#135 / Action Creates Hope

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That is Don Eggleston, above, in a picture captured from his Facebook page, online. At the bottom is an image from the May 7, 2025, edition of the Santa Cruz Sentinel, featuring a "Letter to the Editor" in which Don says, "Action Creates Hope." The image of that clipping from The Sentinel is probably too small to read. I was surprised, when I read it in the original, to see that Don sources his statement about how "Action Creates Hope" to a speech he says that I made "a few years ago." 

I don't specifically recall what speech that might have been, and if it was during the time that I served as a County Supervisor in Santa Cruz County, California, it was a least thirty years ago. Could have been fifty. At this stage, I think credit for the "Action Creates Hope" statement can properly go to Don!

I do, though, whatever role I may have played in Don's formulation, believe that this statement, that "Action Creates Hope," is right on target. That may not be a law of physics, but it is an absolutely accurate description of a reality that merits our attention.

Let me say something about "reality." When we look around, and see the world in which we live (including not only the "World of Nature" but the world that we have made, ourselves, through human action) we tend to think that what we see is not only "real," but that it is "inevitable." I call this predisposition the "Is Fallacy." If something exists, it is a pretty natural reaction to believe that what "exists" is "permanent," that it's "inevitable," that what we see when we see the world is just "the way things are." 

And think about it. If we look around, today, we can get pretty discouraged about what we might denominate as "the state of the world." Lots of people are writing things like, "Democracy is Dead," and "Fascism has taken over." I have been making commentaries, in this daily blog, contesting the idea that we should, or even "must," grant some enduring "reality" to our current political, economic, and social situation. 

Still, our tendency is to attribute "permanence" to what we see out our window. And if what we see is discouraging; well, then, we get discouraged. 

Let's cue up "Action." As we all know from our personal experience, we are all capable of "Action." If you tell the boss what you really think of the bosses' newest idea, you may get fired, but you can take action and do that, and changes will likely follow. You can get married, get divorced, go back to school, or quit school. Whatever. And when you take action, change does occur. Organized action, particularly, can change the world.

In other words, IF you are discouraged or dispairing about the way things are, "Action" is the antidote. That's Don Eggleston's point! Let's listen to what Don has to say in his "Letter to the Editor." 

Since World War II, our democracy has been the envy of the world, and our standard of living has been consistentyly rising. That is over (as we will see in the coming months) and now we have to fight just to preserve freedom of speech and the rule of law.

Are you feeling worried, stressed and angry about what Mr. Trump is doing to our beloved country? I've been feeling that way for nine years, and I have a partial solution...

It's time to DO something [and]... 

Action Creates Hope 

 

oooOOOooo

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.facebook.com/unkledon/photos

(2) - https://enewspaper.santacruzsentinel.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=dc8e39d8-eafa-4c52-b19a-d34f06454322

#134 / What Professional Organizers Know

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The New Yorker had an article online last December, and the title caught my eye: "What Professional Organizers Know About Our Lives." 

The picture that appeared with the article (you can see that picture above) should have tipped me off, but I was a bit misled. When I think of "professional organizers," I think of people like those who trained with Saul Alinsky, and who are focused on how to win and wield political power. In fact, though, The New Yorker article, by Jennifer Wilson, was focused on "decluttering," and how there are paid professionals who can help you do that. 

I have resisted paying for this type of "decluttering" support, myself, but maybe I should rethink. The picture below shows you the condition of a desk in my office as I am typing out this blog posting. The next picture shows you my garage: 

What do you think? Do you think I may need professional help?

To change the subject from "decluttering," however, I actually think that while "decluttering" may be important, it is even more important to think seriously about the other kind of "professional organizers," those who help small groups of people achieve their political, social, and economic objectives by organizing themselves, with others, to be effective politically. 

If you click on the following link, you will be directed to a very nice article about former Santa Cruz County resident Pat Bakalian, who I think now qualifies as one of those "professional organizers." Here is a link that will tell you about Pat's book, Persistence: The Power To Make Change. According to the cover, Pat's book tells the story of "one woman’s evolution from shy girl to feminist political activist."

Well, when did Pat's evolution begin? To return to the article I linked earlier, headlined, "Pat Bakalian turned her love of politics into an eventful career," we find that Pat was introduced to Shirley Zimmerman in the early 1970's. Zimmerman was a genuine, Saul Alinsky-trained political and community organizer who had a profound impact on Santa Cruz County. Zimmerman was instrumental in helping local residents (including Bruce Bratton) successfully oppose the "Wilder Ranch And Beaches Project." If you click this link, which will take you to my recent tribute to Bruce, you will see how important it was that the local group in which both Bruce and Pat were involved, "Operation Wilder," called upon professional assistance, and stopped a project that would have completely altered the destiny of Santa Cruz County had it not been stopped by citizen opposition. 

What do "professional organizers" know? 

What those "professional organizers" who focus on political action know is exactly what Pat Bakalian wrote a book about. If you are willing to get organized, and to "persist," as well as to "resist" - to go "positive," in other words, not just "negative" - you can, as Pat's book title says, "Make Change." 

In fact, what professional political organizers know is something that we all need to know: We - ordinary people - can truly change the world. 

The world, in my opinion, does need to be changed. I think it's pretty clear that the world is even more f**ked up than my garage, so I'm all for getting serious about organizing to make those changes we all know we need to make!

PS: My posting about "Creative Instigation" was intended to make the same point. 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/12/23/more-than-pretty-boxes-carrie-m-lane-book-review

(2) and (3) - Gary Patton personal photos

#133 / That Pledge Of Ours

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

My Valentine's Day blog posting was mainly about how we should be celebrating our diversity, not forming up into opposing packs of deadly enemies, trying to kill each other off. 

I am speaking, of course, about "politics" in characterizing the current "state of the nation" in this rather extreme fashion. Still, groups like the "Proud Boys" appear willing to utilize "real" political violence in an effort to achieve the political results they prefer. 

Allegedly, "Antifa" is a group on the other side of our current political polarity that might also favor the use of violence to achieve political goals. No one doubts that genuine violence can arise in these polarized political times. The January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol Building shows how quickly things can get out of hand. 

That February 14th "Valentine" to the to the nation that I published was written in opposition to the idea that our politics should be about destroying and defeating those who have different political aims and ambitions from our own. As I noted in that blog post, I didn't even realize that I had scheduled my posting for Valentine's Day until I was done writing it, so I added the Valentine's Day reference to a statement that should be taken to heart on every day of the year. 

This blog posting, today, is a "follow up" to my Valentine's Day message, a message that urges us to take "E pluribus unam" seriously, and to realize that the "United States," as a social, economic, and political entity, is founded on that idea, incorporated, for convience, into the graphics of our dollar bill: "Out of Many, One." 

We are "in this together." 

It never hurts to repeat something that is true, which, of course, I have just done, but today I want to go at least one step beyond that Valentine's Day message, which continues to be quite pertinent. 

I majored in history as an undergraduate student, and I really focused on "American" history. My senior honors thesis was titled, "The Future Of Change In America." I think we can best understand ourselves, as a nation, as "Americans," if we review and take to heart the key documents that define us as a nation, beginning, of course, with the Declaration of Independence. 

It is the "beginning" of The Declaration that we most remember - and for good reason. It would be hard to come up with a better statement of what our system of "self-government" is all about: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Let me here remind those reading this blog posting of the LAST part of our Declaration - the "ending" to the founding document that has established our nation. This last statement, too, is a statement about the role citizens should play in our syatem of self-government, and I don't think it can really be improved. I think it says it all, and perfectly. Below, emphasis has been added to the concluding words of the Declaration: 

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

As citizens, we are all called upon to pledge "our lives," and "our fortunes," and our "sacred honor" to ensure, in the words of Lincoln, that "a government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth." 

If we take this seriously, this means that in times of trouble (and I am suggesting that includes "now"), we must, as citizens, be willing to reallocate our time, which is what our "lives" consist of, and to work on issues that put self-government in peril, even though that will displace the activities that we might rather pursue. 

If we take this pledge seriously, we need to reallocate how we spend our money, too, to put it to work on those issues that put self-government in peril. 

Finally, our honor demands we do these things, and that we change our lives, as necessary, to accomplish them.

If we take seriously that there is a real threat to the continued existence of the system of self-government that the Founders "brought forth, upon this continent," to quote Lincoln's Gettysburg Address once again, then this is what is required of us, now. 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/declaration-independence.htm

#132 / Hold It Right There!

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Anyone who has read even one of my many past blog postings on cryptocurrency, affectionately called, "crypto," knows how much I deplore the idea that anyone should ever invest their money, or in any way utilize, cryptocurrency.

 Crypto is a scam, plain and simple. That is my belief.

Given my views on "crypto," I was incredibly disturbed by an article in The Guardian, a link to which appeared in my email inbox on Friday, May 9, 2025. The article was ttitled, "Why are the Democrats greenlighting Trump’s crypto plans?" Its author, pictured above, is Corey Freyer, who is the director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America. He is also a senior adviser on crypto markets to the former SEC chair Gary Gensler. 

I am providing you with the full text of Freyer's article at the end of this commentary. If you would like to read the full text online, I don't think there is any paywall that would prevent you from doing that. Just click this link. 

While the whole article is worth reading, and while I encourage you to read Freyer's article in its entirety, here's the essence (with emphasis added): 

High-profile Democrats [have] joined with Republicans to introduce legislation allowing for payments to be made in cryptocurrencies called stablecoins. The bill paves the way for the US president to require that all payments to and from the government are made with cryptocurrencies, which could include the one he has a business interest in... 

Stablecoins constantly fail to hold their value, aren’t subject to federal consumer protections, and aren’t backed by the full faith and credit of the government. If a consumer’s stablecoins are hacked, fraudulently or accidentally spent, or lost due to a misplaced password, stablecoin companies will not reverse or reimburse those payments like a credit card company would. If a stablecoin company fails, consumers are not protected by anything like federal deposit insurance.... The bills give crypto businesses such as the president’s access to the same payment system that banks and credit card providers use while subjecting them to far weaker standards than their traditional counterparts... 

On 25 March, Trump issued an executive order mandating adoption of digital payments to and from the US government. That may sound innocuous, but the government already makes 95% of its disbursements electronically. The order doesn’t intend to modernize an already-modernized system. Musk exposed the order’s true intent when his Doge team took over the payment system, to the aforementioned alarm of congressional Democrats. He endorsed putting those payments “on the blockchain” – and in so doing, make public payments with private stablecoins... 

It’s not a hypothetical. The administration has already floated issuing $3.3bn in the housing department’s community development block grants via stablecoins. USAID has been instructed to make disbursements in stablecoins. And ... treasury payments...? That’s $5.45tn in government payments from social security to veterans’ pay and pensions, federal employee salaries and income tax refunds. Americans might be forced to adopt cryptocurrencies whether they like it or not (emphasis added). 

Wait a minute! Hold it right there! Don't you think maybe it's time to communicate with the Congress, and tell them that this is totally unacceptable? I think so, and "NO" is what we need to tell them, Every Member of Congress needs to hear this message, loud and clear: Don't you dare think that the United States government can make government payments to which we are entitled (Social Security payments, for instance, and the pay due to federal workers for their work) using some sham and scam currency. If we allow that to happen, then we, the citizens, are the ones in danger of getting scammed. 

Hold it right there! Really!!

oooOOOooo

Why Are The Democrats Greenlighting Trump’s Crypto Plans?

Corey Frayer

When Elon Musk’s “department of government efficiency” (Doge) gained access to treasury payment systems in February, Democratic party leadership pledged to protect government payments from Donald Trump’s influence. Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries held a press conference announcing the Stop the Steal act that would prevent the takeover of critical government payment infrastructure. On that very same day, high-profile Democrats joined with Republicans to introduce legislation allowing for payments to be made in cryptocurrencies called stablecoins. The bill paves the way for the US president to require that all payments to and from the government are made with cryptocurrencies, which could include the one he has a business interest in. 

After making millions off a “memecoin”, the crypto-opportunist-in-chief recently entered the burgeoning crypto-payments market by launching a stablecoin. For the uninitiated, stablecoins are crypto products that allege to hold the value of a currency like the US dollar and are intended to be used as digital payments. In fact, stablecoins constantly fail to hold their value, aren’t subject to federal consumer protections, and aren’t backed by the full faith and credit of the government. If a consumer’s stablecoins are hacked, fraudulently or accidentally spent, or lost due to a misplaced password, stablecoin companies will not reverse or reimburse those payments like a credit card company would. If a stablecoin company fails, consumers are not protected by anything like federal deposit insurance. Stablecoins have also become the preferred cryptocurrency for illicit finance. 

In an awkwardly playful nod to Trump’s crypto interests, bipartisan stablecoin bills have been introduced in the House and Senate entitled “Stable” and “Genius”, respectively, following Trump’s 2018 assertion that he is a “stable genius”. Sponsors of legislation claim their bills protect consumers, guarantee stability and curb their use in illicit finance. Manyacademics and experts disagree with those assertions. As they point out, the bills give crypto businesses such as the president’s access to the same payment system that banks and credit card providers use while subjecting them to far weaker standards than their traditional counterparts. 

Almost unbelievably, gutting consumer protections and privatizing the dollar may be the least concerning outcomes of stablecoin legislation. On 25 March, Trump issued an executive order mandating adoption of digital payments to and from the US government. That may sound innocuous, but the government already makes 95% of its disbursements electronically. The order doesn’t intend to modernize an already-modernized system. Musk exposed the order’s true intent when his Doge team took over the payment system, to the aforementioned alarm of congressional Democrats. He endorsed putting those payments “on the blockchain” – and in so doing, make public payments with private stablecoins. It’s not a hypothetical. The administration has already floated issuing $3.3bn in the housing department’s community development block grants via stablecoins. USAID has been instructed to make disbursements in stablecoins. And the treasury payments Musk was referring to? That’s $5.45tn in government payments from social security to veterans’ pay and pensions, federal employee salaries and income tax refunds. Americans might be forced to adopt cryptocurrencies whether they like it or not.

The president has demonstrated his willingness to use the power of his office to enrich his family and friends and to provide favors to crypto business partners. Under Trump, SEC lawsuits against his crypto business partners Justin Sun and Binance have been halted. Just last week, Trump’s World Liberty Financial announced an opaque $2bn deal with a firm in the United Arab Emirates that is chaired by the UAE’s national security adviser, who is the brother of the country’s president. It’s naive to think Trump would shy away from using his power to shovel profits to the politically influential crypto industry, and his own crypto venture in particular. 

Crypto’s ascendant political influence may explain Democrats’ confusing pledge to stop Trump profiting from the presidency with one hand while pushing stablecoin legislation with the other. Conflicts of interest or not, the Democrats’ campaign arm continues courting crypto, though it doesn’t accept donations in cryptocurrencies. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee chair, Kirsten Gillibrand, is a lead sponsor of the Genius bill. During the Senate banking committee consideration of Genius, news broke that Trump’s company was speaking with Binance about the launch of a stablecoin. It was as if the committee had called a recess for a word from its sponsor. Five Democrats still voted in support. House Democrats have sought amendments that would bar government officials from having a financial interest in such assets, but they’ve gotten little traction. This weekend, nine former Democratic supporters of the bill threatened to blockfurther consideration unless concerns over issues ranging from money laundering to national security were addressed. But they said they remained“eager to continue working with our colleagues to address these issues.” 

The Democratic party has rightly pointed out that a sitting president’s conflicts of interest undermine the firmament of our democracy. Anyone, especially the president, who would use an office of public trust for personal benefit must be held accountable. Astoundingly, Democrats are poised to bless Trump’s crypto grift with the Genius act. If they do, it will be clear that, at least when it comes to crypto, they would rather endorse the president’s abuses than fight them.

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/07/trump-crypto-democrats

#131 / Cosmic Egg

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I liked Father Richard Rohr's little essay on the "Cosmic Egg." Click that "Cosmic Egg" link to read the first part of his little essay for yourself. Here's where to click to read Part #2.

In short, Rohr affirms that we each have a unique and special "story" to tell, an individual story - a story that we can each call "My Story." We are each unique, and precious. We are all "individuals." Not only do we each have a story to tell. We are each the leading character in all of the episodes of that story we call, "My Story."

However, as the illustration shows, the "My Story" part of who we are is included within a larger "story," a story that Rohr denominates, "Our Story." We are each individuals - absolutely - but we are also "in this life together." We will shortchange ourselves if we fail to notice our connection. 

If you are "religious," and Father Richard, of course is religious, you will find it comforting to know that "My Story," and "Our Story," are not only connected with "Other Stories" (we really are "all in this together"), but that the story of our lives is part of a much greater story, too. "The Story" is the truly grand story of everything - of that world that we did not create ourselves, but into which we have been, so mysteriously, born. 

"My Story," "Our Story," and all those "Other Stories," are all part of "THE Story." 

And every story counts!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://cac.org/daily-meditations/the-cosmic-egg-my-story-and-our-story/ 

#130 / Why Doubt DOGE?

   

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I, and many others, are not very happy about what is happening with our government. Why is that? That is a question being asked by those who seem to be happy - even delighted - with those first 100 days of the Trump Administrtion, and with our current president, and with what he is doing, and with how he is conducting the government. 

Besides the Facebook posting I have duplicated above, which focuses in on one area of unhappiness, here is a "Letter To The Editor" that appeared in the May 6, 2025, edition of my hometown newspaper, the Santa Cruz Sentinel:

To respond to the question about DOGE - that question about why anyone might be "against" DOGE - I am absolutely willing to state that while I am, in fact, "against DOGE," this is NOT because I have been "stealing from the taxpayers for years." Actually, I have NOT been stealing from the taxpayers (ever). There must be some other reason, then! 

And what about that "Letter To The Editor?" I think I can accurately be designated as a "liberal Democrat," and I am certainly very much opposed to almost every action taken, so far, by our current president, although I do NOT believe that he is "destroying America." I hope I have made it clear to those who might regularly read my blog postings that it is quite important, in my opinion, to "resist" and to object to what our current president is doing, without stipulating to any kind of "success" on his part. Our current president is not "destroying America," he is just doing some really bad things as our president. "Democracy" has not died, just because "liberal Democrats," and lots of others, including a lot of "conservative Republicans," are mightily distressed by what's happening in our government. 

So, while I do not like the substance of the decisions made by our current president, and I am similarly distressed by his "modus operandi," it is the "modus operandi" that I find appalling, much more than the substance of what our current president is doing. 

DOGE has proclaimed that its objective is to eliminate what our president portrays as mammoth governmental waste. Things like providing humanitarian assistance to people who are starving. I am in favor of such humanitarian aid, but if the Congress, which is supposed to represent "we, the people" were to vote to eliminate it, I wouldn't have the same kind of distress that I currently feel. Our representatives, who, in fact, established the humanitarian aid programs abolished by DOGE and our current president, have the right to change their minds, but there is a process for that. Government by fiat is most definitely not the "American Way." I am against DOGE because a bunch of unelected people, accountable to no one, have presumed to act on behalf of the American people. DOGE has acted to usurp the powers of our democratically elected government. 

As for the list of policy "accomplishments" touted by the writer of that "Letter To The Editor," I have more or less the same reaction. I don't, first, believe that any of the "accomplishments" cited have, actually, been "accomplished." The current president and his supporters, like the letter-writer, have claimed that such measures have been achieved, but I don't believe that they actually have. But even if they have (and I do disagree), the problem is that the changes do not represent what "we, the people" have decided we want. Actions have been taken, by Executive directive, which are only properly authorized when accomplished by virtue of laws enacted by the Congress. 

WHY? Why are so many so upset? They are upset, I believe, as I am, because our current president thinks that his election was a directive (to him, and to him, alone) to take whatever action he wants to take, irrespective of what "the people" may want. 

Some DO want what the president has been doing, eliminating efforts to make our society more "inclusive," for instance - and providing humanitarian aid to people who are starving. Many do not. 

If change is demanded (and some changes are needed, I'd have to agree), then they need to be made in the good, old-fashioned way, as specified in the Constitution. The "I, alone, can fix it" approach leaves all of those with different views out of the process. 

That's why we don't like what's happening. The president has asserted the right to decide all questions, and to do what he thinks is best. 

Even if he were right on the substance (which he mostly isn't, in my opinion), the decisions are ours to make. Not his!

Got it?

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.instagram.com/christianmarriagecoach/reel/DHlwe2aRiO3/

(2) - https://enewspaper.santacruzsentinel.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&pubid=d2dc95b8-f2af-46eb-8f22-da90f6e638d7

#129 Thinking About Law

  

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Reognize that guy, pondering the apple? If you don't, you can click right here for some biographical information about Sir Isaac Newton. If you click on this link, you'll be directed to an article from the Encyclopedia Britannica on Newton's law of gravitation. 

That law, to cut to the chase, is expressed this way, using words: 

Any particle of matter in the universe attracts any other with a force varying directly as the product of the masses and inversely as the square of the distance between them. In symbols, the magnitude of the attractive force F is equal to G (the gravitational constant, a number the size of which depends on the system of units used and which is a universal constant) multiplied by the product of the masses (m1 and m2) and divided by the square of the distance.

Here's what the Law of Gravity looks like, expressed mathematically: 

F = G(m₁m₂)/R2

I am a lawyer, and I am used to dealing with "Law." I am not, however, all that good at math, and as I started thinking about things, about fifteen years ago, I realized that our "human" laws (the laws that govern our human interactions, and the kind of laws that I am familiar with as a lawyer), are completely different from the laws (like the law of gravity) that govern our physical universe. In other words, THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF LAW, and we live, in fact, in two different worlds!

Biggest single difference? The laws that govern the physical universe are laws that can't be broken. They can't be broken, and they can't be changed. Once some scientist (like Newton) has "discovered" one of the laws that govern our physical reality, that's it! The laws that govern our physical universe tell us what must and will happen. Here's another famous law of that kind, from Albert Einstein, this time. You probably know its significance: 

E = MC²

"Human" laws are completely different from those laws that science has defined. Human laws don't tell us what must and will happen. They inform us of what we have decided we would like to happen. Unlike the laws that govern the physical universe, human laws can be both changed and disobeyed. Human laws can be "broken."

I came up with my "Two Worlds Hypothesis" based on my realization that we really do live in two different realities, simultaneously. Ultimately, we live in a physical universe that is governed by laws that we did not create ourselves, and that absolutely determine what must and will happen in the physical universe. 

Most immediately, though, we live in a world defined by laws we ourselves create (we often call them "rules"), and these laws not only can but almost certainly will be changed, from time to time. I have my own "equation" to outline how human-created laws fit into the realities with which we most immediately have to deal: 

Politics > Law > Government

My "equation," of course, isn't really "math." As I said before, I'm not really that good at math. However, while this little formula does explain how our government works, it is not a genuine "equation." Those human laws that most immediately govern our lives DO determine what happens in that "political" world we most immediately inhabit. However, unlike the laws that govern the "physical," or "natural" world, the laws that end up "governing" what we do can be changed. Our human laws are, ultimately, "political," which is why "Politics" comes before "Law" in my little "equation." It is also why I title this daily blog of mine, "We Live In A Political World." 

Taking a look around at the political realities that are defining that "political world" of ours right now, it is clear that an effort is being made to change the "rules" and "laws" by which we have been governing ourselves. Nothing prevents this from happening. We can't decide to neutralize the law of gravity, but there is nothing that makes it impossible for the laws governing our political world to be changed. So-called "democracy" is not required. We can create a human world in which only the rich count, and everyone else had better do what they're told.

If you don't want to change the laws which have governed this nation since 1789, then you had better get involved in "politics," which I often call "self-government." If you DO want them changed - and they can be changed any way we want them to be changed - that will also happen only if people get involved in politics and make those changes happen. Here is one kind of possibility.

So.... for those who like my list of proposed changes, viewed when you click that link I just provided, and for those who have other and different ideas of what changes could look like, here is my question:

 

What are we waiting for?

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.biography.com/scientists/isaac-newton

#128 / What Zuppi Said

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Pictured is Cardinal Matteo Zuppi. According to an article in The New York Times, Zuppi should be seen as someone on a "shortlist" to replace Pope Francis, who died on April 21st. 

Predicting who will be the next Pope is probably harder than predicting who will win the 2025 NBA Playoffs, about which I recently wrote in this daily blog. I am not making any predictions, whatsoever, about either who will win the Playoffs, or about who will be the next Pope. 

I do, though, want to give a shout out to something that Cardinal Zuppi said, according to that article in The Times. In a homily, a little "religious speech" that Zuppi presented to the College of Cardinals in 2019, the day Zuppi was made a Cardinal, Zuppi said the following: 

Today I can see, and I believe we all see it, the joy of being together as a piece of our common life, exactly the opposite of individualism.

In politics, as in religion, we are "in this together." We are all "individuals," but we are not only individuals, and the true nature of our lives - the lives that should bring us "joy," and not "despair" - is "exactly the opposite of individualism." 

I send good wishes to those who will be making a decision about who will be the next Pope. And I would like to add good wishes to all of us, to that all-inclusive "we, the people" which is charged with governing the United States of America. We, like the Catholic Church, must struggle to set ourselves on a safe and sustaining course into the future. 

As we sail forward, Cardinal Zuppi's words are worth remembering. What do we search for? What will bring us "joy." What can sustain us in a time of challenge and of danger? Here's the answer:

Exactly The Opposite Of Individualism

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/02/world/europe/matteo-zuppi-pope-bologna.html

#127 / RIP?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The image at the top of this blog posting is a "Letter To The Editor" that appeared in the April 29, 2025, edition of the San Francisco Chronicle. The Joe Mathews column mentioned in that "Letter To The Editor" appeared in the Chronicle a couple of days earlier, on April 27th.

Our current president was elected last November, in what appears to have been a free and fair election. So why do Joe Mathews and Mr. Verkozen believe that "The American democratic republic has died?" Presumably, they believe this because our current president does not, in fact, operate according to what the Constitution requires. I have made that point, repeatedly, in my daily blog postings. Click here for an exaample. If that is the point being made by Mathews and Verkozen, I agree with them.

However, I am not at all convinced that this is the point being made, and I most emphatically do NOT agree that "The American democratic republic has died" simply because our current president is operating in an unconstitutional manner. The president has claimed, in essence, that the only person who "counts" in this republic of ours is him. His statement that "I, alone, can fix it" is one way that our current president has articulated this idea, and his continued (and illegitimate) use of "Executive Orders," treating them as if they are the same as laws enacted by the Congress, is another way he has advanced his undemocratic and unconstitutional view that he (and he alone) gets to say what happenss in this country.

As I hope everyone understands, "We, the people" are ultimately in charge of our government. Of course, in order to exercise our democratic power to "run the place," we need to act, and to insist upon our right to decide what our government should be doing. 

So far, there hasn't really been any appreciable - or maybe the right word is "effective" - pushback against the illegitimate claims of our current president. That does not mean, though, that "The American democratic republic has died." 

Someone who stipulates that she or he is dead will be treated as if they were. Try it out. Send a letter to the Social Security System, for instance, and tell them you're dead. You will probably stop receiving any Social Security payments you may currently be receiving. 

We are not "dead," democratically, until we stipulate that we are. That is what is disturbing to me about the Mathews-Verkozen assertion. They seem to say that they have given up, and capitulated to the illegitimate claims of our current president. Lots of us haven't! Here's some proof, showing a recent picture from Santa Cruz, California. 

More and greater efforts are what I endorse, not proclaiming that democracy is dead before we have even begun to challenge those who would, indeed, seek to eliminate it.

Foundation of Freedom

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://eedition.sfchronicle.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&pubid=c125557b-9f70-4756-bc51-268770939d87&id=b5de0e66-54e8-456b-ba6c-a68ff5438552

(2) - https://lookout.co/gallery-hands-off-rally-in-santa-cruz/story

#126 / The Warriors Recover Their "Lost Baggage"

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

 

As I have revealed before, I have become - and more or less against my natural instincts - an "Authentic Warriors' Fan." This title references, for those out of touch with professional sports, and with the National Basketball Association in particular, my admiration for the Golden State Warriors professional basketball team.

As those who are not out of touch know, the Warriors, based in San Francisco, are now playing in the 2025 NBA Playoffs, having just barely made the playoffs at the end of their regular season. In the early games in the "first round" of the playoffs, the Warriors were matched against the Houston Rockets, and the Warriors beat the Rockets, four games to three. This "first round" victory is what allowed the Warriors to move to the "second round." The Warriors will be playing the first game of that "second round" this evening, against the Minnesota Timberwolves.

For each round in the playoffs, a team must win four out of seven games to advance to the next round, and the Warriors, having won three of the first four games against the Rockets, were thought to be certain of a fourth win. However... after having been ahead 3-1, the Warriors then lost the next two games, so the two teams were tied, 3-3. To stay in the playoffs, the Warriors had to beat the Houston Rockets, in Houston, in a game that took place last Sunday evening. As already indicated, the Warriors did win that seventh game, advancing to round number two.

Sports columnist Dieter Kurtenbach, who writes about sports for the Bay Area News Group (and who is pictured below), published a column that appeared in the Sunday, May 4, 2025, edition of the Santa Cruz Sentinel, just prior to the final "seventh game" that would decide which team would advance to "round two". The title on Kurtenbach's column was as follows: "Warriors' Title Hopes Are Lost Baggage Now." The picture at the top of this blog posting was the picture chosen to accompany Kurtenbach's column. It was intended, I am sure, to depict the state of the Warriors' hopes to advance against the Rockets.

As it turns out, Kurtenbach's dyspeptic evaluation of the Warriors' ability to win against the Rockets was in error, as I have already said. The Warriors did win that seventh game, contrary to Kurtenbach's prediction. The team may, or may not, win four out of their next seven games against the Timberwolves, and thus advance to the "third round" of the playoffs. Be advised, though, that Kurtenbach has already predicted that they will fail, just as he predicted that they would lose to the Rockets in that seventh game of "round one." Whether the Warriors do, or do not, advance to the "third round," Kurtenbach's May 4th column reminded me of one of the most powerful perrsonal experiences I have had in my entire life. It is an experience which I have chronicled in this blog, in a blog posting on June 21, 2020, titled, "Father's Day Stories." 

I invite you (and Kurtenbach) to read what I have written. Click the link in the last line of the paragraph above, and then search out the section of that blog posting that is titled, ""POSSIBILITY IS MY CATEGORY - THANKS TO MY DAD."

In summary, my personal experience has convinced me that we are absolutely capable of ensuring our failure when we tell ourselves that we will fail. 

Telling ourselves that we will not fail does not guarantee that we will accomplish what we hope to accomplish, but telling ourselves that we will fail virtually guarantees the failure we predict.

Think about it! This is true not just in sports, but in every aspect of our lives. It's true in politics, for instance. Thus, those political commentators who tell us that "Democracy Is Done" must not be believed - any more than the Warriors, or anyone else, should have believed Kurtenbach's announcement of the Warriors' predicted failure. 

I hope you do read that story of mine. It is totally true, and my life would have been completely different had I continued to believe that I could accurately know when I was going to fail. 

Telling ourselves that we will fail is like a guarantee that we will. Maybe think of that as something like the "Curse of Kurtenbach." 

Let's not make that mistake!

Dieter Kurtenbach

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.chicoer.com/2025/05/03/kurtenbach-those-once-reasonable-warriors-title-hopes-theyre-lost-baggage-now/

(2) - https://www.reddit.com/r/SFGiants/comments/1itiwbp/dieter_kurtenbach/

#125 / Degrowth

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

There are those (and I think I should probably count myself among their number) who do not believe that "Growth = Good." In fact, I have been known to opine, in this very blog, that what we really ought to be shooting for is "Less." 

It turns out that there is an organized effort to pursue a social, economic, and political strategy of "degrowth," which sounds a lot like saying that "Less" should be the objective. 

I heard about this effort, relatively recently, from activists at UCSC, who are affiliated with "SunriseSantaCruz," a group comprised of faculty, students, and staff who are trying to make the local campus take Global Warming seriously. One of the leaders of the group suggested that those interested in that objective might want to join up with a "listserve," to keep in touch with the degrowth movement. 

I am a sucker for online mailing lists that send me information on things I care about, so I followed the instructions, and got this communication back from the listserve: 

This list is for everyone to share announcements and news related to degrowth. The idea is that we use this space to be updated on degrowth activities all over the world. Please join and send any relevant e-mails to the list.

___________________________________________

A couple of words on degrowth:

Degrowth calls for the abolition of economic growth as a social and political objective and seeks new ways of understanding prosperity. It is an umbrella term for various social movements, ways of living and organising, and research.

Degrowth draws attention to ecological, economic and cultural limits of growth-based societies, via critiques of consumerism, development ideology and colonisation of modes of being. Popular terms such as ‘green economy,’ ‘sustainable development’ or ‘ethical consumerism,’ which are often presented as novel and more desirable forms of capitalism, are seen as problematic. Degrowth strives for an environmentally and socially just world, based on care, conviviality, mutual aid, commons and cooperation.

If you want to get announcements about such degrowth-related activities, you can do what I did, and follow the following directions, which came to me from one of the leaders of that UCSC group:

I wanted to mention an academic email list, degrowth-world, which some of you might find interesting. You can subscribe by sending a blank email to degrowth-world-subscribe@lists.riseup.net.

 

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://sosyalekonomi.org/degrowth-boundaries-of-growth/

#124 /The Sin Of Acedia

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

If you don't know what "acedia" is (and I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that's true), just click right here. Merriam-Webster provides "apathy" and "boredom" as synonyms.  A website that advertises itself as "Totally Awesome History" calls "acedia" "The Noontime Demon." That website provides a pretty nice write-up and explanation. 

Wikipedia tells us that:

In the medieval Latin tradition of the seven deadly sins, acedia has generally been folded into the sin of sloth. The Benedictine Rule directed that a monk displaying the outward signs of acedia should be reproved a first and a second time [after that, if the monk] does not amend, [the monk] must be subjected to [corporal punishment] so that the others may have fear.

Google Search says "acedia" isn't exactly the same thing as "depression," because acedia is at least partly willful, and depression isn't. I think it's fair to say, though, that the symptoms are basically the same in both cases.

I have to confess, and I am sorry to have to do it, that I have become all too familiar with the "Noontime Demon," in the last year or so, though my acquaintance does not seem to be consistently "noontime related." I do not think that "sloth," "apathy," or "boredom" are words that define me and my condition. But how about "depression"? Well, that's a word that may explain the way I feel when the "Noontime Demon" does come by to call. 

Let me say that my online search to figure out what that sin of "acedia" is, and how it works, has actually proven a little bit helpful. I think that the Benedictine monks were on to something in naming "acedia" a condition that is, in the end, something in which we ourselves are somewhat complicit. The temptations of "depression," in the face of daunting and dangerous times, can be well understood. Let's give ourselves a pass, one time, or two. But in the end, I don't think we can allow ourselves to permit feelings of depression to prevail. 

I, for one, want to announce my intention to prevail over the sin of acedia. No corporal punishment will be required!

For A Daily Subscription Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.totallyawesomehistory.com/blog/acedia-the-noonday-demon