Activist Thursday

I’ve had a busy morning. I began by writing a brief note to The Rt. Rev. Mariann Edgar Budde, Episcopal Bishop of Washington, telling her how much I appreciated her plea to President Trump to have mercy on people who have been justifiably frightened by his pronouncements and apparent intentions. I am always gratified when there is a public indication that Christianity is not always that of Evangelicals seemingly ignorant of the Gospel message.

I next telephoned by conservative Republican congresswoman, Claudia Tenney. I have often sent e-mail to her, but this was the first time I have called her. I had three questions I wanted to ask:

1. Do you approve of the president’s pardons and commutations given to January 6 insurrectionists?
2. What do you plan to do in Congress to protect the rule of law in America?
3. Do you approve of the president’s plan for mass deportations?

I did not expect to speak to Tenney, of course, but I thought her office staff might have ready answers to one or more of my questions. That seems not to have been the case, and I couldn’t really be upset by that. I was assured that the congresswoman would get back to me.

I was surprised that the staffer who answered my call did not ask me who I was. He did, however, ask me if I were a constituent. I told him I was and gave him my name. When I tried to offer my address, he stopped me before I finished. It was not clear how the congresswoman was going to get back to me. Perhaps, because of my previous e-mail communications, the staffer had my contact information readily at hand.

I likely will eventually get a letter from Congresswoman Tenney in response to my telephone call. Such communications are usually standard responses that don’t address the specifics of my inquiries and parrot standard GOP talking points. I hope I made the point, however, that this constituent has serious concerns about the early actions of the second Trump administration.

Welcome to the Age of Stupid

On a frigid January day in 2025—many thought it would be a cold day in hell when this would happen—Donald J. Trump was sworn in as the 47th president of the United States. The new chief executive immediately began the extraordinary task of remaking the country and its government.

Some of the president’s actions seem as though they might be innocuous or even beneficial, such as his instructions Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture. Others are nasty, mean-spirited, and perhaps illegal (Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which attempts to subvert the right of birthright citizenship granted by the Fourteenth Amendment and Clarifying the Military’s Role in Protecting the Territorial Integrity of the United States, acknowledging a National Emergency  at our southern border (declared here) and tasking the military with mitigating the emergency.) Others seem designed simply to flex presidential muscle, for example, by renaming Denali to Mount McKinley and the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America. (Surely we must celebrate McKinley for pursuing our glorious Spanish-American War!) ABC News reports that the White House has ordered the removal of General Mark Milley’s portrait from a Pentagon hallway. (Trump has suggested that the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be executed for treason, yet he has pardoned or commuted the sentences of everyone involved in the January 6 insurrection.) And Trump is trying to limit human sexes to male and female, ignoring intersex variations and producing definitions clearly crafted by politicians rather than biologists (Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which declares that: “Basing Federal policy on truth is critical to scientific inquiry, public safety, morale, and trust in government itself.” How ironic!)

I could go on and on, but Trump is doing crazy things faster than I can document them. Interested readers can learn about Trump actions on the White House Web site here.

Inauguration Day

I intentionally did not watch the inauguration of Donald Trump this morning, as I knew it would drive me crazy. I did, however, tune in to watch the ABC World News Tonight. All I saw was Trump’s speech, which, after 15 minutes, I could not stand a moment longer. Rather than throw a large, heavy object at my television, I turned the TV off.

Earlier in the day—before the inauguration—I posted the graphic below on Facebook, Twitter, and Blue Sky. I was afraid my message in that graphic might have been unnecessarily harsh. After listening to 15 minutes of the horrible human being we have mistakenly elected to a second term, I concluded that my prediction was an extreme understatement.

For the benefit of readers not familiar with the name “Nakba,” here is an explanation copied from Wikipedia:

The Nakba (Arabic: النَّكْبَة, romanized: an-Nakba, lit. ‘the catastrophe’) is the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian Arabs through their violent displacement and dispossession of land, property, and belongings, along with the destruction of their society and the suppression of their culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations. The term is used to describe the events of the 1948 Palestine war in Mandatory Palestine as well as the ongoing persecution and displacement of Palestinians by Israel.

For people in this country illegally, the catastrophe suffered by Palestinians may be exactly what they will likely experience. For the rest of us, Trump plans to destroy the America we have come to know, taking us back to the time of the Robber Barons. Most of Trump’s plans are destructive, such as again taking the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords. Others are stupid and mean-spirited, such as renaming the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. (I don’t think Trump has the authority to do this, and, in any case, other nations will ignore his change.)

Clearly, Americans are in for a wild ride. By the time Trump is through destroying what took nearly a quarter millennium to build and improve, the immigration of people into the U.S. may have ended and been replaced by the emigration of citizens to free countries elsewhere.

Biden’s Farewell Address

President Joe Biden delivered a farewell address last night. He spoke of some of his accomplishments as president. More importantly, he warned us about the dangers of a “tech-industrial complex,” of the potential for both good and ill from artificial intelligence, and of the need for ethical constraints on the Supreme Court and Congress. He concluded with a charge to Americans: “Now it’s your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith.”

As of this writing, Biden’s speech has not been posted on the White House Web site. What follows is a transcription of what the president actually said. Video of his address can be found here.

My fellow Americans, I’m speaking to you tonight from the Oval Office. Before I begin, let me speak to important news from earlier today. After eight months of nonstop negotiation, my administration—by my administration—a cease-fire and a hostage deal has been reached by Israel and Hamas, the elements of which I laid out in great detail in May of this year.

This plan was developed and negotiated by my team, and it will be largely implemented by the incoming administration. That’s why I told my team to keep the incoming administration fully informed. Because that’s how it should be: Working together as Americans. This will be my final address to you, the American people, from the Oval Office, from this desk, as president. And I’ve been thinking a lot about who we are and, maybe more importantly, who we should be.

Long ago, in New York Harbor, an ironworker installed beam after beam, day after day. He was joined by steelworkers, stonemasons, engineers. They built not just a single structure, but a beacon of freedom. The very idea of America was so big, we felt the entire world needed to see the Statue of Liberty, a gift from France after our Civil War. Like the very idea of America, it was built not by one person but by many people, from every background, and from around the world.

Like America, the Statue of Liberty is not standing still. Her foot literally steps forward atop a broken chain of human bondage. She’s on the march. And she literally moves. She was built to sway back and forth to withstand the fury of stormy weather, to stand the test of time because storms are always coming. She sways a few inches, but she never falls into the current below. An engineering marvel.

The Statue of Liberty is also an enduring symbol of the soul of our nation, a soul shaped by forces that bring us together and by forces that pull us apart. And yet, through good times and tough times, we have withstood it all. A nation of pioneers and explorers, of dreamers and doers, of ancestors native to this land, of ancestors who came by force. A nation of immigrants who came to build a better life. A nation holding the torch of the most powerful idea ever in the history of the world: that all of us, all of us are created equal. That all of us deserve to be treated with dignity, justice and fairness. That democracy must defend, and be defined, and be imposed, moved in every way possible: Our rights, our freedoms, our dreams. But we know the idea of America, our institution, our people, our values that uphold it, are constantly being tested.

Ongoing debates about power and the exercise of power. About whether we lead by the example of our power or the power of our example. Whether we show the courage to stand up to the abuse of power, or we yield to it. After 50 years at the center of all of this, I know that believing in the idea of America means respecting the institutions that govern a free society—the presidency, the Congress, the courts, a free and independent press. Institutions that are rooted—not just reflect the timeless words, but they—they echo the words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident.” Rooted in the timeless words of the Constitution: “We the People.” Our system of separation of powers, checks and balances—it may not be perfect, but it’s maintained our democracy for nearly 250 years, longer than any other nation in history that’s ever tried such a bold experiment.

In the past four years, our democracy has held strong. And every day, I’ve kept my commitment to be president for all Americans, through one of the toughest periods in our nation’s history. I’ve had a great partner in Vice President Kamala Harris. It’s been the honor of my life to see the resilience of essential workers getting us through a once-in-a-century pandemic, the heroism of service members and first responders keeping us safe, the determination of advocates standing up for our rights and our freedoms.

Instead of losing their jobs to an economic crisis that we inherited, millions of Americans now have the dignity of work. Millions of entrepreneurs and companies, creating new businesses and industries, hiring American workers, using American products. And together, we have launched a new era of American possibilities: one of the greatest modernizations of infrastructure in our entire history, from new roads, bridges, clean water, affordable high-speed internet for every American.

We invented the semiconductor, smaller than the tip of my little finger, and now is bringing those chip factories and those jobs back to America where they belong, creating thousands of jobs. Finally giving Medicare the power to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for millions of seniors. And finally doing something to protect our children and our families by passing the most significant gun safety law in 30 years. And bringing violent crime to a 50-year low. Meeting our sacred obligation to over one million veterans so far who were exposed to toxic materials, and to their families, providing medical care and education benefits and more for their families.

You know, it will take time to feel the full impact of all we’ve done together. But the seeds are planted, and they’ll grow, and they’ll bloom for decades to come. At home, we have created nearly 17 million new jobs, more than any other single administration in a single term. More people have health care than ever before. And overseas, we have strengthened NATO. Ukraine is still free. And we’ve pulled ahead in our competition with China. And so much more. I’m so proud of how much we’ve accomplished together for the American people, and I wish the incoming administration success. Because I want America to succeed.

That’s why I’ve upheld my duty to ensure a peaceful and orderly transition of power to ensure we lead by the power of our example. I have no doubt that America is in a position to continue to succeed.

That’s why my farewell address tonight, I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is a dangerous—and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before.

More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. We’ve got to do that again.

The last four years, that is exactly what we have done. People should be able to make as much as they can, but pay—play by the same rules, pay their fair share in taxes. So much is at stake. Right now, the existential threat of climate change has never been clearer. Just look across the country, from California to North Carolina. That’s why I signed the most significant climate and clean energy law ever, ever in the history of the world.

And the rest of the world is trying to model it now. It’s working, creating jobs and industries of the future. Now we have proven we don’t have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. We’re doing both. But powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps we’ve taken to tackle the climate crisis, to serve their own interests for power and profit. We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and our grandchildren. We must keep pushing forward, and push faster. There is no time to waste. It is also clear that American leadership in technology is unparalleled, an unparalleled source of innovation that can transform lives. We see the same dangers in the concentration of technology, power and wealth.

You know, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He warned us that about, and I quote, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Six days—six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.

Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time.

Nothing offers more profound possibilities and risks for our economy, and our security, our society. For humanity. Artificial intelligence even has the potential to help us answer my call to end cancer as we know it. But unless safeguards are in place, AI could spawn new threats to our rights, our way of life, to our privacy, how we work, and how we protect our nation. We must make sure AI is safe and trustworthy and good for all humankind. In the age of AI, it’s more important than ever that the people must govern. And as the Land of Liberty, America—not China—must lead the world in the development of AI.

You know, in the years ahead, it’s going to be up to the president, the presidency, the Congress, the courts, the free press, and the American people to confront these powerful forces. We must reform the tax code. Not by giving the biggest tax cuts to billionaires, but by making them begin to pay their fair share.

We need to get dark money—that’s that hidden funding behind too many campaign contributions—we need to get it out of our politics. We need to enact an 18-year time limit, term limit, time and term, for the strongest ethics—and the strongest ethics reforms for our Supreme Court. We need to ban members of Congress from trading stock while they are in the Congress. We need to amend the Constitution to make clear that no president, no president is immune from crimes that he or she commits while in office. The president’s power is not limit—it is not absolute. And it shouldn’t be. And in a democracy, there is another danger—that the concentration of power and wealth. It erodes a sense of unity and common purpose. It causes distrust and division. Participating in our democracy becomes exhausting and even disillusioning, and people don’t feel like they have a fair shot. We have to stay engaged in the process. I know it’s frustrating. A fair shot is what makes America America. Everyone is entitled to a fair shot, not a guarantee, just a fair shot, an even playing field. Going as far as your hard work and talent can take you.

We can never lose that essential truth to remain who we are. I’ve always believed, and I told other world leaders, America will be defined by one word: possibilities. Only in America do we believe anything is possible. Like a kid with a stutter from modest beginnings in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and Claymont, Delaware, sitting behind this desk in the Oval Office as president of the United States.

That is the magic of America. It’s all around us. Upstairs in the residence of the White House, I’ve walked by a painting of a Statue of Liberty I don’t how many times. In the painting there are several workers climbing on the outstretched arm of the statue that holds the torch. It reminds me every day I pass it of the story and soul of our nation, and the power of the American people.

There is a story of a veteran — a veteran, a son of an immigrant, whose job was to climb that torch and polish the amber panes so rays of light could reach out as far as possible. He was known as the keeper of the flame. He once said of the Statue of Liberty, “Speaks a silent, universal language, one of hope that anyone who seeks and speaks freedom can understand.”

Yes, we sway back and forth to withstand the fury of the storm, to stand the test of time, a constant struggle, constant struggle. A short distance between peril and possibility. But what I believe is the America of our dreams is always closer than we think. And it’s up to us to make our dreams come true.

Let me close by stating my gratitude to so many people. To the members of my administration, as well as public service and first responders across the country and around the world, thank you for stepping up to serve. To our service members and their families, it has been the highest honor of my life to lead you as commander in chief.

And of course, to Kamala and her incredible partner. A historic vice president. She and Doug have become like family. And to me, family is everything.

My deepest appreciation to our amazing first lady who is with me in the Oval today. For our entire family. You are the love of my life and the life of my love.

My eternal thanks to you, the American people. After 50 years of public service, I give you my word, I still believe in the idea for which this nation stands—a nation where the strength of our institutions and the character of our people matter and must endure. Now it’s your turn to stand guard. May you all be the keeper of the flame. May you keep the faith. I love America. You love it, too.

God bless you all, and may God protect our troops. Thank you for this great honor.

Thoughts on the Hegseth Nomination for Secretary of Defense

Pete Hegseth appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday as Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense. He has proved to be one of Trump’s more controversial choices.

Last night, Chris Hayes called Hegseth manifestly unqualified. Were his résumé in a stack of potential candidates, Hayes suggested, it would immediately be consigned to the no-need-to-call-in-for-an-interview pile. It is unclear whether Trump had such a stack of résumés or whether he did anything like due diligence in picking Hegseth.

Although Hayes’s view is widely shared by Democrats (and, one suspects, most HR professionals), Republican members of the Armed Services Committee clearly think otherwise (or are too afraid to go against the Trump tide).

Republicans seem to believe that previous secretaries were incompetent, and what is needed now is a “change agent” to fix what’s wrong with the Department of Defense. The problem with the DoD, in their view, is an obsession with DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), a concept, remarkably, they find incompatible with democracy (or, in any case, with Donald Trump).

Majority committee members believe that we have been picking defense secretaries all wrong. The ideal candidate is a well-dressed, glib, hard-drinking former soldier disdainful of international rules of warfare. The candidate should be an adulterous misogynist with a history of sexual predation and track record of mismanagement of modest-size organizations. Such a person clearly is the ideal leader for one of the largest and most complicated organizations on the planet. Pete Hegset is the perfect candidate!

Trump’s choice of Hegseth is a harbinger of the quality of government we may expect from a second Trump administration.

*  *  *  *

Republicans have worked hard to secure the Hegseth nomination. Senators have been lobbied by Trump partisans, and TV spots urging voters to lobby their Senators to vote for him have appeared in at least one state. The candidate refused to meet with any committee Democrats except the ranking member. Little documentation of the candidate’s background has been provided, and committee members were allotted only one round of questioning, contrary to customary practice. It is unclear why the FBI background check on Hegseth was, at best, perfunctory, but it was.

*  *  *  *

Hegseth has made much of his war record. (He is hardly another Eisenhower, however.) He wants to see a “warrior ethos” in the DoD and looks forward to “leading this Pentagon on behalf of the war fighters.” This aggressive attitude, combined with his disdain for established rules of war, is worrisome. One of the most important tasks of the defense secretary is working with other nations to avoid war. When asked about some of our military alliances, however, Hegseth appeared clueless. Whereas it is laudable that a defense secretary is concerned about the welfare of our fighting forces, Hegseth seems not to recognize that, as secretary, he represents the American people and the civilian control of the military. Significantly, we no longer have a “War Department.”

*  *  *  *

In the time-honored fashion of nominees with skeletons in the closet, Hegseth deflected  criticism, claiming that he has been a victim of a “coordinated smear campaign orchestrated in the media.” (One cannot help but be reminded of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for Clarence Thomas. We see where that led!) Hegseth admitted that he is not a “perfect person,” but he claims to be a reformed person, a transformation apparently brought about through Jesus Christ. Mark Kelly has observed that Hegseth cannot have it both ways; he cannot be both a changed man and a victim of a smear campaign.

Republicans are not going to tell us much about this thoroughly inappropriate candidate, but readers wanting to know more should read Jane Mayer’s December 1 piece in The New Yorker about Hegseth.

RIP Peter Yarrow

Peter Yarrow, of the folk group Peter, Paul & Mary, died on January 7 at the age of 86. The New York Times covered his life and death here.

I was (and remain) a big fan of Peter, Paul & Mary, and was fortunate to see them in concert twice. Of course, the group did not survive the death of Mary Travers in 2009. (I wrote about Mary’s death here.) Happily, Peter Yarrow and Noel Paul Stookey continued to sing individually or together and did not try to replace the irreplaceable Mary Travers. (Could they have found another singer called Mary or one willing to be called Mary?)

Alas, the folk song era in which humane and anti-war songs achieved widespread popularity is no more. We need such songs now more than ever.

An Old Poem Finished at Last

On February 6, 2023, I posted a poem fragment on my blog. I had presumably written that fragment even earlier, although I don’t remember having done so. Since the fragment had no name, “?” was the only identification I gave to it. I asked readers to help me complete the poem but received no suggestions. I revisited the fragment many times over the years but found no inspiration allowing me to replace “?” as a title.

Last month, looking for more material for a local open mic night, I made a serious attempt to expand the fragment into a real poem. Remarkably, I was successful this time. What emerged was a poem I titled “Encounter.” After a few revisions, I have added the poem to my Web site. You can read the finished product here, though you might want to check our my decade-old blog post first.

I am pleased with the new poem. See if you like it, too. 

Donald Trump Day?

Today, January 6, is The Epiphany of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is probably not what most Americans are thinking of this day.

Four years ago, President Donald Trump encouraged a mob of his supporters to march on the Capitol to disrupt the official declaration that Joe Biden won the recent presidential election, an action that he hoped would lead to unprecedented electoral vote changes by state legislatures and his own re-election.

Congress will today declare that Trump was the winner of the 2024 election, thereby becoming the official president-elect. Washington, D.C., has a much-enhanced police presence today in light of the scheduled congressional activity. It is likely unnecessary because defeated Democrats, unlike the Republicans of 2021, are inclined to accept a legitimately chosen leader, however misguided the American electorate in making that choice.

I have written a couple of posts about what we should call the insurrection of January 6, 2021. In the media, it has simply come to be known as “January 6.” My most recently suggested designation is “Epiphany Insurrection.” On January 11, 2021, and September 16, 2001, I wrote

The ragtag army that marched on the Capitol had no thoughts of the Christian celebration, but the sack of the Capitol was an epiphany of sorts—it manifested, for all to see, the logical consequences of the error of Trumpism. That epiphany has been powerful enough to remove the blinders from the eyes even of some Republicans who have hitherto been unshakable Trump sycophants.

Alas, that epiphany among Republicans was of short duration, and it is difficult to find any Republican who is willing publicly to criticize the mob activities incited by losing presidential candidate Donald Trump.

Contemplating the irony of today’s congressional duties, I was reminded of the Gunpower Plot, which, on November 5, 1605, sought to blow up the House of Lords. The plot was thwarted, and November 5 became celebrated as a day of deliverance from the Catholic conspirators who hatched the plot. Although he was not the leader of the plot, Englishman and Catholic convert Guy Fawkes became the person most associated with it and, among others, was executed for treason. November 5 has been variously designated over time but has long been known as Guy Fawkes Day. It is celebrated with fireworks and bonfires.

Although Donald Trump (and his co-conspirators) did not plan to blow up the Capitol, he certainly intended to undermine the government. Unlike Guy Fawkes in a vaguely analogous situation, Trump has escaped punishment and been rewarded with re-election. If his second administration does not destroy the Republic, it will surely weaken it. Years from now, we will perhaps celebrate January 6 as Donald Trump Day, when we were saved from the Republican insurrection. Or maybe we will celebrate the Day Trump is impeached or replaced by a Democratic president. Or maybe we will celebrate June 14, the birthday of Donald Trump, the leader of the Second American Republic.

Tipping Point

The greatest fear of those concerned about the fate of the earth’s climate is that we could reach a tipping point, at which a warming climate ignites positive feedback (or feedbacks) that leads to irreversible climate warming. For example, melting ice sheets reduces the reflection of the sun’s rays, which then contribute their heat to exposed land and sea. In other words, heating creates more heating, a process that can get out of control. Similarly, the melting of Arctic permafrost releases long-trapped carbon dioxide, a potent greenhouse gas. That release increases global temperatures, resulting in more permafrost thawing and the release of even more carbon dioxide.

We believe we have not yet reached a climate-catastrophic tipping point, but it is easy to imagine our doing so within the lifetimes of people now living.

A less obvious but nonetheless catastrophic tipping point may be in our political future. Large corporations and wealthy individuals have slowly been increasing their influence over the American government. This trend accelerated but did not begin with the presidency of Ronald Reagan, under whose administration the government favored corporations over unions and tax cuts over government spending on the general welfare. Over time, more and more corporate lobbyists have peopled the halls of Congress, overwhelming the influence of individuals and other commercial and nonprofit organizations. Moreover, the Citizens United decision opened floodgates that allowed corporate money to dominate spending on political campaigns.

The public perception is that conservatives have gradually developed effective communication channels, think tanks, and lobbying organizations that have halted or reversed the program of liberalism. The list of such institutions is long and includes Fox News, The Heritage Foundation, The Federalist Society, numerous “news and comment” Web sites, various groups created by the Koch Brothers, etc. These entities are largely seen as the conservative alternative to the more liberal Democratic Party and its allies.

Additionally, various independent groups have formed in response to what was seen as the upsetting of longstanding societal norms—the waning influence of religion, the acceptance of abortions, the normalization of homosexuality, and the visibility of transsexuality.

These developments are related but by no means identical. Opposition to social change is often genuinely conservative. That is, it seeks to halt societal change and return to a simpler, more stable time. The political institutions advancing the interests of large corporations and the wealthy are not really conservative at all. They are reactionary or, if you like, libertarian. They seek not the society of the Eisenhower years but the nineteenth-century golden age of the robber barons. Their interest is in low (or nonexistent) taxes and the absence of government regulations. To the degree that supporters of the program support conservative initiatives, it is not out of conviction but out of a desire to gain voters for their reactionary program.

Whereas the economic elites of America have long had significant influence over the federal government, we now face the danger of their completely taking over. The nominations Donald Trump is planning to make are industrialists and wealthy individuals who would love to return to the age of low taxes, no government regulation, and no antitrust activity. And advising Trump is Elon Musk—some are calling him the real president-elect—reputedly the world’s richest man. (One wonders whether Vladimir Putin actually deserves that title.) Musk is clearly smarter than Trump and has already been throwing his weight around. (Trump may actually have more political smarts, however.)

The question, then, is whether the influence of corporate elites is about to reach a tipping point at which the country is ruled by and for the wealthy with no concern for the bulk of its citizens. If we reach that point, will it be the tipping point at which rule by the wealthy becomes irreversible? That seems possible.

Thoughts on Political Discourse

Democrats will be arguing for a long time about what went wrong in the 2024 presidential election. Harris waged a mostly competent, rather normal, if abbreviated campaign; Trump, lied his way to victory. Both candidates offered policy proposals with little analysis, a time-honored tradition of political discourse. Trump frequently made ad hominem attacks on his opponent and on other Democrats. That was decidedly not normal, but his fans loved it. Harris too often ignored it.

Not every proposal needs an elaborate explanation to be seen as credible, of course. Harris’s plan to build more housing implicitly acknowledged a housing deficit, which would likely be ameliorated by increasing the housing stock. Yet even “obvious” solutions can have unanticipated, non-obvious consequences. And even obvious consequences of a policy are seldom mentioned. How much will it cost? Where will the money come from? Who might be harmed by the policy?

The idea of making tips tax-free is an interesting case. It is difficult to believe the Trump proposal was anything other than an attempt to buy votes among a particular (presumed) low-income group. As a policy position, it is arbitrary, will anger low-income citizens who do not earn tips, will encourage gaming the system, and will take revenue from a government already running a huge deficit. It is a classic solution in search of a problem, and one whose consequences were likely never considered beyond gaining the votes of tip-earning workers. I was distressed that Harris, rather than stigmatizing the Trump proposal as a cynical, ill-considered, counterproductive opportunistic political ploy, adopted the policy as her own. It was not her finest hour as a campaigner. 

Both candidates offered policy proposals without clearly articulating the problem being addressed, the underlying causes of the problem, or explaining how the proposed policy is expected to ameliorate the underlying problem without creating new ones. Trump lied about the facts. Crime, for example, has been on the decline, yet Trump would have you believe that the nation is experiencing a crime wave. No analysis of policy is useful if it relies on a distorted or intentionally false version of reality. Harris did a poor job of attacking Trump’s “alternative facts.”

One can only hope that, someday, opposing candidates will agree on a set of facts and campaign on rival proposals to address those facts. Alas, that may never happen.

Mike Johnson’s Agenda

 I heard Speaker of the House Mike Johnson today saying, “We want to take a blowtorch to the regulatory state.”

It is worth thinking about why we have federal regulations. In large measure, regulations are of two kinds. Some regulations benefit special interests. The IRS provisions for carried interest are of this sort. Other regulations are intended to benefit the public at large. Included here are regulations that protect our food supply, ensure that we have safe drugs, and protect people from financial predators.

I suspect that Make Johnson’s blowtorch isn’t going to be aimed at the special regulations that benefit wealthy individuals and corporations. He more likely will go after the public-safety regulations, those that give us clean air and water, protect wildlife, and ensure safe workplaces. Is this really what people voted for?

Thoughts on Presidential Immunity

I have never been comfortable with the Justice Department’s determination that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted. Although Americans are fond of saying that no one is above the law, this policy has indeed placed the president above the law. The Constitution does not require such a policy. The founders, wary of a king or king-like executive, would likely have considered the policy dangerous and ill-advised. Sadly, our fascist-friendly Supreme Court has adopted this unconstitutional policy and extended it. A president engaging in a murderous rampage against his alleged rivals is now free to carry out his program with impunity.

The argument that a president should not be subjected to the normal operation of the American judicial system is apparently predicated on the notion that the president’s having to deal with charges brought by the Department of Justice would distract the chief executive from discharging the duties of office.

This argument loses some of its cogency when one recognizes that the Constitution already provides for the Congress to impeach and try the president on vague charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Surely, impeachment is a significant presidential distraction. The Constitution’s impeachment provisions have two deficiencies, however. 

First, the only punishments available for the commitment of high crimes and misdemeanors are removal from office and prohibition of holding any future office. Embarrassing as this may be, it is insufficiently punitive for, say, encouraging the overthrow of the American government. For such particularly “high” crimes, the ordinary criminal justice system offers more appropriate penalties.

Second, the bar to impeachment and conviction by the Congress is absurdly high. The founders apparently did not foresee that the houses of Congress might be controlled by partisans of the president and be largely impervious to calls to cashier the nation’s leader, whatever the provocation.

 In response to the argument that indictment and prosecution would cripple the office of the president, I offer another consideration. If, in fact, the president has committed intolerable acts, distracting the president through legal entanglements may distract the miscreant from continuing his (or, improbably, her) crime spree.

A New Poem

The news that Donald Trump was elected over Kamala Harris on Tuesday last was supremely depressing. I have since been avoiding the news and listening to Prokofiev. (I discovered, for example, that I am not particularly familiar with his fifth piano concerto.) Also, I began writing a poem to express my despair. At first, I called it “My Lost Faith in America, November 2024.” Eventually, I dropped “My” from the title, but it may still be a bit unwieldy. I actually completed the poem November 6, the day after the election, but I have been gradually editing it—improving it, I hope—and adding to it. Today, I declared the poem complete. Rather by accident, it now comprises 13 stanzas—it had fewer in the beginning—which seems  appropriate for a poem about the United States.

You can read the poem and additional information about it on Lionel Deimel’s Farrago here.

Harris’s Big Mistake?

I am not ready to offer a coherent response to yesterday’s election. I offer only one thought that has bothered me throughout the Harris campaign.

Harris never offered a justification for why inflation was not the fault of the Biden administration. Although the administration’s efforts to pump up the economy had some inflationary effect—it likely avoided economic disaster—the biggest problem was supply chain disruptions caused by COVID, arguably inherited from the Trump administration. Also, she never explained what inflation really is and that it was reduced to a reasonable level under Biden. Ignorant people believe inflation is high prices, rather than increasingly higher prices. Prices will not come down unless we have a recession, which now is increasingly likely.

Are Early Voters Having Regrets?

In a recent essay on my Web site, I expressed discomfort with early voting because significant events can occur between when a person votes and the official election day.

In recent days, Donald Trump has looked old and tired and he (and his supporters) have been saying increasingly crazy and disturbing things. I wonder how many Trump early voters regret their vote in light of their candidate’s recent behavior.

My Great Big Baking Mistake

Last night, as I often do, I decided to bake some cookies to share at Clifton Springs Library’s Friday coffee hour. Rather than using one of my favorite recipes, I decided to bake Big and Chewy Oatmeal-Raisin Cookies from an America’s Test Kitchen cookbook. I had made this recipe once before and considered it a reliable choice.

My first pan of cookies was a mess. When I took it out of the oven, it contained an undifferentiated mass of congealed goop; it was impossible to separate individual cookies. I broke up the mass as best I could and dumped the resulting pieces into a plastic bag. The stuff was edible, but barely. It was time to try again.

This time, I spaced the balls of dough farther apart. The result was not unlike that of the first batch, but the cookies were at least discrete. They did, however, resemble pralines more than cookies—more stuff for the plastic bag! (See photo below.)

As I was preparing a third pan, I realized that the dough lacked its usual stiffness. And I suddenly realized that I had used no flour! I glanced at the recipe, however, and noted that the first entry in the ingredient list was

1½ cups (7½ ounces) unbleached all-purpose flour

Oops! How could I have failed to put flour into the dough? I slowly and carefully reread the instructions. Step 3 read as follows:

Decrease the speed [of the stand mixer] to low and slowly add the dry ingredients until combined, about 30 seconds. Mix in the oats and raisins (if using) until just incorporated.

I had interpreted “the dry ingredients” to mean the salt, baking powder, and nutmeg. It hadn’t occurred to me that flour was construed as a dry ingredient. It hadn’t helped that ingredients were not listed in the order used. The order of the ingredient list was, in retrospect, rather arbitrary. (Other recipes in the same cookbook used lists following the same convention.)

There was still dough in the mixing bowl, so I incorporated what seemed like a proper fraction of the 7½ ounces of flour to go with the leftover dough. The modified dough then behaved as expected. In the end, I managed to produce 10 reasonably-looking and -tasting cookies. (See the picture of the penultimate batch below.)

The obvious lesson from this unfortunate experience is to read the instructions carefully in the context of the ingredient list. Arguably, I had actually done that. Had I read the instructions and also checked off the ingredients as I did so, I would have failed to check off flour, and I might have realized that it was a “dry ingredient.” Perhaps a better strategy would have been to employ mise en place, that is gathered and measured all the ingredients before assembly. In that case, once the dough was “finished,” my bowl of flour would have been conspicuously left over.

Well, I have become a wiser baker!

Wisdom from Octavia E. Butler

I noted in my last post that I was reading Parable of the Sower by Octavia E. Butler. Having finished that rather dark volume, I have gone on the read the sequel, Parable of the Talents. This is the story of a small community trying to survive in a country that has gone mad. The story is set in the very near future.

The protagonist of both books is Lauren Olamina, a young visionary who has created a non-theological religion she calls Earthseed. The U.S. has just elected a president who is a Christian Nationalist. (Butler doesn’t use that term, but the designation seems appropriate.) Members of the community, called “Acorn,” are anxious.

Each chapter of Parable of the Talents begins with an excerpt “From EARTHSEED: THE BOOK OF THE LIVING.” The situation cannot help remind one of our own situation on the precipice of an election. Chapter Eleven begins with this excerpt:

Choose your leaders
    with wisdom and forethought.
To be led by a coward
    is to be controlled
    by all that the coward fears.
To be led by a fool
    is to be led
    by the opportunists
    who control the fool.
To be led by a thief
    is to offer up
    your most precious treasures
    to be stolen.
To be led by a liar
    is to ask
    to be told lies.
To be led by a tyrant
    is to sell yourself
    and those you love
    into slavery.

Here endeth the lesson.

Gaza, Israel, Biden, and Harris

This afternoon, I listened to an interview with Palestinian poet and essayist Mosab Abu Toha on Fresh Air. Apparently, his literary credentials were in part responsible for his getting out of Gaza with his immediate family. He nevertheless was apprehended by Israel’s IDF and tortured, and, although he escaped with his wife and children, he lost friends and extended family in Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza. He is now living in Syracuse, New York.

I have been reading Octavia E. Butler’s 1993 novel Parable of the Sower. That novel is set in an American future characterized by ecological disaster, societal disintegration, and police and fire protection that offer more aggression than protection. Parable would have been distressing in 1993. It is more upsetting today, when the diary entries of protagonist Lauren Olamina carry dates of 2024 and beyond.

Listening to Abu Toha describe life in Gaza under Israeli attack reminded me of the trials of Lauren Olamina as she journeys north with her pick-up group of fellow travelers in search of a place of safety. But the horrors of that journey were at least mitigated by some minimum sense of agency for Olamina and her company. They were armed and smart. Ordinary Palestinians have no such agency. They are at the mercy of Israeli troops, Israeli air power, and the hellish environment created by Netanyahu’s war machine. They move from place to place in response to warnings from Israel, but Palestinians are neither safe indoors nor out of doors.

Terry Gross raised the question of whether what was happening in Gaza is genocide. Abu Toha did not call Israeli actions genocide but suggested that it would be so recognized decades from now. Does Netanyahu mean to kill all Palestinians in Gaza? We don’t know that he does. It is clear, however, that many Israelis would raise a collective sigh of relief if there were no more Palestinians in Gaza, a piece of real estate rapidly becoming uninhabitable.

The Israeli attack on Gaza after the Hamas October 7 incursion a year ago is both understandable and justifiable. Yet, this war looks different from other modern conflicts. American journalists have been kept out of Gaza, and many Palestinian journalists have been killed. Not even Israelis—maybe especially Israelis—have a clear view of what is happening in Gaza. We have not seen the kind of firefights one expects to see in urban warfare. Israel’s strategy is to protect IDF troops and to show little concern for civilian casualties. The response to the alleged presence of Hamas fighters is not to attack them from the ground but simply to obliterate them from the air. And the Israeli efforts to disrupt humanitarian aid for Gaza suggest that Netanyahu believes that every Palestinian is Hamas until proven otherwise.

Muslim and Palestinian Americans are understandably concerned about what is happening in Gaza, not to mention events in the West Bank and Lebanon. Unfortunately, President Joe Biden has a longstanding and unshakable allegiance to Israel. Despite multiple instances of disapproval by the American government of Israeli actions such as the building of illegal settlements in the West Bank, Biden’s support for Israel has shown no sign of weakening.

The present question is whether Biden’s support for Israel will be the downfall of the American Republic. Will the disgust with America’s support for Israel among certain groups of voters cause Kamala Harris to lose the presidential election to Donald Trump? Harris, as a member of the Biden Administration, is in a difficult position. Her credibility as a candidate is based partly on her contribution to that administration. Despite Harris’s decrying the suffering of Palestinians brought on by the war, serious criticism of the Biden policy would be seen as a repudiation of her own administration and a self-serving political move. It might gain pro-Palestinian votes but lose the larger, usually reliable, Jewish vote. Lacking evidence, we cannot know Harris’s true feelings about the Mideast war, though we are likely to learn should she become president.

It was reported today that the administration has given Israel a 30-day deadline to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The implication is that military aid may be imperiled if the situation in Gaza does not improve. Was this warning an attempt to help Harris out of her dilemma? Perhaps, but the fact that the deadline comes after the election diminishes its salience for the Harris campaign.

Some Random Comments on the Presidential Campaign

I watched the vice-presidential debate Tuesday night to the bitter end. The debate was disappointing in that JD Vance managed to impersonate a normal human being, and the event did not expose his most extreme, odious views. That said, the debate was civil—that counts for something—and Tim Walz , who lacks Vance's Ivy League background, mostly held his own. Vance, of course, is slick—I don’t mean that in a good way—and anyone who pays close attention to politics could see through his myriad lies. I rate the debate as a tie. These vice-presidential debates seldom make a real difference, and this one likely is no exception.

Although I won’t try to analyze the entire two-hour event, I will offer two rejoinders to Vance’s arguments that I had hoped Walz would deliver. They are important for the presidential campaign generally.

First, Vance continually blames Kamala Harris for not having pursued programs she is now advocating while she was vice president, during the “Harris administration,” as Vance would have it. This is ridiculous. One would think that the Republican candidate for vice president would have some clue as to what his role will be should he be elected. (Perhaps his arrogance leads him to believe that he will rule the White House.) The vice president’s role is to support the president, offering advice, to be sure, but standing with the president, who ultimately determines policy. Never, referring to the time when Donald Trump was president, have I ever heard anyone refer to the “Pence administration.” Harris cannot be blamed for the policies she didn’t initiate because she wasn’t president.

Then there is the concept, so enamored of Donald Trump, that (1) abortion law is properly handled by individual states and (2) that this is what “everybody” wanted all along. The second proposition is, of course, so ridiculous as to simply be an outright lie. When Vance asserted that abortion should be a state responsibility, Walz countered by saying that control over one’s body should not depend on one’s place of residence. Were I debating Vance, I would say that also. But I would go further. I would ask whether freedom of speech should be left to the states. Surely, Mississippi is less fond of this freedom than, say, California. What about freedom of religion? Or freedom of the press? Should states decide whether women can vote? How about black men? To say that abortion should be left to the states is to admit that states may make different choices. That abortion rights have been affirmed whenever put a vote of the people, and the fact that restricting abortion is damaging the practice of medicine and actually killing women, abortion should be left to the people, an option offered by the Tenth Amendment.
___________________________

I am repeatedly irritated by interviews of voters who say they will vote for Donald Trump because of high grocery prices, presumably because they think we will return to 2017 prices if the Republican candidate is returned to the White House. These people are mistaken, or, should I say, deluded. The recent inflation is mostly the result of COVID disruptions. It has come down dramatically under President Biden. Reduced prices will only happen if we have a severe recession, something unlikely to be appreciated by Republican voters. Moreover, if Trump is elected and imposed his promised tariffs, prices across the economy will go up. In other words, Trump will create more inflation. In fact, the economy (Biden economy?) is in fine shape. That, of course, does not mean that everyone’s economic situation is equally satisfactory/
___________________________

Donald Trump is a master of projection (the attribution of one’s own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or objects—https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/projection). He is fond of accusing others of what he is doing. He accused Democrats of stealing the 2020 election, for example, but it was Trump who directed an election-stealing scheme.

Another Comma Fault

Longtime readers know that the niggardly use of commas is a pet peeve of mine. Today, I received my November issue of Trains. As usual, I turned immediately to the Commentary page written by Bill Stephens. In his essay, “Railroads’ undoing and evidence of better times,” I encountered this sentence:

Rail service still can’t match trucks and cars still spend too much time sitting.

The sentence stopped me cold. After reading “Rail service still can’t match trucks and cars,” I ran into a brick wall when I saw “still,” at which point the sentence was making no sense. I had to backtrack to figure out that a comma was missing after “trucks.” The compound sentence was not punctuated like one and was therefore a run-on sentence. What is so annoying in this case is that the phrase “trucks and cars” is a quite natural one, and, lacking a comma, there was no reason to stop after “trucks.” This is a particularly fine example of bad punctuation.