Wednesday, July 8, 2026

#189 / Wearing The MAGA Hat

  


Pictured above is Marty Embry The link should take you to Marty Embry's Facebook page. I don't know Marty Embry personally, but one of his Facebook postings was shared by one of my own "Facebook Friends," which is how I came across Embry and the Facebook posting that I have reproduced, in full, below. 

The Facebook posting I am sharing recounts Embry's experiences after he decided to "put on a MAGA hat for seven days straight." I encourage anyone coming across my own blog posting to read about Embry's experiences. Here is how he wound up his posting: "I went looking for the enemy. What I found was a country full of people making desperate calculations in a system that has failed too many of them for too long."

Before reading Embry's posting, I already knew that you can't judge a person by his or her hat - or by his or her color; or by a person's ethnicity; or by their gender; or by their chosen gender, or by their religious commitments (if any); or by their lack of religious commitments; or by any other observable thing, or any "fact" about them. My experience (not to mention my "bringing up") has convinced me that "Judge not" is a pretty good rule when we encounter others. That's Jesus speaking, by the way, according to the Bible in Matthew 7:1). I mention this for any who might be tempted to think that judging someone by way of their religion is the right kind of rule. To the degree that we might need to "judge" a bit, from time to time, a person's actions, not their accouterments, are generally the best indication of what one's judgment (tentative, always tentative) ought to be. 

I have written before of my mother's admonition that "comparisons are odious." That's a different way of cautioning against the kind of hat-based judgments that Embry is writing about (and other such judgments, hat-based or not). Here's what I say: 

We're In This Together!

We are in this together in the United States of America. And worldwide. That's the lesson we have to learn, and learn how to implement. At least, we have to learn that lesson if we want to prosper - or even to survive!

oooOOOooo

Marty Embry's Facebook Post: 

I did a quiet social experiment that opened my eyes even more than anything that I've ever written.

I put on a MAGA hat for seven days straight. Grocery stores. Gas stations. Walmart parking lot. Youth sports. A barbershop. A dinner table. I told nobody what I was doing. I kept a journal of every meaningful exchange.

What I found on both sides shook me to my core.

Let me start with the Red Side. The first thing that surprised me was the warmth. Not hollow, nodding warmth, but immediate, chest-open, you're-one-of-us warmth. Day one, a white man at a gas station off I-40, work boots caked in drywall dust, pointed at the hat and said, "Hell yeah. Don't let 'em break you, brother." He called me brother. I held onto that word all day and tried to figure out what it cost him and what it cost me.

At my friends sons game, two fathers in MAGA gear walked up, introduced themselves by first name, handed me a cold Gatorade from their cooler, and within four minutes were talking about Biden's inflation, the border, and how "nobody talks straight anymore." They never asked my name again after that first handshake. I was categorized as safe, aligned, one of them. The hat was my passport.

But as the week went on, the welcome got more complicated. By day three I noticed the acceptance came pre-loaded with assumptions, that I hated the same people they hated, laughed at the same things, believed the same version of history. One man, educated, articulate, small business owner, told me over barbecue that "Blacks who get it" are the most important people in the movement. He meant it as a compliment. I sat with it like a stone in my chest.

In the barbershop, a man started telling me unprompted that January 6th was "way overblown" and that the "real insurrection" was the 2020 election. When I pushed back gently, just asking questions, his warmth cooled instantly. Not rudely. The door just closed. The hat had opened it. My questions closed it. That told me everything about what the hat actually buys you: entry, not belonging.

Then theres the other side. If the red side surprised me with its warmth, the blue side devastated me with its contempt and what made it devastating was that most of it came from people who look like me.

Same day as the gas station. I walked into a grocery store I've shopped in for years. A Black woman, probably sixty five to seventy, beautiful silver locs, the kind of elder I was raised to respect, looked at the hat and looked at me and shook her head slowly. Not in anger. In grief. Like she was mourning something. I nearly took the hat off right there in the produce section and explained everything.

A deacon I know, a man who has prayed over my family, walked past me without speaking. He saw the hat. He kept walking. I called his name. He turned, nodded once, and kept going. We have greeted each other warmly for four years. The hat ended four years in three seconds.

A young white woman in a coffee shop with a "Protect Democracy" sticker on her laptop stared at me for a full minute. Not subtly. She was running the algorithm of who I was supposed to be against, what I was wearing, and coming up error. Then she looked away with visible disgust. She didn't know me. She didn't ask. She decided.

Black fathers that I have mentored kids alongside, men I respect deeply, were visibly cold. One pulled me aside and said quietly and directly: "What are you doing, man? You know what that hat means to our kids." He wasn't wrong. Not even a little. But he didn't ask me why either. And that assumption, even when it comes from love, from history, from real pain, is still an assumption.

Here's what I have to be honest about: their reaction was rooted in something real. The MAGA hat is not a neutral piece of clothing. It carries the weight of family separations, of "very fine people on both sides," of voter suppression, of January 6th, of Project 2025.

When people reacted with pain and distance and grief, they were reacting to history, not just to me. I understood every single one of them.

What troubled me was the speed. The willingness on BOTH sides to stop seeing a person the moment they saw a symbol. That is not a left problem or a right problem. That is an America problem.

This was the week's most surprising discovery.

A retired military officer, white, conservative, lifelong Republican, asked me almost immediately to take the hat off. "I don't wear that," he said. "I vote Republican because I believe in limited government and a strong military. Trump is neither of those things, really. He's a TV show."

He voted for Trump twice. Would likely do it again. But he had zero illusions about who the man was.
A former Republican state party volunteer told me over dinner that she was privately horrified by January 6th, thought the family separation policy "went too far," and worried about what Project 2025 would do to federal institutions. Then she said: "But I can't vote for someone who wants to raise my taxes and take my guns. So I stay." She paused. "And I hate that I stay. But I do."

This is the piece the left often refuses to see. There is a significant portion of the Republican coalition that is not MAGA, does not worship Trump, cringes at his cruelties, but calculates that their policy interests are better served by staying inside a broken house than building a new one. You can disagree with that calculation. I do. But dismissing those people as fascists means you never understand them and you never get a chance to reach them.

Now, for the receipts, because feelings don't get the final word, facts do.

Donald Trump was found liable for sexual abuse by a federal jury in 2023. He was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records, the first U.S. president in history convicted of felony crimes. His administration separated over 5,500 children from their parents at the border. Hundreds were never reunited with their families.

The January 6th Select Committee concluded he "summoned the mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame" of an attack that left 140 police officers injured. Project 2025, written by his own allies at the Heritage Foundation, proposes dismantling the Department of Education, eliminating DEI programs across the federal government, and replacing career civil servants with political loyalists. His 2017 tax cuts sent 83% of their long-term benefits to the top 1% of earners.

These are not opinions. These are not media inventions. These are documented, sourced, on-the-record facts. The receipts exist.

Sunday night I sat in my car in the driveway for twenty minutes before going inside. The hat was on the passenger seat. I looked at it a long time.

I came back to my Democratic values, but I came back changed. More honest about where my own side has failed the communities it claims to champion. More clear-eyed about the real complexity of the people across the line. And more committed than ever to what I know is true.

The Democratic Party is not perfect. It has made promises to Black and working-class communities that it has not kept. I say that out loud and without apology.

But I also see a Republican Party that has been captured by a man with 34 felony convictions and a civil liability finding for sexual abuse, a man whose allies have written a blueprint to reshape American government around personal power. I see voter suppression dressed up as election integrity. I see my children's history being scrubbed from classrooms before they even get a chance to learn it. I see what these policies do to real people in real communities, communities like the one I come from.
So I am back. With both eyes wide open.

I went looking for the enemy. What I found was a country full of people making desperate calculations in a system that has failed too many of them for too long.

The hat is in a box. The lesson is not.


Image Credit:

Tuesday, July 7, 2026

#188 / Wind Phone

 


Welcome to the Wind Phone
 
In 2010, garden designer Itaru Sasaski of Otsuchi, Japan put an old telephone booth on his property with a disconnected phone as a way of coping with the death of his cousin by calling him, "on the wind." 
Shortly after he'd installed what he called the Wind Phone (Kaze no Denwa), Sasaski's community faced a massive earthquake, and in 2011 he opened the phone booth to the public so those grieving friends and family members lost in the disaster could "call" their loved ones. 
People all over the world were moved to follow suit, and there are now several hundred wind phones around the world, including around 400 in the US. 
Feel free to make a wind call to a loved one.

oooOOOooo 

You can find a Wind Phone in Santa Cruz, California, where I live, by taking a walk along Branciforte Creek. The Wind Phone, pictured above, is a comfort, and it's a very nice walk along the creek! The Wind Phone along Branciforte Creek comes with the advisory that I have copied out, above. 

Feel free to make a wind call to a loved one (wherever you may be).






Image Credits:
Gary Patton, personal photos

Monday, July 6, 2026

#187 / What "Created Equal" Means In America

 


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal....
The statement above, from the Declaration of Independence, is surely known to almost every American. Probably, most Americans would also agree that the following redrafting of the language better conveys, to our contemporary ears, what our Declaration means to say: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men persons are created equal....

As a preliminary comment, it is worth noting that the statement does not claim that all American persons are created equal. My gosh, as written out in our Declaration of Independence, this statement would seem to apply to immigrants, too. Even "illegal" immigrants!

While we are all thinking about that, let me refer anyone reading this blog posting to a column in The Wall Street Journal, published on June 17, 2026. The column, by William A. Galston, is titled, "What 'Created Equal' Means in America."

To cut to the chase, the main thing to understand is that "equal" is not equivalent to "the same." That is the key to understanding what our Declaration of Independence is all about. We - persons in the world - are all "different." That is pretty much "self-evident." Given that we accept this self-evident truth, then what in the world is our Declaration trying to get at? How can that "all persons are created equal" assertion be justified or understood?

Check out Galston's exploration of this topic (and I note that clicking the link I provided above is supposed to let even non-subscribers read Galston's column). Galston is saying that we are all of "equal worth." I agree with that - but let me go just a bit further. 

The Declaration of Independence was a statement, made more than 250 years ago, and its claims were made in the context of a political revolution. I read the Declaration as asserting that the only legitimate government is a government that must treat everyone "the same" when it comes to their participation in the task of self-government.

The Declaration obviously states a revulsion against any form of political discrimination - discrimination based on race, or gender, or wealth (or any other difference). We are not "equal" in the sense of "the same." Quite the contrary. We are all "different." But our Declaration of Independence says that the Americans who were separating themselves from the government of Great Britain, and from the English King who claimed a right to "rule," felt it appropriate to "declare the causes which impel them to the separation." Our Declaration outlines what was wrong with the King's government in England, and more than anything else, the problem the Declaration made clear in a general statement, before listing specifics - was that the King's government did not allow everyone to participate, equally, in the government that so profoundly impacted their daily lives and their future existence. 

My own reading of The Declaration of Independence sees it as a statement about the kind of government to which the American Revolution aspired - and that those who pledged themselves to the revolution understood to be their objective. 

"Self-government," was their objective. And self-government means (as Lincoln summed it up at Gettysburg) a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." 

The Declaration was "our" claim (our claim both collectively and individually) that the government that determines how our collective lives will be arranged must be a government that assigns an equal role to everyone in the decisions that will shape our future, and that determine our present.

I read The Declaration as a pledge of our individual and personal participation in making that happen, too. 


Image Credit:

Sunday, July 5, 2026

#186 / When The Deal Goes Down

 


At one time - five years ago, but maybe it's still true - Ringo Starr said that his favorite Bob Dylan song is "When The Deal Goes Down." Here it is, in the official Bob Dylan video, on YouTube: 



Ringo, according to that article I have linked, thinks of the song as a "beautiful love song," and "very romantic." And it certainly can be heard that way (check out the video; that interpretation fits).

Still, as I so often find when I listen to Dylan's music, I hear a song that is telling us about God's love for all of us. When I hear Dylan sing, "I'll be with you when the deal goes down," I hear echoes of Matthew 28:20, in the King James version of the Bible: 

Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

I find I keep coming back to this song. I have written about it before, and, in fact, more than once, and it's on my "Memorial Songs" playlist. You can review the lyrics below, and see what you think. I have highlighted some lines in the last verse, which I am naming now as my favorites:

oooOOOooo

When The Deal Goes Down

 

In the still of the night, in the world's ancient light
Where wisdom grows up in strife
My bewildering brain, toils in vain
Through the darkness on the pathways of life
Each invisible prayer is like a cloud in the air
Tomorrow keeps turning around
We live and we die, we know not why
But I'll be with you when the deal goes down

We eat and we drink, we feel and we think
Far down the street we stray
I laugh and I cry and I'm haunted by
Things I never meant nor wished to say
The midnight rain follows the train
We all wear the same thorny crown
Soul to soul, our shadows roll
And I'll be with you when the deal goes down

The moon gives light and shines by night
I scarcely feel the glow
We learn to live and then we forgive
O'er the road we're bound to go
More frailer than the flowers, these precious hours
That keep us so tightly bound
You come to my eyes like a vision from the skies
And I'll be with you when the deal goes down

I picked up a rose and it poked through my clothes
I followed the winding stream
I heard a deafening noise, I felt transient joys
I know they're not what they seem
In this earthly domain, full of disappointment and pain
You'll never see me frown
I owe my heart to you, and that's sayin' it true
And I'll be with you when the deal goes down



Image Credits:
(1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph1GU1qQ1zQ
(2) - https://youtu.be/CEoGqUqy-0w?si=c0uuMMqWb-Gh5Lyi


Saturday, July 4, 2026

#185 / Our Declaration On The Fourth



oooOOOooo

Our Declaration On The Fourth / Hold The Fireworks

I am not feeling, today, like this is really the best time to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution with pretty displays of fireworks. That is not what counts the most, for me. This is not what counts the most, today, 250 years since the signing of our Declaration of Independence.

What counts the most for me - what counts the most, today - are words. Just words! We could say that our Declaration is, itself, "just words" - and hear that language as a way to depreciate our history (and our future). But our Declaration is not "just words." Our Declaration provides us words to live by. Words to die for. Words for which people did die, words for which people gave their lives, words for which we are called, today, to give our own. Those words of our Declaration on the Fourth are what count the most, for me, today.

It did come to that, too, the idea that there are words to die for. One time it did. On July 4, 1776, American patriots wrote down words for which people were called to give their lives. You do remember that, I know. You do remember, and you do know why we have this holiday. And you know that such a time might come again. You know it could. 

I believe, and Americans still believe, what these words say - what these words that helped create this nation say. Remember with me, today, these words in our Declaration on the Fourth, words that declared a truth that Americans have committed to make real.

Today, let's forget about the fireworks - at least for some small time. Let's refresh our recollections, and remember, again, what those words written 250 years ago made plain, and let us remember all they mean for us today.  Let us call those words back into our memories today, and pledge ourselves anew to what we said, and did, so long ago. Please let us never forget that these words proclaim what is and shall always be our enduring commitment to a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." Our Declaration on the Fourth was the first time - if you think of it that way - that we officially said, "No Kings"!

Let us never forget that these words we celebrate today are a pledge, by all of us, of "our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." This is a pledge we make - and will evermore be a pledge we make while our nation still lives in the light of our Declaration on  the Fourth. 

oooOOOooo

In Congress, July 4, 1776

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all persons 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

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.

[Emphasis added]


Image Credit:

Friday, July 3, 2026

#184 / Mini-Pigs And Big Pigs

 


Vladimir Putin was featured in a Wall Street Journal article published on Saturday, May 30, 2026. The article was titled, "Inside Putin’s $26 Billion Quest For Longevity." 

Like Silicon Valley billionaires including Jeff Bezos, Sam Altman and Peter Thiel, Putin has long been fascinated with antiaging research. But in Russia, Putin’s quest to stave off decline is now a state priority relying on methods as wide-ranging as organ printing, harvesting mini-pigs and exposure to ultralow temperatures.

"Mini-pigs" are, apparently, playing a key role in Putin's efforts to achieve long life (or, even better, to escape death entirely). The article in The Journal provides some explanation how those "mini-pigs" are being utilized. The article also cites some evidence that indicates that Putin really does believe that escaping death (long considered to be just as certain as "taxes") is something that he might be able to achieve:

When Vladimir Putin was captured by a hot mic telling Xi Jinping that humans could achieve immortality by replacing their organs, some dismissed the exchange as eccentric small talk between aging autocrats. In fact, during the conversation at a Beijing military parade last September, Putin appeared to be describing a Kremlin-backed longevity initiative that has become one of Russia’s flagship scientific projects.

So, as noted, if you are interested in some of the specifics of Russia's long-life research, and about the role being played by mini-pigs, the article I have linked will provide you with helpful information. As for the "Big Pigs" mentioned in my blog posting title, you can figure out the people I am thinking of (a partial list) by reading the excerpt from the article that I have provided in this blog posting. Only one of them is a Russian head of state!


Image Credit:

Thursday, July 2, 2026

#183 / Hot News From The High Court!!!!




The image you see above appeared in the hardcopy version of a Wall Street Journal article published on July 1, 2026. Depicted is an intern, who is running to deliver a Supreme Court ruling to members of the media on Tuesday, June 31st. 

So, what was this all about? What was that "Hot News From The High Court"?

Well, if you click the next link, you'll find the online version of the article to which I am referring, which is titled as follows: "Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Bid to Curtail Birthright Citizenship." 

In other words (amazing though it may seem), the "Hot News" was that the Supreme Court of the United States has held, in an official decision, that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution means exactly what it says. Wow! That is exciting! How unexpected!! The High Court has now officially proclaimed that the following language means exactly what the words in the Constitution say: 

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....

The current president of the United States has been claiming that what the Constitution says (see above) isn't actually what it means. The VP has been in agreement with him. 

Let's hope that the same principle (words mean what they say) might be found to apply to other provisions of the Constitution, too. Like, who gets to declare war - for just one example!

https://www.instagram.com/p/DaOULUmEufw/

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

#182 / Back To School At Pali High?




An article in the May 18, 2026, edition of The New York Times was titled as follows in the hardcopy version: "In Pacific Palisades, A Mother's Agonizing Dilemma." Click that link for the article online (but be aware that the online headline will differ from what I have given you here). 

In the hardcopy edition, there was a picture on the front page of the paper that immediately attracted my attention since it showed an old Sears store, repurposed with a new sign reading, "Pali High." I, personally, am a graduate of "Paly High" (class of '61), meaning Palo Alto High School, located in Palo Alto, California. I wasn't, actually, offended by the "Pali High" sign, but I can't help thinking that my own highschool is the original and authentic version. 

At any rate, Palo Alto High School has not (to date) suffered the kind of fate affecting the "Pali High" located in Pacific Palisades. The Pacific Palisades wildfire - one of the "most destructive wildfires in Los Angeles history" - badly damaged the high school, but it was "still standing" after the fire. However, the real problem about repopulating the school with students, like Pearl Villemaire, pictured above, was the accumulation of toxic chemicals. Pearl's home was "smoke-damaged," too.

If you read the entirety of the article, you will find that it may well be that students are being sent back to a highschool that is, in fact, a hotbed of toxic dangers (and Pearl's home is in the same condition). This brought a thought to mind. As we enter a time in which wildfires will, almost certainly, continue to erupt during warm weather - thanks to the global warming which our nation, and the world entire, is failing to address - we are going to have a lot more problems like the ones documented with reference to "Pali High." We are constructing our cities with plastics and other materials created not by nature, but by human artifice, that may well leave us with a toxic legacy, after such fires, that will then doom our children to a life of chemical pollution, dangerous to health. 

One way to begin addressing this problem (which is referenced in the article) is just to "pretend" that the toxic residues are "ok," and are not a mammoth health danger. This is, possibly, what is happening in Pacific Palisades, and this is what constitutes the "agonizing dilemma" that the article discusses. Pearl wants to go back to school; she is experiencing real panic attacks and depression because of the disruption to her life caused by the fire. Her mom wants to help with that, as do the other parents of students at "Pali High." It's agonizing for such parents to send their students back to school, however. While the parents  know that this will make their children happier, immediately, they also know, at some level, that this decision may condemn them to future disease and an early death. 

Pearl's going back to school, at Pali High. Let's cross our fingers! However, there could be another way - a lesson drawn from the situation documented by the article in The Times. Maybe we could start seriously confronting and dealing with global warming - on an immediate and urgent basis - and since global warming is caused by the combustion of hydrocarbon fuels (oil and gas) that would mean phasing them out, immediately (as quickly as is humanly possible).

That is a possibility, and there are some (I am raising my hand) who don't think a decision to do that should really be "agonizing." The decision to do that, I think, should be "obvious." 


Image Credit:

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

#181 / Jeff Bezos' Billions? He Earned Them!




The headline on an opinion column that was published in the May 27, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal reads this way: Jeff Bezos Earned His Fortune

Marian L. Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, is the person who is making this argument. In a typographical "pull out," Tupy sums up that argument by telling us that "The Amazon founder's innovations save customers 22 hours a year on average, giving them the gift of time." Here's a more extended explanation: 

Modern debates about wealth start in the wrong place. They begin with the fortune. They should begin with customers and their time. Mr. Bezos is worth roughly $275 billion. That number offends many people because they assume wealth must have been taken from someone else. But Amazon didn’t become valuable by force. It became valuable because hundreds of millions of people chose to use it. 
Consumers weren’t forced to buy books, batteries, diapers, cables, razors, tools, groceries or printer ink from Amazon. They did so because Amazon saved them time, money, effort or uncertainty. Sellers weren’t forced to use Amazon’s marketplace. They did so because it gave them access to demand. Firms weren’t forced to use Amazon Web Services. They did so because renting computing power was cheaper than building and maintaining their own information-technology infrastructure. That is capitalism: People get rich by creating something others value enough to buy.... 
Consider the arithmetic. Suppose an hour of labor is worth about $64, roughly the average gross domestic product per hour worked in the countries in which Amazon operates. If Mr. Bezos’ fortune corresponded to the total value that Amazon created, his $275 billion would represent about 4.3 billion hours of saved time. Divided among Amazon’s more than 300 million active customers, the saving comes to about 14 hours per customer over Amazon’s life. That’s nothing. Many customers save that in a month. 
At $64 an hour, that means Amazon has saved its customers about 214 billion hours. Across 300 million customers over roughly 32 years (Amazon was founded in 1994), the saving equals about 22 hours per person a year. That is 25 to 26 minutes a week, or a little less than four minutes a day. 
So the question isn’t whether Mr. Bezos has too much money. It is whether Amazon has saved the average customer four minutes a day. The answer is yes. A single avoided trip to a store can save 30 minutes. Finding a product online instead of driving to three retailers can save an hour. Reading reviews can reduce the chance of buying the wrong product. Automatic reordering can save repeated errands. Price comparison can save money and time. Fast delivery can substitute for inventory kept in closets, garages, offices and warehouses.

Tupy makes a pretty good argument, don't you think? I think he does, but I do want to note that there are some costs he doesn't tally. Amazon's successful business model has not only made it possible for the buyers of everyday commodities to save time, it has also helped destroy many small businesses - and even some large businesses - and has mightly contributed to what is sometimes called the "death of downtown."

Still, let's give credit where credit is due. Bezos' commercial innovations (and let's not forget the contributions of his former wife, MacKenzie Scott) have received an endorsement from the market. His new idea about how to use the "Internet" to sell things was, perhaps, an idea whose time had come. Granting all that, and affirming the arithmetic propounded by Tupy, I think there is something else we need to consider. 

Who made Amazon successful? Just as Tupy points out, its customers made Amazon successful. And who are those customers? You, me, and the entirety of the public. So, shouldn't the public also share in the economic benefits, along with the guy who had the good idea? Granted that those four minutes a day we've each gained are worth something, I am suggesting that our willingness to transform the American economy on the Bezos' model of commercial enterprise should also result in a direct sharing of the economic benefits by the public taken as a whole. 

In other words, since we, the customers, and we, the public, have made Amazon successful, it would be - and in fact is - totally appropriate to impose a tax on the profits we made possible, to fund such things as downtown urban revitalization, childcare, health care, and the armed forces that defend our American "way of life."

Anyone see anything wrong with that? We have had a progressive income tax for a long time, and as the success of Mr. Bezos' good idea reveals, when the willingness of the public to change its buying habits has made it possible for one person to amass amazing sums of money ($275 billion buys a lot of merchandise, like Bezos' super yacht, pictured below), a tax on some of the profits, to benefit the public, is absolutely in order. 


(1) - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/jeff-bezos-earned-his-fortune-5e57dc45

Monday, June 29, 2026

#180 / Same Problem, Different Message

 


As The New York Times has reported, former Vice President Al Gore is still talking about global warming (usually called "climate change," which I think, personally, significantly understates what's really happening). We all do remember the story of the boiling frogs, right? 




Some say that this story about the boiling frogs is truly misleading, and that frogs actually will not sit around in a gradually warming pot of water until they're boiled to death. 

Humans? Well, there is some evidence going the other way!

The main point made in The Times' article is that Gore now argues his case on "economic," not "moral" grounds: 

Onstage in Nashville, Mr. Gore made a central argument that would have been inconceivable two decades ago. Rather than directly invoking morality, he led with economics. 
The cost of renewable energy had plunged. He talked about “market forces” and about the “spectacular, unprecedented” technology revolution — including low-cost solar panels and wind turbines — that now make aiding the planet an affordable choice. 
“We’re in a different world now,” Mr. Gore said in Nashville. “The options are terrific.” 
The moral aspect of climate advocacy has had a long legacy, burnished not only by Mr. Gore but also by Pope Francis, who portrayed a link between environmental degradation and societal rot. In the late 2010s, a wave of youth protesters argued that political leaders and corporations had a duty to safeguard the planet for future generations. 
But as that movement waned, some felt the moralizing had at times brought a political backlash. After the documentary’s release ["An Inconvenient Truth"], Mr. Gore was criticized in some right-wing circles for hypocrisy given that he traveled widely and lived a lifestyle reliant on fossil fuels for energy. Later, to attend climate events, the activist Greta Thunberg twice crossed the Atlantic by sailboat in a conspicuous effort to avoid polluting air travel, a move that some critics called a publicity stunt out of reach for noncelebrities. 
Environmentalists, meantime, made a new case: that wind and solar energy were becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Bill McKibben, a founder of the campaign group 350.org, said climate advocates no longer had to “fight against the force of economic gravity.”

Lawyers, who make arguments to juries as part of their normal business, quite often seek to persuade a jury by making multiple, and different, arguments. They always do keep urging the jury, though, to take the specific action for which they are arguing. 

One way to look at Gore's recent shift in emphasis is that this is probably a good thing, since the "problem" is to get us to change what we're doing, instead of lounging around in the pot debating whether the temperature is really going up, or not. 

I am "ok" with that, but my advice would be to do what the lawyers do. Present all the arguments! Candidly, I am getting quite tired of hearing public policy matters discussed, for the most part, as if "economic" issues were the only issues of importance. Public policy choices do, of course, quite often have very significant "economic" impacts, but there are also moral imperatives that I think are more important than the economic probabilities. 

We live in a world into which we have all been born, most mysteriously, a "Natural World" that is not our own creation, and I continue to think that we need to respect that fact, while certainly understanding our own powers and prerogatives and all those very real "economic" impacts that flow from our human choices. 

I would like to think that Al Gore (and all of us) would not forget that!

(1) - https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/25/climate/al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth.html
(2) - https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=403

Sunday, June 28, 2026

#179 / A Few Words From Pope Leo XIV

 



Pope Leo XIV (pictured above) begs to disagree with Mr. Jobs. Pope Leo has recently issued an "encyclical letter," an official statement by the Pope on religious matters, and the Pope is warning the world that "artificial intelligence threatens to normalize an anti-human vision.” 

According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, the Pope's statement should be understood as both a "criticism" and a "rebuke," coming from the first American Pope, "challenging a technological revolution incubated in the U.S. and supported by our current president, who has lashed out at the pontiff for criticizing the war in Iran." The Journal goes on to say that "Leo’s emphasis on threats to individuals’ human dignity and opposition to autonomous weapons casts him in contrast to techno-optimists who argue that AI will usher in a productivity revolution and that the U.S. must deploy its advances militarily before rivals such as China do."


Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, published with great ceremony on Monday his first encyclical, Magnifica Humanitas, or “Magnificent Humanity.” The 42,300-word policy statement is respectful and named no names, but is at heart a sharp rebuke to Silicon Valley’s assertions that it alone can be trusted to develop the future.

Whether we denominate the Pope's encyclical as a "religious" or as a "spiritual" statement, the essence of what the Pope is saying is clear. The reality upon which we ultimately depend (for everything) is not a "human creation," and our periodic and presumptuous assertions to the contrary are not only misguided but (if I may be excused for using this word), "demonic." 

According to the Lord's Prayer, "Evil" is an actual reality, and is not just a word that we employ to categorize something that we don't particularly like. Those who recite the words of the Lord's Prayer, which acknowledge also the reality of God, ask the Creator of the World to "deliver us" from evil. 

The Pope does not, for a minute, think we are "as gods," and he knows evil when he hears it - and hears of it. Let us all, like the Pope, refuse to succumb to the temptation to elevate our own creations to be equal to, or even greater than, The World That God Created.

Saturday, June 27, 2026

#178 / As We Thinketh




I have already recommended the book I have pictured above. The book was written in 1903. Click right here for my earlier review and comment, which mentions my father, who gave me the book on Christmas in 1961, just as I was about to turn 18 years old. At the time of my earlier mention of the book, I had not yet posted anything showing how the lesson of Allen's book motivated my father's incredibly successful life. Later, I did exactly that, and I invite anyone reading this to find out a bit about my Dad! Just click the link.

As you will note, the title of my blog posting today is not quite the same as the title of the book itself. This is to let you know that the book is most emphatically not delivering a message that is gender specific to males. Let us forgive our forefathers predecessors for their failure to understand that the language that we use, when we talk about the world, needs to be inclusive!

I have returned to James Allen's book in my blog posting today because The New York Times Magazine recently ran an opinion article by Sam Anderson, "Mind Reader," which made fun of the book, and suggested that it wasn't worth reading. Anderson is a staff writer for the magazine, and if he is correct, there has been a recent surge of interest in As A Man Thinketh, which Anderson describes as "a musty old book from 1903." The new "fans," Anderson says, are mainly male. Let me reiterate, this book is a book for everyone!

Anderson more or less ridicules Allen's book because he presents its basic argument as a claim that "you are your thoughts," which he reads to mean that "thinking" is "self-executing." I think this is a fundamental misreading. Thinking does not "make it so." Acting does!

What Allen's book claims is that we can do "anything." I happen to believe that is true, and invite you, again, to read about my father's experience in his life. My own experience has not been so different - thanks to my Dad. 

The message of Allen's book isn't that "thinking" is all we need to do. It is, rather, an encouragement to "think" about what we want to do, and who we want to be, and what we really "have to do." Do not think yourself into a life limited by your own failure to appreciate "possibility." 

Possibility is "my category" - and that is because (thanks to my Dad) that I read and believed what Allen says (and what my Dad said, and proved to me was true). We will not ever be able to go beyond what we think is our limit. 

So, don't be someone who is self-limiting (particularly now, as we must face down various ways in which our world might be brought summarily to an end, should we not change our destination). If we don't think beyond the "realities" that seem so absolute, we will never know what is really possible.

Please do not think that you're going to change the world by "thinking" alone. "Think." Then "Act." That's what James Allen is talking about! As we thinketh, so we can "make it so."


Image Credit: