Tag Archives: politics

The World We Knew Is Gone

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, an installer came to replace a malfunctioning remote for our gas fireplace. He’s been here three times before, so I’ve come to appreciate his skill and personality. He’s self-employed and both professional and personable. We don’t chat much, but we’ve had pleasant exchanges. When he finished up for what I hope is the final time, I bravely asked him if he was “political.” He said he wasn’t actively political, but “had his beliefs.”

I took that to mean that he pays some attention to what going on in the world without it dominating his life. So, what did he think of the new administration, was he supportive? His thoughts: it will be disruptive, but the disruptions are for the best. Tariffs will work out for the best. We will end up in a better place. The government is bloated; we need to take care of our own people before sending money overseas.

I don’t have strong opinions about bloat and inefficiency in the government. Yes, there’s likely some amount of bloat, but I don’t expect government to be as efficient as a business. A business can decide not to serve some people when it is too expensive to do so. Think rural broadband, for example, Without subsidies of some sort, no cable company is going to extend their services to scattered homes on remote pieces of land. That’s a money losing proposition. But rural broadband has become as essential as rural electricity, so what are we to do? Government subsidies of one sort or another. Is that bloat? Hmm.

But what about “taking care of our own people before helping people abroad?” My installer suggested helping homeless people first. OK, but I’ve never heard a word of support for homeless people coming from this administration. Will our leaner, meaner government fund more housing programs for low income people? More services for people addicted to drugs or alcohol, more services for people with serious mental illnesses? I’m not seeing plans to shift money from other programs to these services.

I asked about Ukraine. For sure my thoughtful, gentle installer would not spend a dime on Ukraine. He sounded much like JD Vance at his worst, but in a gentle voice. “We don’t owe the Ukrainians anything.” On this point, I think he’s just uninformed. Yes, I think we do owe Ukrainians a lot. Putin is a thug. The US, for all its faults, has the ability to keep thugs like Putin in check. We have a horrid track record with thugs, but this is one we could contain if we choose to do so. Biden constrained Ukraine so much that Trump now says Ukraine cannot win this war and must be “brought to heel.”

I will trust you, dear readers, to know that Trump envies Putin and despises Zelensky. Without rehashing that history, let’s just say that I support Zelensky and despise Putin. To see us abruptly end weapons support to Ukraine is gut wrenching. To see us terminate information sharing? This is where the world I’ve known comes to an end. Putin immediately sent rockets to slaughter civilians. Their blood is on our hands. I am ill thinking of it. I am not in position to attend protests as I once did. (Are there any?) But I write blog posts and support candidates who support Ukraine.

My view is that the chaos being wrought by Elon Musk will only bring the inability of government agencies to perform their various duties. I don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel. Saddest of all, is that I blame Democrats for going off the rails on culture war issues to the point that many people I know online could not support them last fall. Nothing is as it should be. The world is upside down, inside out, no rainbows in sight. I’m glad I’m 80 and not 40.

Is Trump Right About Anything?

Posted on by
Reply

Are you reeling from the blizzard of Executive Orders coming from the Oval Office since January 20? If so, you are not alone. If you are a fan of Donald Trump, you might wake up every day wondering what new gift is coming your way. If you are not a fan of Donald Trump, you might have trouble going to sleep each night as you worry about what new catastrophe is coming your way. 

According to a CNN tracker, as of 10:40 am EST on February 10, 2025, Trump has issued 89 Executive Orders. Clearly, he intends to make it into the Guinness list of world records – and to make it difficult for his opponents to react to all of them. If you look at the list, there are some that seem benign from the titles. Example: Career and Technical Education Month. OK, what harm could that do? 

From my perspective, the most ironic title of an EO is “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” given that Trump is absolutely weaponizing the federal government, working to clear it of employees who are not on his side. If that’s not weaponization, what is? Yes, he gets to nominate cabinet picks who are to his liking, but career employees in all of the various agencies have expertise that might be valuable. They should not come and go with each administration because we need experience and expertise gained from that experience.

So, OK, some good, some bad executive orders. Among the more controversial ones are those relating to sex. The order titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” (January 20, 2025) states, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.” Trans rights activists (TRAs) are wildly opposed to this. As for me, I wonder how we got the point that we need an executive order on this subject. Yes, of course, there are two sexes, male and female. People who quibble about this make a very big deal about people with DSDs (Differences of Sexual Development, or intersex conditions). But the fact is that lots of things can go wrong as an embryo develops, which is why people anxiously wait to find out if a baby is “healthy” once it’s born. 

Some anomalies are clear before birth, some at birth, and some become clear only months or years after birth. Differences of sexual development do, on occasion, make it difficult to tell if a newborn is male or female. Some have hormone anomalies that lead to confusing characteristics as a child matures. Some DSDs only become apparent when a child enters puberty, and some are not realized until a person tries to become a parent. But the fact is that these are anomalies; there are still only two sexes. There is no third or fourth sex. In fact, in all  creatures that are dimorphic (two different body types), there are only two sexes. People who have DSDs are not transgender. I’ve learned of some who consider themselves non-binary because they are, in some way, not fully female or fully male. If ever there was a situation when the term non-binary fits, it is with these individuals. But usually, they identify with one sex or the other and only disclose their status to family or close friends – because we “normies” have historically been rather cruel to anyone who’s different. Perhaps it’s time to get over that bad habit. 

Back to the EO: Sections 2 (f) and 2(g) wade into the morass of gender ideology and gender identity. Remember when Ketanji Jackson Brown was asked during a congressional hearing, “What is a woman?” and she said she couldn’t answer because she was not a biologist? Yes, well, I suspect that moment is what brought about this EO. Trump is enabling all of us with lived experience as humans to answer that question without having to get a degree in biology. “Adult human female” or “adult human male” should suffice to answer what is a woman or what is a man. 

Trump addresses the problem created by laws allowing self-identification, i.e. a provision that any person can simply declare that they are now the opposite sex of what they have been since birth. Henceforth, you and I and the state and all institutions must accept this as fact. Honestly, this is one of my frustrations with the Democrats: why couldn’t they grasp the threat that this policy poses to women? Men have taken advantage of women in many ways over many, many years. Why wouldn’t they see this law as an easy way to worm their way into women’s spaces? Yes, I know, “Not All Men!” But, seriously, “Yes Some Men!” 

Do you want to know how many male persons have transitioned to female after being incarcerated? Ha ha. You can’t find out because there are no records of numbers of prisoners identifying as the opposite sex. There are simply men and women. Once a person claims to be the opposite sex, that’s how they are counted. Are there two of them in federal prisons? Are there a thousand of them? Your guess is as good as mine. It’s not polite to identify a person as a trans man or trans woman. But I bet there are not even two who transition to male to get into a male prison.

Another Executive Order addresses radical ideologies in K-12 schools. I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but I support the elements of this EO. To varying degrees, schools have really gone off the deep end in content about race and gender that is presented to kids. I believe kids should learn the good and the bad of American history as is appropriate for their age. And the oppressor/oppressed meme needs to stay out of the classroom. Kids do not need to be putting themselves and their classmates into those categories. Just my humble opinion. Furthermore, schools should support all kids who are struggling, but there’s no need to tell little kids that they might have been born in the wrong body. I surely didn’t like my body as I hit my teen years, but I wasn’t alone. Tough it out, kids. 

Yet another EO, titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation.” Yikes. Yes, although I would not have phrased it this way, I generally support this order, too. But, as with all the various state laws that either promote or prohibit what is euphemistically termed “gender affirming care” for people under 18 (or 19, in the case of the EO), I really, truly wish the medical community had assumed responsibility for sorting out what’s appropriate for kids and what isn’t. Too many kids have followed the “gender affirming” path with too little counseling to sort out other issues that might be affecting them. 

In this EO, Trump claims that “countless children soon regret that they have been mutilated…” Sadly, we don’t really know how many people of any age regret transitioning. We have so little data because an unhappy patient may simply not return to their doctor to discuss their concerns. Clinics generally do not follow their patients to know how they are adjusting over time. Twenty years ago, there might have been very few desisters (those who don’t follow through with transition) or detransitioners (those who have transitioned, then changed their minds). But today, as transitioning has become much more common, and as detransitioners have been willing to share their stories publicly, we know that some number of people who pursue transition do regret the choice. Rather than assume that this number is near zero, we would do well to do more follow-up and get some real numbers and a better understanding of who’s happy and who isn’t. 

The issues addressed in this bunch of Executive Orders generally fall under the umbrella of “wokeness.” I’m just sad that Democrats could not manage to tame the beast of wokeness before the 2024 election. I actually believe that there may have been enough voters put off by these issues to change the election results. Dems don’t want to believe it, but the price of eggs and immigration were not the only concerns of voters last fall. I personally know many people who have been committed Democrats but now feel politically homeless, as I do, in large part because of the woke agenda. 

All of these orders will be challenged in court, so we shall see what is left standing in the end. I’m sorry for trans people who feel brutally attacked, but I can tell you for certain that trans activists pushed their agenda too hard, e.g. by insisting that we all buy into the assertion that “trans women are women” when, in fact they are simply trans women. I willingly refer to trans women who make an effort to appear female as “she.” But I, along with many trans women, don’t buy that they have actually changed their sex.

It shouldn’t have come to this, but here we are my friends.

What is this DEI thing we love/hate?

Posted on by
Reply

Did DEI actually cause the recent crash of a plane and helicopter over the Potomac? No. Then why can President Trump score political points by claiming that DEI is at the root of such events? Do people believe him?

My friends and I do not believe him, but Trump gets away with such rhetoric because it’s true that DEI programs were out of control at all levels of government and in many corporations and non-profit organizations. How do I know this? I’ve had the privilege of meeting people whose careers were side-tracked because of DEI assumptions. I’ve had direct experience participating in DEI training with a non-profit that shocked me and brought me to my senses.

The notion of cultural appropriation somehow got tangled up with DEI jargon and one result was a decision that a white woman could not use a hip-hop video she produced to instruct college freshmen on how to use the campus library services. Bonkers. An entrepreneur was shut down for serving Asian noodles while white. Bonkers.

During the training I participated in, I learned that as a white person, I must let a person of color speak until she has said all that she wants to say. Why is that bad, you should ask. Of course it’s rude to interrupt people in a meeting. Let the person finish, for heaven’s sake. But what if the person who chairs the meeting is white? Can she interrupt the person of color in order to keep the meeting on track or enable others to speak? No, she cannot. I’m not sure what should happen if more than one person of color is present as we only ever had one in my training.

I also learned that Robin D’Angelo and Ibram X Kendi are gods. Thou shalt not challenge D’Angelos’s assertion that white people are fragile if they express discomfort with any of the new rules of the road such as let the POC talk until she has exhausted herself. Kendi asserts that any and all gaps in participation, income, achievement, etc. are evidence of racism, end of discussion. If Asians achieve higher scores than whites, it’s because they are white-adjacent, not because their families promote reading, writing, and arithmetic at home.

The fallout from this way of thinking are policies that work to the detriment of all. If schools find that fewer black and brown kids are taking advanced math classes, the solution is not to provide extra support to those are want to learn math yet struggle with it. The solution is to eliminate advanced math classes so that there is no visible disparity. If black students have lower scores on the tests that guide college entrance policies, just eliminate the tests. Base college acceptance on essays in which applicants can attest to their struggles with systemic racism and their efforts to achieve despite these barriers.

Policing, of course, has been the focus of DEI thinking for many years. We all know that police kill black men in disproportionate numbers and that this is a result of racism. Except that this bit of common knowledge is not true. If you are a black professor with actual evidence that this is not true, and if you publish this information, your funding will be cut, your programs suspended, and your ability to teach will be restricted. The good news is that you will survive this punishment and that the administrator who inflicted these punishments will herself be demoted.

People who are policing the police focus on statistics such as the number of calls to certain neighborhoods and the number of interactions with police tallied by race. A “good government” organization will accuse police of racism if data show that police are called to neighborhoods with more people of color more often than to predominately white neighborhoods. That organization will adopt a policy calling for elimination of disproportional policing in which POC neighborhoods are surveilled more than others. A citizen who asserts that police might be called to some neighborhoods more than others because more crime occurs in those neighborhoods will be shut down.

People my age remember when affirmative action was necessary. It began during an era when discrimination on the basis of race was common and visible. The good old boys controlled hiring in companies, departments, and organizations large and small. I got my first job because my dad knew a guy who was able to pull my application out of a stack of applications and tell someone to hire me. The original plan of affirmative action was to eliminate actions such as that and to solicit applications from many more sources on the assumption that qualified applicants of all colors were out there, We just needed to find them, encourage them to apply for jobs they were qualified for, and hire more of them.

In recent years, however, as disparities have persisted in many fields, HR departments began to tighten the scews and insist on hiring fewer white men and more people of color even if that meant lowering standards. I totally get that “standards” are not equally relevant to the task at hand. It’s not necessarily true that a person with a straight A record is the best person for a certain job. Yes, people skills, motivation, and willingness to try a new approach might be more valuable to a company than an academic record. I get that. I get that I should not have had the privilege of getting my application pulled from a stack of equally qualified applicants just because my dad knew a guy. I really do want employment to be based on fair standards and unbiased screening.

But. But young white males cannot be put at the bottom of the pile because they are white and male. Where will that get us? And: white women should be able to participate in a group that is mostly white women. Yes. DEI has gone too far. It absolutely needs to change. Perhaps it needs to be trashed completely. Can agencies and companies and organizations hire and promote people responsibly without the DEI police? I like to think so. I wish DEI programs had not bought into Kendi’s assertion that all disparities are due to racism. (Does anyone really believe that professional sports teams should be racially balanced? Good grief.)

The backlash against DEI is due, in my humble opinion, to the irrational zealotry of recent years. Does that mean that blind air traffic controllers are responsible for the recent crash? No. But people who are legally blind often have some sight and can do normal things with the right technology. We should not assume they can’t do a certain job. If they apply, interview them. Find out what supports they need. Do the same with anyone with a disability. Find out what they can do. Talk to them! Give them a chance.

I wish Trump were not blaming DEI for everything. He’s just a jerk when behaves this way. I hate that crowds of his supporters cheer him on. And yet: DEI programs absolutely need to change.

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?

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.