Tariffs are the key to happy taxpayers

 No one loves to pay their taxes, but the right wing is particularly responsive to the lure of tax cuts. For the rich, this gratifies their lust to be richer and richer and richer. The majority of tax cuts go to them. In return, they fund the election campaigns that recruit the small fry who will get a token markdown from time to time.

For the small fry, hatred of income taxes stems largely from their dislike of doing math. Underfunding education serves a key function in this. Not only does it appease the cheapskates to cut a major cost like schools, it also creates generation after generation of voters who will leap at a promise of tax cuts because they never learned how the system works.

No one likes sales taxes, either. You see a price, you go to check out, and blammo: you have to pay more. This is where tariffs are the ingenious solution to all of that.

Do away with income and sales taxes. People get to take home all of their pay. Maybe retain the deduction for Social Security and Medicare for a while... but for the most part, what you see is what you get, and the ticketed price on any item is what you pay. However, the price of any item has been jacked up by the tariff amount. It's an invisible tax. A loaf of bread might be $25. A car might cost a hundred grand. But the price is the price, and you never have to do extra math. Everything will cost a lot more. People won't really be better off financially. Probably worse, in fact, especially because tariffs and sales taxes always hit lower income people harder than they hit the rich. But it won't matter, because "other countries are paying."

Republican mouthpieces are already crowing on social media about the billions that the current regime has raked in from tariffs. As long as they can keep a significant percentage of people believing that tariffs bring in money from outside the country, and that the resulting inflation is somehow the fault of the opposing political party, they can rule over a happy populace in their "tax free" paradise.

Rental rabbit hole

 It wasn't a rabbit hole so much as a nostalgia well. I read an article about ridiculously high rents contributing to homelessness among people with full time jobs. I started thinking of my all-too-brief slum-dwelling days before I let my doting Dad entice me back into the family home because he was frightened and grossed out by the apartment I could barely afford on my full-time wages.

This wasn't last week or last year, or even last decade. It was 44 years ago. The problem of "workforce housing" has been going on far longer than it's been a trendy buzz phrase among planners, politicians, and sociologists. Homelessness was already getting bad then. It's gotten steadily worse.

I rented apartments in Gainesville, Florida, from the fall of 1976 to the spring of 1979. I moved three times, once within the same complex, then to another complex closer to campus and a big grocery store. For one summer during college I was essentially homeless in Miami, couch surfing and sleeping in my car while I worked my summer job, after arrangements proposed by a high school friend fell through. Another summer I rented an apartment with two other people in Orlando, while working for The Mouse. Then there was a summer where I bunked in the half-furnished attic of the family's new home (new to them, built in the 1920s) in Annapolis, and one where I just stayed at school. Throughout that time, I had a general idea of apartment rents based entirely on the scale of a state university town in a state that never has to deal with frost heaves and snow removal. 

After graduation, I based the housing portion of my meager budget on those impossibly friendly numbers. I had moved back to Annapolis in pursuit of job leads that proved to be mirages, before settling into grunt jobs as a sailmaker, then a house painter, then a general maintenance dude at a yacht club. I wanted jobs that would be easy to leave when I took off on all of the boss bike tours I was going to take, and that wouldn't demand too much of my creative faculties, as I tried to launch a career of cartooning and writing. By Gainesville economics I should have been able to land something, but roommates are always a problem.

The Slum was a grubby but spacious box I rented with a bike racing and house painting colleague after I'd gone over into another sail loft job and he had started working seriously toward his goal to become a carpenter and contractor. We were so low budget that we did not run the heat in the winter. I slept in my pride and joy 5-below-zero sleeping bag on a mattress on the floor. He went and got a girlfriend who could afford utilities, leaving me to enjoy the comforts of our drafty castle and chip the frozen soap off of the soapdish for my morning showers.

It was a pleasant, monastic existence. I was a five-minute bike ride or a 15-minute walk from work. I could come home and work on my novel until about 10 p.m., when the lady upstairs would pound on the floor because my typewriter was too loud. Then I could read and revise until I nodded off. I had no car, no phone, no money, and, therefore, no social or sex life. Highly economical. If you wanted to become invisible, having no phone and no car was a great start.

 My roommate paid his rent until the lease ended. That left me unable to afford the place, minimal as it was. Goodbye, closet-size kitchen with an exhaust fan that would electrocute you when you tried to turn it off. Goodbye, living room furnished with a scratchy couch, beat-up coffee table, and four bicycles leaned up against the walls. Two were my roommate's. Girlfriend's place didn't have room for his fleet.

The place disgusted dear old Dad so much that he wouldn't even get out of his car when he came over to scoop me up and convey me back to the family homestead for a home-cooked meal. I would have to keep looking out the window toward the parking lot to see if his car was there. His choice. I could have biked over. I hadn't had my nasty night-riding crash yet. Not that that reformed me anyway... I just got better lights and a little more caution.

The other worker bees around me had various group living arrangements. Some of them just made more money, either with a partner equally better employed or as the senior financial partner. There were cheaper apartments further out of town or in certain more distant towns, but that would have meant getting a car and paying its attendant expenses.

Most of the blame falls to me for not majoring in something marketable as the 1980s loomed. Creative aspirations are an expensive luxury. I could have folded a lot sooner and gone into construction, or something like that, but I hadn't really liked the scream of circular saws, or the steady march of sprawl that was already starting to obliterate most of what made Annapolis nice. I kept making tiny advances as a writer, which lured me further and further into the cul de sac of failed dreams. But this failure has also given me first hand experience of the tenuous life of a low-level worker. I did climb into the lifeboat of the family home for a few years until those little breakthroughs selling articles and drawings combined with my first marriage to convince me to launch my own leaky dinghy and row away.

Twice, my first wife and I had rental houses sold out from under us, once in Annapolis, once in New Hampshire. We moved from the Annapolis rental house into a basement apartment not even fully separated from the house upstairs. The landlord was easy to get along with, but the place flooded during a heavy couple of storms, destroying among other things a lot of the pages of one of my journals. It doesn't have to be exquisitely crafted deathless prose. A journal is a writer's junk drawer from which occasionally emerge suddenly useful items.

We moved to New Hampshire in the summer of 1987 because I had taken a job with a startup outdoor magazine. The publisher started writing rubber paychecks before Christmas. The 1980s boom in New England was starting to crumble at that point. When the owners of our rental house put it on the market, we took a rental that included an obligation to work as farm help. Because I had lots of "free time," I ended up doing a lot of the work that was really more interesting to my wife, but her skills as a bookkeeper landed her a series of full-time jobs. She only got sexually harassed at one of them. I found a nice part time position as a copy editor for the local weekly paper, did some substitute teaching (my apologies, kids), and fell into another part time job at a bike and cross-country ski shop.

Rental properties were already hard to find in the late 1980s in this part of New Hampshire. The real estate boom had inspired a lot of people to sell their property. Speculators slapped up hastily-built, overpriced condos to suck in the newly affluent residents of Massachusetts, pulling in fat salaries in the tech boom that was about to bust. Those mostly clustered near feature attractions like mountains and lakes. Not exactly convenient to what remained of employment, and often still priced out of reach as overextended investors tried to cover their losses.

The house we finally bought was 576 square feet. Into it we packed two adult humans, two dogs, and a cat. This later expanded to two cats. When we divorced, we split the pets.

Various lucky breaks have left me with the home and land, but I couldn't afford to move anywhere else. And the house is bigger now, to accommodate the next life partner. Fortunately, I like where I am. On the way there, though, I was buried in credit card debt, and fully dependent on having someone with whom to split rents. We had to bum money from relatives and borrow from short-term lenders. Buried in credit card debt, on the hook to short term lenders, are classic elements in the setup for a self-help book from the 1980s. Shit like that was everywhere: "I was down and out and then I stumbled on this sure-fire way to a life of wealth and leisure! Just buy my book for $19.99 and you too can have a Porsche and a hot tub and endless vacations!"

I wonder how many get-rich-quick writers ended up in the financial dumpster because they couldn't compete in the crowded market of get-rich-quick books. Nowadays it's financial YouTubers, TikTokers, Instagramaticists.

I don't recommend that anyone do things the way I did, because my escape from the wheel was a unique accident. Because I didn't manage to turn the windfall into an investment bonanza or otherwise open the valve on the money pipeline, I'm back living paycheck to paycheck, more or less. I will certainly never retire, just die.

Barbara Ehrenreich published Nickel and Dimed in 2001. Since then, the income gap has become a canyon, and real estate as an investment has far outstripped the concept of real estate as a place to live. There are more than twice as many people in the United States alone than there were when I was born, and more than a hundred million more than when I went full time into the labor pool and housing market. That has an effect, no matter how much the cheerleaders for unlimited growth will insist that it does not. People wherever they are have to find occupations that attract enough money to pay livable wages, while the planet has to provide sufficient resources to feed them all, at the same time that the ecosystem continues to function to support us. Growth advocates have little value or respect for the natural world. Open space is "wasteland." Nature can take care of itself, or we'll devise some scientifically engineered, streamlined set of indispensable species and the others are free to die off. Except our knowledge doesn't advance nearly as fast as our need does.

Way back in the mid 20th Century, when we briefly acknowledged that there was a population problem, my answer was that we should slow down everyone's birth rate and focus on providing quality of life worldwide. Coast the population down to coexist with the complex machinery of nature, and use our technology to take the pressure off of every person as much as possible. Instead we got the winner-take-all fuckfest of the 1980s. We inherit the results of that now. My philosophy still holds; we just have to accommodate a much larger population from which to coast down.

Winning and losing and fighting dirty

 I've caught some chatter about Democrats pushing their elected representatives to fight more like Republicans. You know: dirty.

While Republicans are great at obstructionist politics, it's mostly because conservatism has really degenerated into nothing but obstructionism, combined with outright reversion to much uglier, less free, more violent past forms of our national and state governments. This is painted as some idealized, moral society of small town virtue and agricultural wholesomeness. It never existed, and its architects know that. They're just selling the fantasy of manly men and appreciative women to an audience hungry for a simpler moral landscape than reality ever provides. Conflict resolution goes from strong words to bare knuckles to six-guns. Might makes right.

Politicians lie. You have to filter for the percentage of lies, the persistence of the lies, and rhetorical goals of the lies. You have to vet the truth, too. It's hard, because a candidate for office, even if they're the incumbent, is asking you to believe that they will bring you what you want, when they haven't yet. And these better things have to be the result of a widespread cooperative effort among a majority of the elected officials. No single savior can do it, not even an imperial President.

The critical difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans only want their team to win, whereas Democrats want the whole country to win. The Republicans view their team as the only true Americans, while the Democrats have taken the position that the United States is a work in progress, evolving by absorbing a diverse population enjoying individual liberty responsibly in a cooperative endeavor to create a more perfect union.  

Each political party's vision of the future is quite different. Individual humans regardless of party affiliation are susceptible to human failings of greed, lust, and denial, but that doesn't mean that "both parties are the same." Horny Bill Clinton was not the same as horny Newt Gingrich when it came to governing philosophy.

Elections are sales campaigns. Politicians are service providers who carry out their jobs more or less constantly in the public eye. The House of Representatives is full of people you may never have heard of unless they do something stupendous or outrageous, but the voters of their districts mostly know who they are and what they do. Senators have higher profiles, because there are fewer of them. Thus we are all affected by the decisions of people we have no chance to vote for. We have no leverage except to appeal to their morality or intellect. And legislators among themselves have to negotiate constantly to make laws and otherwise fulfill their duties while remaining electable at home. When voters periodically heave a bunch of them out, the deal process has to start all over again.

Universal access to the same information, through broadcast media and the internet gives people in vastly different circumstances a deceptively uniform portrayal of the world outside their immediate surroundings. People collect in their echo chambers, but the chambers channel each other's messaging to stitch into the fabric of the tailored message to their followers. We argue in general about the same broad topics regardless of where we live. The issues might be real, but the life experience of the audience is not the same. Come election time, only the voters in each Congressional district get to vote for the politician who will carry their standard to DC to help make things better or worse for people who live in the myriad of other districts all over the country.

Democrats have an image problem that won't be solved by becoming more like Republicans. They tried that in the 1990s and ended up with more corporate influence as we got dragged further to the right. On the other hand, political power ultimately does originate in the voters. One could infer that the shift to the right reflected the overall character of the majority of voters. The key phrase there is "majority of voters." Especially in midterm elections, voter turnout represents less than half of registered voters in most states, sometimes much less than half. And that's only registered voters. Adults who are eligible to vote but don't register don't show up in statistics. But they do show up in the bitching and moaning.

Voting is a process of elimination. In an election where the winner has 52 percent and the loser has 48, 48 percent of the winning total just went to cancel out the loser's votes. The more people who actually show up and cast a ballot, the more accurately the results represent the beliefs of the adults in the district in question, whether it's local, state, congressional, senatorial, or presidential. The electoral college sucks, but it would matter a lot less if voters turned out en masse every time, and voted on more than a single issue or two. Voting can be discouraging when you don't see the improvements you were hoping for, or keep losing over and over because sports fan mentality has replaced critical thinking.

Meanwhile, elections have consequences. In Missouri, voters passed a ballot initiative to raise the minimum wage and require sick leave. One and done, right? Wrong. The Republican legislature and governor decided that they rule over the mere voters, so they passed legislation reversing the decision. This is a pitfall of our representative democracy, when the elected officials decide that the disadvantaged minority they really answer to is rich donors. Voters install the officials, but the officials then have the power to implement the policies and laws under which ordinary citizens live. I would have said under which everyone lives, but we all see how the system goes lightly on prominent people. And legislators all too often exempt themselves as well.

Some Democrats are operating more aggressively, but it's a fine line between beating the other team at their own game and becoming as bad as they are. As Texas prepares to gerrymander their state even more aggressively to counter the losses Republicans expect in Congress as a result of their unpopular and destructive Big Steaming Pile of a Bill, California has floated the notion of redistricting to dilute republican power there, to counteract the expected shift in election results in the Lone Star State. That's fine as far as it goes, but it's only a battle tactic. The real winning strategy for the country as a whole would be a law requiring nonpartisan redistricting nationwide at all levels. Make politicians run on the issues, not on their party affiliation. Good luck getting that passed when so many members of Congress got there from gerrymandered districts, but we can dream.

In New York, mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has run a thoughtful and energetic campaign to promote the ideas as well as the candidate, to put a human face on the bogeyman of a progressive Muslim vying to head the government of the most populous city in the United States. It's not fighting dirty at all. It's communicating intelligently. If the Democratic Party is going to turn the tide of authoritarianism being driven by the current degenerated state of the Republican Party, thoughtful communication will be at least as important as clever and hostile political maneuvers. Successful hostilities gratify party faithful, but they make genuine mutual understanding less and less possible. "They kill one of ours, we kill one of theirs..." This only creates two committed minorities, each incapable of winning a free and fair election on their own, fighting for the uncommitted voters increasingly turned off by both of them.

The Republicans were the good guys in the Civil War, but by the end of the 19th Century they had become the tools of plutocracy. Democrats notoriously presided over rigged towns like Chicago, and were the power behind Southern racist politics throughout most of the 19th Century, and well into the 2oth. General party characteristics of either side blend with local variations, so you have to pay attention to the details where you happen to be. Listen to what the candidates say. Pay attention to what they actually do when they get into office. Communicate often, in clear and constructive terms.

I hate talking to people, especially about politics and government. I would much rather take some time over a piece of writing than have to think fast on my feet, summoning up the examples I know someone will ask for. I greatly admire people who can do that and bring receipts. It's especially gratifying when those receipts will stand up to fact checking. Communicate in your preferred way.

The Americans who want to get us back on track to save the small-d democratic portion of our great republican government have no immediate choice but to back capital D Democrats in large numbers. We can sort the rest out later, but right now we're fighting the battle with the troops we have, and the weapons they bring. The system needs a reset to make Congress take its job seriously, make the courts independent again, and the President less of a quasi-monarch. We won't get there in one or two elections, but we won't ever get there if we don't take the first step. Vote for Democrats and then don't just release them into the wild. Stay on them and hold them accountable, as you would with anyone you hired to represent you. It's a nuisance and a pain in the ass, but it's the basis of the Constitution from which comes your beloved right to yap off and carry a gun. If they let you down, don't flip to the other party without checking out their plans thoroughly. Instead, vote in primaries, to refine the trajectory, not turn the gun on ourselves.

Indentured servitude for the poor

 Trump administration Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has proposed tapping into the "34 million able bodied Americans" on Medicaid to fill out the labor pool of agricultural workers drained by the mass deportation program masterminded by White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. This is forced labor. While it's a nice reality check on anyone in the working poor who likes to bitch about immigrants receiving public benefits, it also exploits a cycle of poverty in underpaid labor, largely for the benefit of corporate agriculture.

Tying health care financing to employment is already discriminatory. Tying it to specific employment further divides the workforce into haves and have-nots, as some get better "benefits" than others. Don't like your insurance plan? "Get a better job," say the cheerleaders for the free market, as if you could just skip merrily over to that more generous employer who surely exists somewhere.

Medicaid is not a cushy free ride. Neither is Medicare. Big gaps are left solely for the benefit of private insurance companies and skinflint tax-haters who think that depriving fellow citizens of essential services and gouging them for the supplemental coverage expresses some virtue in social Darwinism and the glorious profit motive. In their idealized vision, the magnificent labor herd runs, harried by wolves and cheetahs and lions that pick off the weak while strengthening the survivors. Some of us are obviously nearer the top of the food chain than others.

Moves by the MAGA government to consolidate power should not surprise anyone, but they should never elicit a yawn, either. The freedom and future of anyone alive today faces serious threats from the unholy alliance of the immensely wealthy, authoritarian religion, and tireless disinformation aimed at voters too busy pulling together a living to do a lot of comparative research about the news selected for their direction.

As for the conscripted workforce of low-income Americans, we're still talking about public money spent only to address part of a problem that could be solved by a more organized program of national service.

When we got rid of the military draft -- which was a very good decision -- we took away a shared rite of passage endured by young men for decades. The volunteer military functions much better than one filled with unenthusiastic conscripts. But it removes that direct connection to the nuts and bolts of citizen government and the responsibilities of maintaining the Land of the Free. I have thought for years that a broader based national service requirement, providing subsidized labor to a wide array of necessary functions like agriculture would create a sense of greater ownership of the general welfare of the nation. Programs like Americorps and the Peace Corps (and others) have functioned relatively invisibly to most of us. If they had the same level of public image that the military enjoys, and were coordinated into an admired and valued complete package of public services, we would create another whole category of veterans, hopefully less exposed to traumatic violence. As a species, we should be working toward phasing out the traumatic violence.

Such dreams will have to wait until we are no longer held under the rule of a regime that values traumatic violence and the threat of incarceration as tools to enforce order. Welcome to the Land of the Free and Obedient.

United States unleashes the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

 Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death. The United States has become the harbinger of death, the agent of suffering and evil across the globe. Trump voters must be so proud.

We invite disease back into our own country through anti-vaccine bullshit. We facilitate its spread in the world by cutting funding for AIDS treatment and withdrawing funding from medical research.

We allow our Defense Department to strut and pose, and drop expensive bombs on regions already volatile, where the detonations will not quell the anger that dwells there. Tough guy rhetoric from the television host who was hired to portray the Secretary of Defense reinforces the bombast from the reality television character portraying the President.

The cruel tyrant, aided by greedy billionaires, cut foreign aid, throwing millions of people, including children, into deeper poverty and the certainty of famine.

This regime is centered on death. Its supporters pride themselves on their cruelty toward the people they deem inferior, in their own eyes and in the eyes of their god.  They detain and deport children with cancer, cutting them off from their treatment Everything they do is geared toward the destruction of millions, billions of people, so that the survivors can have lebensraum. They don't have allies. They have enemies and subordinates. They don't have a vision of shared humanity, they have a dream of monoculture enforced by conquest.

Would-be conquerors have had thousands of years to try to make it work. Their efforts have always ended in a tide line of dried blood where they crested and fell back, or simply dried up in place. The story of empire is ultimately one tragic failure after another. From the mid 20th Century, super power has only been held through the threat of murder suicide. It's a global abusive relationship.

The United States had a chance to be something different. There was a lot wrong in our past, but some of us were trying to make it right as best we could. Instead, the current party in power wants to return to the wrong and intensify it. Choose your world.

Impeach and remove the rogue president

 The best message the United States could send to the world right now would be to impeach and remove Donald Trump from the office of the presidency. It won't happen, because the Republican congressional majority has neither the will nor the skill to fulfill its role as a potent and vital component of our government, but it would demonstrate clearly that the American people do not support the unauthorized military action ordered by the current occupant of the Oval Office. It would prove that the government described by Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address is not dead, it's just been very sick for a while.

Our current chief executive is an embarrassment and a danger to every American citizen, everywhere. Military personnel and other Americans operating outside the country, particularly in and near the Middle East, are in the most immediate danger, but anyone, anywhere, could get caught in retaliatory actions by Iranian-aligned operators, as well as other entities with a beef against the United States. When the United States acts like a threat to world stability, the world will respond by trying to contain and neutralize the threat. Little countries, mostly through non-state actors, will strike with a sense that they have nothing to lose. Major powers will move with more deliberation, to exclude the US from cooperative endeavors that it used to support and now undermines.

The military will not save us by "refusing an unlawful order." They all take an oath to the Constitution, but there's nothing in the manual about exactly this situation. No one ever imagined a president as bad as Donald Trump actually making it all the way into power. Long before the thin-skinned aspiring dictator could order something truly horrific from the nuclear arsenal, he will have put armed forces not just into harm's way but into guaranteed losses, as commanders who were unable to talk him out of these adventures do their best to carry out their assigned missions. Congress could shut it down, but the majority party doesn't have the sense to do it.

The only sure way to end the threat of Donald Trump's instability is to remove him completely from office. That leaves us with the rest of the right wing coalition still embedded and entwined in the government. They have been building to this point since at least the 1970s, and really gained their foothold in 1980. However, they're not a solid bloc. They all like being able to rule rather than represent, but their motivations fracture their unity. The arguments would go back to being about policy more than personality.

No one should have the power that Donald Trump has usurped for himself. That's the bottom line. He is a threat to the people of the United States. The people of the United states must demand that their representatives in Congress use their constitutionally mandated power to remove that threat.

Bitching about the age of Democrats

 The age of Democratic elected officials is a symptom, not the disease itself. It's a troublesome symptom, a side effect of inconvenient truths about the party itself and the psychology of American voters.

Jeet Heer in the New Republic wrote: "The party is a heterogeneous coalition of centrists and progressives that has failed to define a core goal." This is and has been a simple truth since the party shifted to the left in the 1960s, as the Republican Party became the party of business over individuals, property rights over civil rights, and truculent conservatism in general. Those are some great core goals. Their evolution has led to the current authoritarian regime.

Heer pointed out that three House Democrats have died this year, all from states that Trump won or that have a Republican governor. This implied that more youthful presence of Democrats in those states might have improved the party's standing overall, but I think it says more about the states themselves, and voter psychology. 

Representative Raul Grijalva of Arizona died at age 77, from cancer. He had represented his seat to the satisfaction of the majority of voters in his district for more than 20 years. Seventy-seven seems old when you're 35 or younger, but wait until you're in your upper 60s, still working and feeling pretty energetic, and have some respect for the value of experience. If someone has been doing an acceptable job, gets the votes, and contributes to the party's national presence, why not keep sending them? Arizona is full of old people. It takes a particularly persuasive whippersnapper to get old farts to switch their allegiance. Grijalva was a reliable Democratic seat in the House. Maybe the district is drawn to keep it that way. But if a fresh-faced newbie hops in there and makes a mess, all of those calculations fall apart.

Gerry Connolly drew ire earlier this year when the party chose him as the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee instead of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Then he up and died of esophageal cancer, which he knew he had. He was 75. He had been an effective legislator for more than 16 years. 

The current occupant of the Oval Office will turn 79 on June 14, and is a babbling wreck. His backers will keep pushing him along as long as they can, because he is a reliable brand for them.

Most voters hate to think. I'm with you. My life is a testimony to my lack of mental discipline. Also, when you're busy busy busy, either scraping out a living or trying to have enough fun in your time off to feel ready to go back to scraping, you don't want to dig through the dense language of policy analysis. You want someone to tell you that everything will be okay if you put them in office. Public prominence brings with it an automatic assumption of some level of competence. Look at how Joe Biden was alternately a drooling bumbler and the evil mastermind of a vast criminal conspiracy. Anyone who makes it to the top has to have done something right. Right?

Hardworking, solid, prosperous citizens who put aside the artistic dreams of youth and became corporate lawyers are just as pressed for time as dishwashers, shop clerks, and bicycle mechanics.

An analysis of Kamala Harris's loss in 2024 stated that her voters were mostly "super voters" -- people who are more attentive and engaged in politics than average voters. We spent more time reading and absorbing analysis of the threat presented by another go-round with MAGA at the helm, and did what we could to prevent it. Added to that would be habitual party voters. But her race and gender were too much even for some of the regular partisans. Those regulars who sat it out did not believe that the current regime would be bad enough to warrant setting aside their core prejudices to elect a woman, especially a non-white woman whose voice they might not like.

Democrats re-elect old farts because they keep being electable. I've dunked on electable Democrats before, but even a dead weight like Joe Manchin at least held a seat that added to the technical majority. Yes, it's a coalition party. It always will be, because it collects all of the people and sub-groups that don't move in lockstep: the true exemplars of individual freedom of thought. We are the reason that the Constitution was written and amended as it is. The lesser of two evils is still less fucking evil.

The elements gathered into the Democratic Party have been fighting to defend their lives since the 1970s. Even as the work to expand civil rights and full citizenship to women and minorities has gone on, public perception has morphed and modified under the influence of changing media and economic pressures. And public perception is the foundation of electoral politics. Facts matter, but opinions get you into office.

The young have vision. The old have experience. The old also have the memory of their younger visions, many of which might match surprisingly well to those of the young today. 

If I'm still alive at 75 or 77, I fully expect still to be working, because I was too much of a dumbass to secure a lucrative retirement package. Or maybe AI will have set up a robot army to cull out the slower members of the herd. We can be processed into any number of useful things. A lot of us out there expect still to be working if we haven't been forcibly removed by some ageist purge.

Burdened by the bullshit of Thomas Jefferson

 "When the public fears their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears its people, there is liberty." 

Snappy, right? Punchy. Memorable. And so true. What a genius.

The first premise is true. A government that rules by fear must back it up with violence and repression. But the second part oversimplifies the relationship and validates anarchy and lawlessness in which the people end up fearing each other. Unity is lost. Democracy is lost. Faith in government is lost. The nation defaults to tyranny as the void is filled by ambitious, opportunistic leaders.

The mess we are in now is the direct result of the 1980 Reagan campaign undermining the legitimacy of government. Generations since have been trained to be contemptuous of government.

The Reagan administration was full of shit, using their anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric to round up voters disillusioned by the mistakes of the Vietnam era and constantly paranoid from decades of the Cold War. All they really wanted was to make rich people richer. And they had no strong objection to racism and homophobia as long as those sentiments continued to bring them a reliable voting base. But the main objective was always wealth concentration.

Government that served the people broadly cost too much money that the rich could spend more wisely on more real estate, and whatever gratified them personally. This includes high profile philanthropy as well as gaudy, shameful ostentation like gold toilets. The underlying premise was that rich people were the elite. They deserved all the money they could attract and were free to spend it as they wished. Their expenditures would magically create jobs and prosperity as the money dripped from their fingers with every wave of the hand.

Every young person who gets their first job learns about taxes. They sign on for X-amount per hour, and then their check is a lot smaller than the product of simple multiplication. Stuff gets taken out. Once a year, you have to take a math test to get some or all of what was withheld refunded to you. Often, they get this first job while they're still in school, perhaps struggling with math, as I did. It doesn't seem fair, especially when you learn that the more you earn, the higher percentage of your income goes to taxes. Whaaat? The more I make the more you get? Fuck you! The concept of progressive taxation takes too many words. What do you mean when you say that the businesses that generate income also burden the public and should pay for services? Huh?

Then there are the other deductions. To a young worker, Social Security seems remote. The money deducted for that doesn't get refunded the way overpaid taxes do. The return on it sits too far off to seem justifiable when you could use that money now. It's easy to believe various charlatans who assure you that you could make far more playing the market with private retirement investments. Forget volatility and untimely market corrections. Don't ask how the brokerages make their cut. You'll do great! Just keep the government off of everyone's back. The great Thomas Jefferson said that the government is supposed to fear the people. Keep them on the back foot! They're the enemy.

Bumper sticker philosophy rules public opinion. A popular one says, "Become ungovernable." This glorification of immature oppositional defiance strikes at the foundation of our constitutional system, but it sounds so damn cool. Yeah! Ungovernable! Don't tread on me! I'm a badass!

Jefferson is also credited with saying that the roots of the Tree of Liberty need to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. This was written at a time when the meat on your plate at supper might have been walking around your farm that morning, and you might have slit its throat yourself. Human history is drenched in blood. At least the cause of liberty is a worthy use of the violent death in conflict that you might face anyway at the whim of a king or emperor. It was also written when war on a global scale was held back by the transportation and weapon technology of the time.

After World War II, the survivors of that conflict all seemed to agree that we didn't want to do that again. We've had almost constant warfare since then, but on a smaller scale. Hard to say how the score sits between the tyrants and the patriots. But we do know a lot more about post traumatic stress disorder and how to reconstruct physically maimed people. So there's that.

Regardless of the political labels, elected representatives have to deal with the details when they enact policies that will affect the entire operation of the country. They put lives at risk in the military and intelligence services. They kill or save millions inside and outside of our borders. Every two years, the voters kick the table and open the door to strong winds that blow the papers around. They base their decisions on whatever they can hold in mind about the people they're voting for and the beliefs they represent. A lot of them skip it altogether and hope for the best.

If fear is valued, fear will be cultivated. If the choice is only between a government fearing its people or a people fearing their government, we will only live in a constant climate of fear. That doesn't lead to good decisions.

Quit publicizing racist twats

 A racist twat in Rochester, Minn., recently dropped repeated n-bombs on a Black child she suspected of filching something from her bag in a city park. The boy is five years old and reportedly has special needs.

A bystander took video and confronted her. I won't link any of it because you can find it easily, and I don't want to give her any more publicity. I also omit her name, because she has raised a reported $500,000.00 so far, based on the claim that she has been doxed and fears for her safety.

First off, she has a right to say anything she wants, including racist epithets against a child, as long as she doesn't slide into criminal threatening. Representatives of the child might sue her for slander regarding the allegations of theft, but the First Amendment gives her plenty of latitude to spew ignorant garbage. This should never have become a cause celebre.

Our zeal for public shaming has begun to backfire spectacularly. A video meant to embarrass this loser instead gave her prominence to attract her fellow racists to protect a poor waif beset by threatening Black people and their terrorist white allies.

The racists and other far right adherents constantly shift between presenting themselves as badasses that you should just surrender to outright, and poor, noble victims of a legal system perverted by miscegenated Communists. They might walk around with firearms draped all over them, and talk about how they ask and grant no quarter, only to whine piteously when someone publishes their home address. What part of "no quarter" don't you get, tough guy? Total war is total war. Are you advocating for it or not?

America is basically a nation of shit-talkers. In the course of a day, how many thousands of death threats are flung back and forth in the heat of a moment and never go anywhere? In that mix, some may be credible. Most are not. In angry discourse, it's more common to oversell and under-deliver than vice versa.

Racism won't go away if you ignore it. But individual incidents of it won't turn into fundraising opportunities if you give it less air. Racists are not ashamed. Why do you think that a particular club is called Proud Boys? Putting a racist in a viral video is no longer a good strategy.

Along with hardcore racists come fashionable racists and the business interests that simply follow the money. Those business interests were into diversity when diversity seemed to be winning. Now that racism seems to be on top, business interests are okay with it. Corporations have no morals. They try to appeal to buyers with whatever seems to be attracting them at a given time. Some business interests will hold onto their support for diversity because they know that a solid percentage of consumers will choose them on that basis. Rather than compete in the more crowded arena of racist businesses, the "good guys" can depend on a loyal customer base to tide them over until things swing back to favor diversity overall. It is morally right, but also safe business.

I originally headlined this piece Nonviolence versus Violence because of reactions I read from the anti-racist community as the story about the Rochester bitch plays out. Certain Black activists called out their white supporters for a lack of resolve. Supposed supporters take down their Black Lives Matter signs and flags of support for marginalized groups. This may in fact indicate a weak will among some of those allies, but it also acknowledges a sad and frightening reality: the right wing likes to use violence and vandalism more than the left does.

The right wing cites the left's lack of violent propensities as a sign of cowardice and weakness. Paradoxically, they also accuse the left of perpetrating violence or of threatening it as an excuse for their own armament. Back in the Cold War, we did wonder whether the Soviets would outright invade us. Long before that, in the rise of Marxism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, Communists did engage in violence. They also didn't act very communistic wherever they gained power, but that's a tangent for another day.

Nonviolent protest emerged as a powerful tool in the 20th Century. However, it was only one tool. Outbreaks of actual violence in support of civil rights, for instance, showed the government that the costs of maintaining the racist status quo were higher than the costs of expanding the rights of full citizenship under the full protection of federal law. Gay rights got their big kick forward from the Stonewall riots in New York City.

Riots are battlefield actions. The combatants form ranks under their banners on a piece of ground that's publicly accessible, often completely public: streets, parks, business districts. There have been spectacularly bloody exceptions in which mobs descended on residential areas. This has most often been white forces attacking minorities individually or collectively. A handy list is provided here.

Slavery in the United States was not ended by peaceful protest. It was ended by a bloody and wasteful war between factions that conveniently lined up with geographical boundaries, allowing the South to secede and pretend to be their own country for four years. They spent those years proving that their economic system couldn't support a long-term military conflict against an industrialized power. They were not only morally wrong, they were economically inferior in an era when business competition was evolving rapidly. But they were so in love with their hateful ideology that they let thousands of their men get killed and their land was laid waste by Union forces. And afterward they merely shifted their tactics  -- still to their own detriment -- in order to maintain racial hierarchy.

Meanwhile, the rest of the country received both Black residents and racist ideologies. Exposure to both has led somewhat to acceptance of Black and brown people as a part of normal society, but also to the persistent cancer of racism. If the Civil War happened today, battles would break out all over the country. You would also find out in a hurry who really had the stomach for it.

When Timothy McVeigh bombed the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, he thought that he would trigger a revolution against the tyrannical United States government. Instead, he set the militia movement back ten years as people recoiled at the horror of his act. We had those dopes walking around our town in their little Confederate hats, and then poof! they all ditched the regalia and shut the fuck up for a while. It was nice. They probably still met in private. You can tell by the signs and flags around town today that a good chunk of them suck up conspiracy theories and far right propaganda. And the few years of relative peace were bought at the price of innocent people killed and maimed in the Oklahoma City bombing.

My point is that large scale violence is the best advertising against itself. Too bad that it does not inoculate against small scale violence.

Bad actors on the right in this area have engaged in vandalism against targets that they could identify as holding opposing views: roofing nails in driveways, political signs cut down with a chainsaw, slashed tires, broken windows, occasional arson. During one dispute in the tiny town where I live, people were advised to put a padlock on their well cover (if they hadn't already just for general prudence) so that someone on the other side of the dispute didn't drop something unpleasant in there.

Whether to display symbols of a political position calls for a cost-benefit analysis. How many people will be swayed toward your point of view compared to the odds that some destructive, hateful chud will damage or destroy something you depend on, like your car or your house or an outbuilding containing tools you use?

The same Black activist noted that racism always attracts more funding than anti racism does. Anti-racist endeavors depend on mostly small donors. As a small donor myself, I can tell you that I view the many problems that our species faces as interlocked. Racists and destroyers have the benefit of their simple minds to help them focus their contributions on the narrow front pushed hard by their narrow minds. Saving things is much more complicated and delicate than destroying them. Because I tried to be content with a frighteningly modest income, I don't have the money to toss monthly donations totaling a couple of hundred dollars once I have paid my routine expenses and set aside some for non-routine expenses. Before I put a target on myself, I ask what my sacrifice will do to advance the greater good.

Once violence breaks out, it shapes reality to itself. The conflict becomes more important than the stakes in it. Combatants fight for their lives. We talk of the sacrifice of heroes who fall in battle, but that's a very different act from the human sacrifice celebrated by Christian churches, in which their pure messiah was executed just for being too darn good.

In either case, the gruesome deaths don't have a lasting good effect. One dead on a cross in 33 CE and millions dead by 1945, and yet here we are. Thousands obliterated in the 1860s just so some racist twat can raise a half a million dollars on the n-word and speculation that she might receive pizzas she didn't order on a few nights in 2025. I don't know what -- if anything -- will smarten up the racist dipshits. It's reached the point of unreasoning hatred, so no reasoned discourse will sway them. The death toll of racists is in the millions just since the 1860s, and yet there are still millions of them, so you won't "kill the problem out," as violent right wingers like to say.

Should the racists manage to rule the world, they will discover that they cannot make it into their utopia any more than we progressive dreamers could. Maybe the technofascists will achieve their fantasy of entirely automated labor serving a handful of actual humans living in luxury. In that case, the vast majority of people will have died out. It seems like a long term goal at best, except for the part where most humans die out. That part is too easy to achieve.

I can see it: Jesus comes back in about 2075.

"Hey, I'm back! Hey! Where did everybody go?" And then some AI planetary defense system vaporizes him.

In the meantime, we're alive now. How nice or not nice we make it is up to us. One more war or era of bloody skirmishes won't fix a goddamned thing.

Jumping off a cliff won't hurt you

 It's the landing.

Experts and concerned citizens have been warning us for years about the threats presented by the right wing elements currently in complete control of the federal government and many states. They described the dire consequences well in advance, attempting to sway voters after the 2020 election to keep up the pressure to hold back the MAGA faction and their allies and backers. They have failed at every step. Voters gave the House of Representatives to the Republicans in 2022 and the whole shootin' match to them in 2024.

Now that the Trump regime is energetically demolishing many decades of progress, we're starting to feel some consequences, but nothing like the devastation we were told to prepare for.

No one wants to see store shelves bare and businesses closing. No one wants to be part of massive layoffs. Not everyone wants a white ethno-state. Nor does everyone want to see women relegated to dependent, subservient status. I will venture that a minority of people want to see more dangerous workplaces, rising pollution, loss of cropland, privatization of national parks and other pubic lands, and unregulated drilling, mining, and transportation of resources through communities that happen to be in the way. But none of that has happened yet. Or not much. If you happen to live where lots of federal workers haven't suddenly lost their jobs, or where farmers have suddenly lost contracts they were counting on, maybe life seems pretty normal.

We're in midair right now. Feeling weightless, enjoying the view...

It's over in seconds.

What "Made in America" means

 Goods made in the foreign countries selected by Corporate America when they shipped the jobs off to maximize their profits are produced by low-paid labor, often in unsafe conditions. Sort of like the way factory workers were treated in this country in the Gilded Age, before unionization and health and environmental concerns delivered a one-two punch to corporate corner cutting.

Low priced consumer goods depend on exploited labor. In the countries where the factories are, the labor might feel well compensated for now, but if they get a taste of better and better living conditions they might upset the equation. In the meantime, anyone operating an industrial facility in the United States has to pay more for personnel, even if they don't pay particularly well by US standards. 

It's easy to say that you would gladly pay more for a US made item instead of one from China, until you start doing all the math and figure out how little you could afford. And it won't necessarily be made with better materials and workmanship. So you'll be paying more to get something that is only as good as you were getting from overseas. Meanwhile, the workers will face constant pressure from management to produce more for less. At the same time management will be fighting with regulators to ease up on pollution and safety standards.

Look at automobiles: You shell out five figures for even a dinky one, and with the best of care it starts letting you down within 3-5 years. We're talking about cars made in America. Consumer goods manufacturing is designed to make you buy things. It doesn't matter where the factory is. The calculation is the same.

We're awash in consumer goods: Televisions, computers, mobile phones, kitchen and household appliances, clothing... some stuff is produced here. Most is not. If companies tried to move the volume of production here that feeds our level of consumption, it would not only drive the prices of everything way up to cover the costs of establishing that infrastructure, it would require more land area than industry previously occupied at the height of domestic productivity. There are many more consumers now.

On the plus side, consumers now have less money to blow than in the latter part of the 20th Century, so they have less ability to gorge on the output of consumer goods manufacturing.

Economy is tricky. For all of the bullshit about "wealth creation," we're working with a finite planet. In nature, good times for any species are generally followed by a population collapse. The exception might be cockroaches. They seem to be able to thrive no matter what. When times are good, they eat the best garbage. When times are tough, they eat their own dead, and cast-off exoskeletons. As humans, we're more like the predators whose numbers boom when their prey proliferates. Those predators die off after they have eaten their prey population down to its low point. In the case of humans, we're preying not only on animals that we eat, but on each other, metaphorically, in economic competition.

Big companies don't really care where the factories are, as long as the numbers work in their favor. Since we have exalted obscene wealth as the ultimate marker of success, corporate leadership is only concerned with paying as little as possible to achieve whatever their business model calls productivity. Productivity only means how much money gets sucked in and funneled to the top.

What's wrong with these judges?

 The right wing beef with judges makes perfect sense. It's interwoven with their misogyny and the myth of the rugged individual. It reflects their presumed virtue.

All the way up to the US Supreme Court, the only judges they like are the ones who act as servants to the ideology that has been building steadily to the current crisis. Since that ideology promotes centralized rule by a few, the judiciary is expected to be subordinate rather than equal.

The power players sell it to their base by tapping into how many of their voters -- mostly men -- have had bad experiences on the wrong side of a court judgment, whether it's domestic violence restraining orders, divorce settlements, or criminal activity of some sort. When your brand centers violence as an expression of strength, you're going to attract people who have a record of it.

All the way back to Dirty Harry and to popular written fiction for decades before that, audiences have liked characters who express their lawfulness with direct action, cutting out the cumbersome, and often disappointing, legal process of prosecution and sentencing. In fiction, the writer can establish certainty in the reader or viewer, that the bad person is a bad person, and that the good guy is fully justified. We're free to enjoy the plot as the game plays out between these adversaries. When the bad guy gets it, the audience feels jubilant.

The hero can be a deeply flawed and unhappy character. That only makes them more sympathetic. As long as they represent the frustration that we all feel when bad guys get away with their crimes and the system seems to let them slip away, we'll forgive their rough edges. They might even have marital problems or other relatable qualities that make their extrajudicial activities more satisfying as they operate outside of the suffocating constraints of red tape and procedure.

At the elite level, where billionaires buy the government that feeds their wealth at the expense of the majority of the rest of us, they're happy to undercut the power of courts. White collar criminals are still criminals. Most of them never see the inside of a cell, but pesky fines and liability settlements drain money that could be spent on bigger yachts, private space programs, and a stunning mansion on top of El Capitan, once Yosemite is privatized and sold off for development.

As frustrating as the judicial system can be, the basis of it is sound. No human system can be made immune to human frailties. Those have to be addressed by general philosophical arguments that guide our thinking overall. We’ve been at it for thousands of years. We could have consensus any day now. In the meantime, we need to shore up the structure that we have.

The task of our government is to reconcile the desires of the majority of the electorate with the rights and needs of individuals and an expertly advised assessment of the public good. Piece of cake!

America, the Petri dish

 Freedom's just another word for evolution unchained.

I believe that the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that they were establishing a rational government model based on logic, to be operated by thoughtful people. Don't all people yearn to be free to learn and grow to the fullest extent of their potential? 

As it happens, no. While the letter of the law allows a person to read whatever they want, and public schools are widely available, nothing compels you to get any more out of this than to remain in some kind of tenuous contact with it up to your late teens. You can go to the schools in your district or you can homeschool. No matter what, you have the right to remain as much of a dumbass as you can get away with.

I say this as a career dumbass. I try to be a reformed dumbass, but I wasted lots of educational opportunities back when it would have done some good, just so you know I'm not kicking down. If I had a time machine, I would spend countless trips going back to smack my stupid self upside the head.

As the United States cuts itself off from the rest of the world, we become a Petri dish of uncontrolled conflict between governing ideas. These range from pure libertarian anarchy to hard-core right wing authoritarianism. There's a hard core left wing as well. It has the least traction, but it does exist. True commies are rare in this country, despite the accusations that fly around social media. Most humans are too selfish for true communism. Anything less than true communism, if you lean that way, tuns into Animal Farm pretty quickly. Witness the Soviet Union, et al.

The United States always was the Petri dish of governmental experimentation. We had our Articles of Confederation, then our Constitution, then our amendments to that document through the years. Between 1776 and the closing of the frontier in 1890, settlers messed around with all kinds of variations in the lands that they entered on the way to a coast to coast nation. Enclaves remain today in places like Amish country and other religious communities, or even whole states heavily identified with a particular religious sect. Pretty much just Utah. Aside from religion there are lots of places ranging from quaintly eccentric to probably evil.

In addition to geographical areas prone to various belief systems, we have national and international belief systems allowed to grow out of control here because our Constitution does not restrict freedom of thought and expression. It's a laudable ideal and a perfect breeding ground for whackadoodlery. Whackadoodlery only begins to encompass how bad it can get when dumbassery combines with imagination and fragmentary knowledge unimpeded by critical thought. It's also a rewarding hunting ground for intellectual predators who might or might not believe their own shit. They'll use varying degrees of technical-sounding language and immense personal confidence to collect financial and social power that eventually leads to political leverage.

The educated men who wrote the founding documents for this country and critical commentary that went with or against it operated under the highest intellectual standards of their day. Time, collective experience, and study have revealed where they were wrong, but they acted under sincere belief at the time. The slave owners sincerely believed that the people they enslaved were on average completely inferior to the white people who owned them. Even some abolitionists held racist beliefs. They just thought that slavery was cruel and economically a bad idea. People used to believe in all kinds of dumb stuff like phrenology, and much more. Much of it served to validate their emotional prejudices, but it was based on observations and attempts to identify meaningful patterns in the world around them.

Other countries observed our evolution. Some were inspired. Some were contemptuous. Every nation works its angles in the world in times of peace and war. The United States managed to turn itself into a superpower by the end of the Second World War. We were a military powerhouse that rapidly established itself as a scientific powerhouse. We produced the largest generation of surviving children in human history, and gave them a country to play in that had the highest standard of living in the world. It helped that a lot of the rest of the world had been devastated by the recent war. The width of oceans had protected us from the direct effects of shelling and bombing one last time.

We have no such protection now. We had only our military might and enviable intellectual freedom to make the rest of the world hesitant to launch missiles at us. Now we have neither. We do have an arsenal and military forces, but they will degrade rapidly under the unqualified and insane leadership voted in by dumbasses.

Hitler had some top notch military minds working for his Reich. He was not one of them.  He had been a friggin' corporal. His delusions led to poor decisions that doomed his desire for conquest. Now, today, the United States has equally incompetent people in the presidency and every major cabinet post. There are no highly competent minds to run the country efficiently with a solid goal in mind. Instead we have a coalition of destructive interests at odds with each other as much as with the ideals of the American experiment. Each one pursues its narrow goal, whether it's Christian theocracy, technological dictatorship focused on strip mining the planet, or nihilistic greed focused on strip mining the planet in different ways for mere cash.

It's a literal confederacy of dunces. It was voted in by a bloc of ignorant and greedy people steeped in a cult of individualism brewed in a melting pot of the dregs of free thought. The stupidest ideas of the past century and a half, including a whole lot added since the middle of the 20th Century, are now the guiding principles of the occupying regime with its fists firmly clenched on the levers of power. They're cutting the brake lines and yanking out the control wires wherever they can. All the while they believe that they're making a formidable machine of war and commerce that will take American dominance from its already high level to a pinnacle of untouchability.

What a crock of utter bullshit. With their sledgehammers, torches, and software, they're destroying all of the prestige and power that the country already held, and digging a hole to drop the remains into. Some of them may know it, since culling the population (remember "death panels?" lol) is a major objective. Yes, they want to increase the birth rate of obedient white people who think that they're free, but they also want poor people, sick people, and old people to die. They want brown people to die. They have a truly impossible dream that they will somehow make the USA completely self sufficient and prosperous at the same time. It's the national version of the myth of the rugged individual. We all be rugged individuals, in a rugged individual country that can kick your ass. You can only come into our clubhouse if we invite you. We hate girls and queers and nigras. We're manly men and real women love us.

Most of the rest of the world is rightly appalled. They're pulling back, watching to see how it plays out. When the United States was just a young little country, European powers looked down on the yokels over here. We had to earn respect. With the current regime, all of that is being squandered. We'll soon be back to our image as a nation of buffoons and yokels, unless we can generate a new wave of self respect in our population.

Self respect is not the same thing as self indulgence or self adulation. As a person or as a nation, you have to keep bringing the quality to maintain true respectability. You can't just coast on collective myths and stale achievements. The people who achieved those things are dead. A lot of the stories were made up crap to justify some reprehensible national policies. Learn history. Face the truth. Realize that our fundamental governing documents provide the framework to do better, now and henceforth. Self respect is not purely self serving. It's the basis by which you recognize that you depend on the society that you support and trade with.

A lot of the people who voted for the regime have job skills. They clearly had enough disposable income to take time off to be in truck convoys, and storm the Capitol, as well as buy tons of crappy merch from the Grifter-in-Chief. They have services and products that appeal to the economy. They're also sure that they're onto the sinister plans of whatever enemy has been presented to their cultivated paranoia. The United Nations, the worldwide Jewish conspiracy, the Deep State, the gay agenda, lazy Black folks, socialist hippies, those sneaky trans people, all skulk around them, just out of sight.

The Internet doesn't help. Snappy sayings that actually support bad conclusions have always been a problem for humans, but now they can flash around the world at the speed of light.  I saw one that said, "History is written by people who weren't there." Sounds like a sick burn, doesn't it? It even has a germ of truth in that you can find history books that simply rehash other history books. But you can also find history books based on primary sources -- people who were there -- that overturn long-held myths that generations of people believed were historical facts. This is particularly true of the history of slavery in this country, and of the accomplishments of marginalized people. People who were there chose to tell the story differently to make themselves look better. It took later historians to dig down through the layers to disclose what really happened.

Our view of history changes over time anyway. People with a vested interest in the previously accepted story will fight against changes. Our view of everything changes with further study and reflection. Every generation is born into an argument already in progress. Every faction in the dispute tries to recruit the new people. The young have no experience to help them sort through what's thrown at them. Some learn faster than others. This is a human condition, not just an American one. Eager to figure it out, new minds pick up the flotsam and debris as well as the more carefully researched information.

By equating all sources, our freedom of speech and expression puts all variables onto an equal footing in charting our national course. Everything gets voted on, including whether we will die of formerly treatable and preventable diseases, whether we will stop wasting money on food safety, whether we will destroy what's left of the natural environment, whether we will have a race war, and whether we want our entire government run by incompetent attention whores. The world is watching.

Easter thoughts

 I got an email from my local hardware store the other day, informing me that they would be closed this Sunday for Easter. The funny thought struck me then that the whole holiday is based on the idea that Jesus got up and went back to work that morning after a pretty rough weekend. Now get back in there and sell me some grass seed and deck stain!

Christian societies have had a conflicted relationship with the sabbath for a long time, especially in the United States, a country founded on commerce even before it was a country. Each colony was a profit-seeking venture. Communities of conscience just provided the recruits willing to undertake the danger and hardship of the perilous ocean voyage and carving out a foothold, for the sake of a place where they could have a dominant role in governance. Religious freedom indeed. But your backers expect more than thoughts and prayers.

I've been out of the church scene for decades, but the logic of Jesus as I understood it then was that we would all do better if we looked out for each other rather than doing the work of tyrants or aspiring in even a small way to be one. This does lead to a world without concentrated wealth, but also without poverty.

At its most extreme, sabbath observance restricts virtually everything that we've come to associate with weekends. Work, play, travel, commerce, toil of nearly any kind must halt. That would include your Easter egg hunt, and a whole lot of the food preparation for Easter dinner. You'd have to rely on the labor of unbelievers, exploiting that they are damned by their unbelief. "Sucks to be you! But this lamb is cooked to perfection!"

Fortunately, we in America have embraced Sabbath Lite. By the words of the Constitution, you are free to express whatever faith you have in whatever way suits you. Just once in a while will you run into an interruption of the seven-day retail and recreation week. The term "business day" refers to specific types of business. You face little stigma for doing whatever you want on weekends, because those days are your allotted little share of your precious life, ceded back to you by the lords of the economy.

Sabbath breaking feeds the economy. And it erodes righteousness no more than sitting on your hands for a day would have done. You get the same choices that you would have on any other day about how to treat the people you deal with.

A scheduled sabbath gathering does create an opportunity for regular accountability to the community. Tying it to your specific religion limits that community, however, and might weaken the bonds overall to the larger secular community that provides the real engine of your economy and the legal framework that -- theoretically -- protects you.

"Might" weaken. Look at how the church is pitted against itself right now, between the "open and accepting" congregations and the Christian nationalist theocrats. Quick now: how many protestant denominations can you name in 30 seconds? And that's long after the split between eastern and western Catholicism. Christians have been arguing about the true nature and word of their headliner since about a week after he disappeared from every place in the mortal world except for the occasional miraculous piece of toast, or scam Shroud.

My own family embraced an easygoing philosophy toward other faiths: "One God, many names." It's an easy out if you want to go to a certain church but don't want to get sucked into a holy war. Other faiths of all sorts have their own adherents to the idea that we can all tie our values to a superior or supreme entity if that helps, praying in a familiar language. This attitude drives the fundamentalists cross-eyed with rage.

"One true faith! One true faith! One true faith!" There can be only one. The all-powerful deity needs propitiating, dammit. Now get in here and propitiate exactly as we taught you.

Hard core attitudes like that grow naturally from the exclusionary nature of source texts. If you saturate yourself with one brand of righteousness, it can't help but repel the concept that someone else might be okay too. Maybe you don't make direct war on them, but you know that you won't be seeing them in the Great Beyond. Go a little deeper and you can't associate with them at all. A little deeper yet and you can't even countenance their existence.

I can't tell you how to interpret Easter for yourself. Not even going to try. In most ways it is a day like any other. There is war, sickness, atrocity, suffering, privation, and injustice all unremedied. Nearly every problem is created by humans devaluing other humans. The will to stop it can never come from outside. It's a personal choice.

FAFO, Supreme Court edition

 Not much to say here, really.  With the Trump administration's defiance of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that the administration must return Kilmar Abrego Garcia from El Salvador immediately, they have demonstrated that the ruling in Trump v. United States last July has made every other branch of government subordinate to the executive.

The Supreme Court made itself irrelevant that day. Everyone but them saw it. Well, the dissenters on the court saw it, but the right wing majority, drunk with power, planted the flag of the unitary executive and saluted. What they hell did they think would happen?

Maybe they thought that Trump wouldn't win the election. Maybe they just wanted to prepare the ground for a better right wing authoritarian to follow. They could be confident that a Democratic president wouldn't take advantage of the newly granted immunity.

The current composition of the Democratic Party doesn't favor strongman government. Their commitment to diversity is one of the things that makes their efforts so fragmented. They can't keep their coalition members playing nicely together long enough to win more than one election out of a dozen, it seems. Well, maybe a half-dozen. I don't have time at the moment to run the numbers. But you know what I mean. The party has attracted a few firebrands, but they strive against some well established wet blankets. And some of the firebrands, particularly before the 2024 election, seemed bent on burning down their own house over fine ideological points that would not be served by undermining efforts to prevent another Trump presidency.

It's up to the voters now. Voters have to choose solidarity with each other, democracy over dictatorship, in such overwhelming numbers that challenges will crumble under the obvious weight of the public's choice. So we're probably screwed, but I just want to put it out there. We do have the opportunity, early and often before the next election, and resoundingly in it, to make it obvious that the mass of us rejects the cruel efficiency of a government run like a business. That business turns out to be a meat packing plant processing us.

The Supreme Court may not be able to reclaim its power. But Congress can still impeach, the Senate can convict, and the president thus deposed can face criminal charges. At the very least he (or she in some theoretical future) can be barred from holding office in any capacity after that. And if they could overturn Roe v. Wade they can certainly overturn Trump v. United States once a case is brought to them.

Trump v. United States turns out to have been the most apt title ever. He is the foremost agent of the destruction of the United States, put in place by long term enemies both foreign and domestic.

Are you ready to disappear?

 With the abduction of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia at the top of the news right now because the two potentates of their respective domains assert that neither of them has the power to return him to his home, it might be a good time to review your own preparations for whoever will be left behind if you suddenly disappear into a foreign prison. Are your affairs in order? Your loved ones and pets ready to get along without you?

Trump was caught on a hot mic telling President Bukele of El Salvador that he intends to send "home grown" prisoners to the care and custody of whoever is in charge down there. In other words, US citizens need to be ready to take a one-way trip. I guess he was just telling Bukele as a courtesy, since that poor guy apparently has no control over what happens once the door slams behind them.

So... are you ready in case you somehow manage to catch the attention of the secret police and get snatched off the street or dragged from your house? Better sleep in your clothes if you don't want to take a 6- or 8-hour flight in your pajamas, or underwear.

This sounds crazy to all you fine, upstanding citizens who have the good sense to keep your heads down and your mouths shut while the easier targets get picked off. Look at Russia: guys like Alexei Navalny get imprisoned and killed. Regular citizens just have to get by and avoid getting drafted as cannon fodder in Ukraine. You'll learn to mind your mouth and write nothing down and avoid eye contact with the cops and trust no one. Those are the keys to freedom.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about." Yeah, but who decides if you've done wrong? Imagine living every moment of your life as if you're driving in front of a cop along a stretch where the speed limit keeps changing and the yellow lights last about a tenth of a second. Only the consequences are potentially much worse than a traffic stop.

Rural folks probably think that low population density and local knowledge will protect them. Maybe. Unless your local sheriff bought into the regime's philosophy, and maybe agreed to cooperate with the national authorities. An overbearing government has plenty of ways to bring pressure on you by declaring activities of self sufficiency illegal. Sure, laws are only as good as enforcement, but if enough things are illegal they have ample probable cause to poke into your business.

Are you going to arm yourself and put up a fight? The regime has laid the groundwork to pit you against the armed forces. While it's true that the American military has a poor record against unconventional warfare, they have a lot of napalm, and worse things, to keep you too distracted to raise your food crops. Agent Orange, anyone? Perhaps when fighting on their own soil, US forces will be much more effective against the guerillas, because no one will be supplying the insurrection from a neighboring country that the US doesn't want to piss off.

You've got one more chance -- maybe -- to end this before it blossoms fully into a police state. Malcontents gripe that it's been one for years, but they ain't seen nothing. Yeah, there's been surveillance of dissidents, and selective enforcement, and targeting of activists. It has been bad and wrong. But up until now they haven't outright disappeared US citizens and legal residents the way they're fixing to.

Most people don't think about the phrase "due process" except as something they talk about in cop shows. Or if you've had your own brush with the law you might have direct experience. For a lot of us it sounds made up. We don't know what the process is, so we don't know how much we should care. "I'm a good person. I'll never have to worry about this."

Well, now you don't have to worry at all. Because law enforcement isn't going to worry about it either.

As always, the erosion of liberties will begin with outsiders: immigrants, refugees, criminals. You know, lowlife. People you probably don't want around you. They had it comin'. Believe me that once you write off anyone you have created a movable line. And now that incarceration is an industry, the government has little incentive to avoid relinquishing anyone to the prison system. The prisons, for their part, have every incentive to provide as little as possible for the inmates, to maximize profits for shareholders.

I suppose you could look way down the road to when no one is left to pay taxes, so the prison no longer has a revenue stream. I'd look out of the cell block to see where the excavators are digging mass graves at that point. When all we represent to each other is a source of money we can squeeze out, who needs you around once you're drained?

We have a long way to go to get to that point. But this regime has already started the trip.

Deus f*ckin' Vult

 Insecure man and evangelical preacher Joel Webbon recently tweeted (X-ed?) that "Young men are waking up. Women will learn to have a quiet and gentle spirit, or they will learn to be alone." And then he caps it off with a favorite incantation of Christian Nationalists, "Deus Vult."

Our hard-drinking, unqualified Secretary of Defense has the same phrase tattooed on his arm.

Nothing classes up your gang of misogynist punks like a punchy slogan in Latin. It sounds really tough. You can sort of puke up that word "vult." Spit it in some liberal's face. "Uh oh! Take cover! They got Latin!"

It's just another way of saying, "inshallah." Or maybe, "mashallah." Crusader versus Muslim, more god-on-god violence in a clash between religions of peace.

The fundamentalists on either side of that pairing, and numerous other religions, are notoriously incapable of handling free women making their own choices, living as fully adult citizens.

I have the impression that a lot of women are quite willing to choose the "alone" option in the face of even less coercive philosophies than fundamentalist Christianity. And who can blame them?

Young men who follow the teachings of weak men are not waking up to anything. They're just surrendering to the natural insecurity common to all young men. The saying that "Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them" is based on very real observations over generations.

Men are not just performing for women. They are performing more for other men than for women. We're talking about cis hetero men now. That's all that the evangelical crowd will admit to being, and is the basis for their public judgment of the behavior of others. Manliness is expressed through power and control.

Just as slave owners attempted to convince the enslaved that they belonged in their inferior status, so too does sexism attempt to convince women to give up and let the man decide. As a competitive strategy, it makes sense. Why compete against a large field for whatever status you crave when you can persuade a bunch of them to forfeit without even trying?

Women have options. The religious right hates that, and is doing everything it can to eliminate those options.

I can understand why a woman would want to forgo the option of independence. Adulthood is scary. Women have had the shelter of a dependent relationship without the social stigma that would attach to a fearful young man who didn't want to face life as the master of his own destiny. But apparently some women felt enough shame and insecurity about that to oppose feminism for as long as there has been feminism. The stay-at-home wives and mothers want their role to be unchallenged. Don't make them look bad by achieving things. They have a strong ally in the religious right.

The problem with good old fashioned subjugation of women is that not every woman is going to find a lord and protector. What happens to the spare women that no one has wanted? If there is only one measure of womanhood, and that is marriage, the unclaimed brides can all go do what? Drown themselves?

Monotheism breeds simple minds. Atheists will go one step further and say that theism breeds simple minds. There's something to that, but we are so many generations away from giving up the belief in things unseen that we have to figure out how to get along in the meantime. Don't let the religious folks get too riled up into an apocalyptic frenzy. Don't let them make the laws. We can't stop them from talking shit to vulnerable young people, but we can prevent them from enacting drastic official legal penalties for behavior that doesn't adhere to their scriptures.

We have a problem with superstition in this country. People who do not attend an evangelical church, or maybe any church, continue to be swayed by moralistic-sounding arguments from authoritarian religious figures. It's Pascal's stupid wager, made by people who don't even know what that is. They enact it because they're not interested in a life ruled by religion but they're not sure enough that they can disregard it to shore up the wall between church and state.

At the risk of sounding like a libertarian here, we have to get back to celebrating the increasing freedom of individuals. We cannot extend unlimited liberty to groups who only feel fulfilled by taking away the liberty of others. Individual freedom does not transfer to organizations and associations that those individuals may join.

In defense of government, no one can have completely unlimited liberty. Participation in a civilized country has to include some firm elements of a social contract. We debate these constantly, as we should. But we can't let a mania for liberty lead to chaos and destruction any more than we let a mania for authoritarianism do it. Government has a role to protect and serve. Citizens have a role to guide those decisions. Not every government function constitutes oppression, but oppression is constantly trying to take over government functions. It's making a damn good try right now.