am enjoying the process, as I read the posts before I update them to the larger font. It is a revealing process, and one which I recently commented upon, as I now realize that the tone of my posts has become much less optimistic. 

Today, I encountered a post from June, 2012 called the Anti-Government Crowd. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/06/anti-government-crowd.html 

For anyone who might ask, Joe, our history is filled with people who predicted doomsday scenarios, the vast majority of whom were wrong, what makes you think this time is any different, I would respond with two points.

First, certainly I acknowledge that prognosticating catastrophe is practically a hobby of social commentators. Every major change whether it be the invention of the radio or the internet, the advances of instant hand held communication devices or machines with massive computational abilities, or even the granting of suffrage for women and minorities, inevitably creates both predictions of doom and a backlash to return to "the good old days." 

Combine that with the fact that, like our western societies as a whole, I am aging. Moving inexorably to my final days. If nothing else is true, we often project our deepest fears onto the issues that surround us. The boomer generation, of which I am part, is faced with the dual challenges of relinquishing control of the country, the world, while wishing that the promise of our youth, our ideals, had been better realized.

Second, I am sure that there were people in Germany and Italy who saw Hitler and Mussolini for who they were, who resisted the allure of nationalism, isolationism, tribalism, and every other ism that the authoritarian uses to gain power. Just as I know there were Americans who saw McCarthy as the real threat to democracy, not his overblown obsession with Communism.

In other words, there have been times when the worst was predicted, and that prognosis was on the mark.

So, while I prefer that in some future post I will be able to admit that I was wrong about our slide away from democracy, I truly believe that there are some dark times ahead.

In my original Anti-Government Crowd post, I quote a conservative of the time, David Frum, who was a well known advocate for conservative thought during the Reagan and Bush 1 years. He certainly promoted the reduction of the size of the government, although, as I said in that 2018 post, the actual number of federal workers had remained static since Reagan's presidency, only growing with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which emanated from the horrors of 9/11.

Frum, however, did not support a chainsaw approach to this effort. He acknowledged the need for our government to intervene when the business community abused consumers, when the environment was at risk from polluters, when disasters required a national response to both alleviate immediate pain and suffering, as well as prevent future destruction.

Now, seven years later, we see that Trump, Musk and his billionaire allies are bringing to fruition the years of propaganda that has laid the foundation for wrecking the federal workforce. 

They do not want to reform government, make it more efficient, root out waste. They want to eliminate it. Or to put it more directly, eliminate the structures that protect consumers, the sick, the elderly, the environment, anything that impedes their desire to create a new "gilded" age, as Trump often describes.

Because in the end, a government will still exist. But not a government that works for we, the people. But it will certainly work for people like Trump and Musk.

You only have to look at Russia and Hungary to see how altering the form of a government towards one which provides unchecked power to a particular party or person, does little to help the citizens of that country. 

It's almost comical when certain far right news outlets or commentators praise Putin and Orban. You don't see people flocking to immigrate to those countries. And how about North Korea, whose leader Trump has called a strong leader. Anyone you know talking about moving there? 

A strong leader lifts up the people of his country. North Korea ranks towards the bottom of virtually every category that matters in terms of quality of life. Kim Jung Un is far from a strong leader if your definition of strong is leading a country to prosperity. Same for Putin and Orban.

But that is the rub. Trump bases his definition of strong leader as someone who inspires fear among his citizens. Someone who is saluted as soldiers in tanks parade past him on his birthday. Someone who says Jump, and expects everyone to say How High.

This is the critical point of how the anti-government crowd, at least those who are the most vocal and influential, have changed. They are more anti-democratic than anti-government, because they know how powerful they can be with the resources of the government behind them. 

It is a far cry from the Reagan and Bush 1 philosophy but it has millions of Americans supporting it. Not because they truly want an authoritarian leader, well, maybe partially, but more because they have been sold a bill of goods about how intrusive and ineffective our government has been, so they are willing to try something different. 

Sadly, they are also missing the real motives behind Trump, a man who has nothing good to say about any democratic leader in the world, but is buddy buddy with all the autocrats. Even now, he is meeting with the leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Emirates, Qatar, all countries with repressive governments. Of course, Trump is only interested in a free airplane, and the promises of huge sums of money for him and his family in exchange for access to American resources.

Ever the transactionalist, he is more than willing to challenge our constitution (I am not sure I have to uphold it, he said during his recent ABC interview), ignore court orders, and govern through executive orders rather than in conjunction with the legislative branch, whatever it takes to gold plate the White House.

The signs are all there. Whether enough Americans wake up in time is still in question.