Should I Be Freaking Out?

Posted on by
2

Our dear president is giving us an amazing buffet of issues to freak out about, and I’m just chilling out on the sofa, turning on Netflix before dinner, even cleaning house just a bit. In fact, I’m more nervous about the possibility of a serious discussion with friends than about what Trump will do next. How can this be?

Am I so chill because the world didn’t come to an end during Trump’s first term? Not really. I do think that Trump – and especially his “friends” – were not really prepared to exploit the power that was suddenly at their fingertips. This time, they’re rarin’ to go. That said, some initiatives will be stopped by the courts, some will simply take a bit of time to have an impact, and if our guardrails don’t hold, the rest of the world will gear up to resist at least the tariffs. Will Denmark send its mighty navy to protect its hold on Greenland? Will China take over Panama to prevent the US from doing so? Interesting possibilities!

I guess I’m chill because I’m just immensely curious to see what unfolds! My 80 year lifespan has occurred during a time when the “rules based order” has prevailed, not everywhere, but over the oceans at least, and I’ve recently come to appreciate the importance of peace on the open oceans. Yes, land wars have been a constant during my life, not at home, but often involving US troops. Yet, the shooting has occurred in places that have not disrupted my life beyond the price of gasoline. Shopping, still good. Food, still good. Income, still good. Travel, still good. Access to information, still good. Yes, the price of eggs, not so good, but that’s more because of avian flu than armed conflict.

So. No, I don’t like Trump’s approach to immigration, but I do want some control of our borders. I don’t like his attitude toward the Department of Justice, but will the Supreme Court truly permit him to do anything he wants to do? I don’t like his approach to dismantling DEI, but I also don’t like DEI. I don’t like his heavy handed approach to trans issues, but I think there are just two sexes. I’d prefer to have a competent Secretary of Defense, but a little shakeup at the Pentagon might be needed.

I actually think Trump might not give in to Putin as we all expected him to do – because I’m guessing he now sees Putin as weak and ineffectual. If Trump thinks he has the upper hand with Putin that could work to the advantage of Ukraine. We’ll have to wait and see.

Elon Musk worries me, and I don’t want to give him the keys to anything. But mostly I’m curious to see how long he and Trump will put up with each other. And if one of them has to go, it won’t be Trump. So, yes Elon could do a lot of damage, but will he last long enough to do so?

Part of my patience with Trump this time around comes from my disillusionment with the Democrats over the last four years. Pick an issue, any issue, and I probably disagree with how the Ds handled it. I actually liked Kamala Harris, and had she been elected I think I might have liked her refreshing presence as opposed to Old, Creaky, Impaired Biden and Orange Man Bad. But no female president is likely in my lifetime. Oh, well.

So, folks, I’m chill for now. Curiosity dominates my brain. How are you holding up?

Remember Martin Luther King, Jr.?

Posted on by
Reply

Once upon a time, America had a leader with an inclusive vision for our future. He was not a President. Rather, as a simple citizen, Martin Luther King, Jr. campaigned for bringing black people into our society on an equal footing with the descendants of our founding fathers and the millions of people who immigrated here from Europe.

Despite the protections of our Constitution, the United States had found ways to keep black people down, de jure segregation primarily in the south, and de facto segregation everywhere else. When Jim Crow laws were exposed via videos of sit-ins, voter registration drives, and strategies such as the Memphis bus boycott, we could no longer deny the reality that we were not a nation with equal protection of our laws and equal opportunity for all. We were shamed into taking action to remedy the obvious injustices we saw on TV screens in living rooms across the country.

Slowly, we in the north accepted that policies such as red-lining accomplished the same work in the northern cities that Jim Crow laws did in the south. They kept black people out of our line of sight, “in their place,” so to speak. Yes, they could sit anywhere on our buses – as long as they agreed to exit into segregated neighborhoods, stay out of our unions, and not ask for things that would expose our complicity in their lower status. Slowly, very slowly, these policies began to change also as activists shifted from their work in the south and broadened their work to address issues nationwide.

It’s important to remember that King did not act alone. Rosa Parks did not spontaneously decide to remain in her seat. Black people had been meeting and talking and planning for many years to develop strategies to bring about change. King was an amazing leader, the key word being leader. His ability to articulate a positive future enabled white people to listen and work with him. But there were many other local leaders involved in planning the non-violent actions that elicited the brutal reactions that were impossible to ignore. By anticipating the reactions that exposed the true status of black Americans, these local leaders could plan legal strategies and support for those who were jailed and/or attacked for their actions.

Rosa Parks was a hero of mine for many years before I learned about all the planning that preceded her refusal to move to the back of the bus. I learned that another woman with a more checkered history was not supported by those planning Park’s moment of fame. The civil rights leaders decided they needed a woman who could not be criticized for any reason other than her decision to keep her seat in the front of the bus. You can agree or disagree with that position, but we often face the same consideration today as we continue the work for equal opportunity for all.

So much has been said in recent years about the unfinished work for equality. Are all disparities the result of racism? Some insist they are; others argue that equal outcomes cannot be achieved, that many factors contribute to disparities. Would MLK have favored equality of outcomes? I doubt it, and his name is not often used in current campaigns that seek to erase disparities. Still, I doubt that he would be silent if he were alive today. There is always work to be done. Biases are likely with us forever. We honor King on his birthday to remind us that we always need to be vigilant in order to keep our biases in check.

So: Happy Birthday, Dr. King, and thank you, thank you, thank you for your vision, your powerful words, and your work to bring that vision to reality.

Remember the Peace Dividend?

Posted on by
Reply

I recently posted a link to a YouTube channel called, “What’s Going on With Shipping?” In my humble opinion, most of us are totally oblivious to whatever is going on with shipping. Oil, food, and trinkets move from one country to another over wide oceans and through narrow channels while we go about our daily lives. Since WW II, the US Navy has patrolled those oceans and channels to make sure that ships are unhindered by piracy or other obstructions. 

A few years ago, Somali pirates attracted a lot of attention, but somehow they magically faded from the news. (Thanks, US Navy.) Now Yemeni Houthis are making life miserable near the Suez Canal, and all the king’s horses and all the king’s men seem unable to stop them. Most commercial shipping is rounding the southern tip of Africa rather than risk shelling by the Houthis. 

Which brings the question of what’s going on with the US Navy? And it turns out that the peace dividend we all got after the demise of the Soviet Union is partly to blame. No, it did not reduce our navy to nothing, but it did reduce many of the supports that the navy relies on. Who needs Oilers when there’s no war? Oilers? What are Oilers? A great question.

Which leads us back to “What’s Going on With Shipping?” In our search for answers. It turns out that even nuclear submarines cannot do without Oilers. And for sure aircraft carriers, and every other variety of naval vessel. And it turns out that we have fewer oilers than we need when hostilities arise. I won’t repeat the details here. You can watch/listen to the podcast if you like. 

Let’s just say that the optimism with permeated political discourse in the ‘90s was, perhaps, a bit premature. History did not end. The prevalence of nation states did not bring peace. Trading with enemies did not reform them. Human nature bubbled underneath the surface until recently, and now we have war. Good, old-fashioned war. More on human nature soon, but for now, just take this moment to learn about Oilers. 

What’s Going on With Shipping?

Posted on by
Reply

My New Year’s resolution: Throw some new things at you in these posts!

Truth: I spend a lot of time on my phone. I used to listen almost entirely to audio podcasts, but a lot of podcasters have added a YouTube channel to their productions, so now I watch/listen to YouTube as well. “The Almighty Algorithm” suggests a lot of things, I try out a fair number of them, click away after a few minutes and try something else. But today I’m offering you a link to a channel that has really caught my attention recently.

The host, Sal Mercogliano, has a long history in the maritime industry. Through his posts, I’ve learned about the rash of Russian vessels sinking recently in the Sea of Azov, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea. Who knew?

Other posts talk about the size of container vessels, the problem of too many goods going one direction and too few goods going the other direction, and the need for the US Navy to have a sizable merchant marine fleet to assist with deliveries, and other functions. Again, who knew? And who knew that American ship-building capacity has dwindled since the demise of the Soviet Union whereas China’s has increased rapidly.

If you take a look around your home and around your community, the importance of shipping to our privileged lives is obvious. But we just don’t think about it much. Spend a few hours in 2025 learning more about shipping!

Stress Testing Our Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

With the election of Donald Trump once again in 2024, we have opted to run a stress test on American democracy. Some thought we did this in 2020 with Trump’s first election. But guardrails in human form prevented Trump from doing all of what he wanted to do. Some think that the success of those guardrails are what brought us to Trump 2.0. His supporters were able to claim that his bark is bigger than his bite, so not to worry.

Human guardrails will be largely absent from his cabinet and other positions in the executive branch this time around. Now it will be up to people in Congress to protect us from the impulsive Trump who doesn’t listen to his Presidential Daily Briefings or bother to learn about the complexities of various issues. The first opportunity for the Senate to act will be regarding Trump’s cabinet nominees. Will Senators roll over and approve people who are unfit for their positions? Or will they hold hearings, require background checks, and actually reject some who might pose a danger to the country?

Biden has faded from public view, and Trump seems to be our acting President – or acting co-President along with Elon Musk. Score one for Elon this week as Trump has come out in favor of the H1B visa program that enables tech companies to import clever people from abroad to power their various creative endeavors. The question today is what will the MAGA wing do now? Will those who are opposed to almost all immigration, most especially of brown people, begin to lose their faith in Trump? Will anything at all cause them to rethink their support?

Some people fear, while others cheer, the notion of Trump as a wrecking ball. I’ve heard the call for more efficiency on the part of federal agencies for as long as I’ve been a voter. No one really delivers. Do we need a DOGE initiative to simply eliminate a variety of agencies, perhaps whole cabinet departments such as the Department of Education? That’s not my inclination. Long ago, I decided that government agencies are not going to be efficient, but that their functions are needed, and I would just tolerate inefficiency. 

After coming to that conclusion, I was pleased when some state and county agencies seemed to do some housekeeping. For sure, employees got some sort of customer service training. Also, some employees gained the ability to help with two things at one visit! E.g., “Would you like to change your voter registration information along with the address on your driver’s license? We can do both!” Well, yes I would, and thank you very much! Are similar improvements possible on the federal level?

Perhaps. Ten years ago, when we wanted to remove a culvert on a small stream on our property, several agencies at different levels of government needed to approve this project even though removing culverts is generally a good thing. But, the various agencies had at least cooperated by creating just one set of forms that could be submitted to all, plus they had designated one person to make the final approval! Still tedious, but much less tedious than in prior years. 

I favor incrementalist approaches to change, at least as it relates to governments. Revolutions just don’t always turn out well. Consider Russia. Or Iran. Or Cuba. Sure, get rid of Assad in Syria. But if the violence of a revolution can be avoided, I think that would be a good thing. Those who support Trump acting as a wrecking ball might have fantasies of a peaceful transition to a much smaller government. My vision is one of chaos with the loss of environmental protections and the minimal safety net that exists today. 

Will the Senate and the House of Representatives develop a spine and reclaim their authority to hold hearings on Cabinet nominees. Will they actually perform any oversight of any agencies? Will courts become too political or will they mind the Constitution?

For now, I remain curious – and anxious. We shall see.

P.S.: The news of Jimmy Carter’s death has just come out as I’m finishing this piece. I’m confident that if Kamala Harris had won the election, he would have lived long enough to see her inauguration.