Tuesday, January 13, 2026

#13 / Miller Time




This blog posting is not to announce that I have left behind my teetotalling ways. It is also not a suggestion that one good way to react to the events of our present moment (and to survive them) is to kick back, chill, and quaff a nice, cool, tall one. According to a website devoted to the Gilmore Girls, which is where I got the image above, the phrase, "Miller Time" has come to mean that "it's time to relax." 

I do not believe that "it's time to relax." Quite the opposite. In fact, what I mean by "Miller Time," in this blog posting, can be read on the contemptuous face you can see below. In case you don't immediately recognize it, that face belongs to Stephen Miller, who is serving as our current president's deputy chief of staff. I talked about him in my blog posting yesterday, too.


Here are some words from Miller, as garned from William Galston's January 6, 2026, column in The Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

After seizing Mr. Maduro and his wife, Mr. Trump renewed his demand to acquire Greenland. Pressed by CNN’s Jake Tapper on whether this could involve the use of force, Stephen Miller, one of the president’s most influential advisers, replied: “There’s no need to even think or talk about this in the context that you’re asking of a military operation. Nobody’s gonna fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland.” Similarly troubling was a comment that revealed his outlook on foreign policy: “We live in a world, in the real world, Jake, that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world since the beginning of time.

An article in The New York Times also quoted Miller (on both Greenland and Venezuela), pretty much to the same effect (emphasis added):

Stephen Miller, a top aide to President Trump, asserted on Monday that Greenland rightfully belonged to the United States and that the Trump administration could seize the semiautonomous Danish territory if it wanted. 
“Nobody’s going to fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland,” Mr. Miller told Jake Tapper, the CNN host, after being asked repeatedly whether he would rule out using military force. 
The remarks were part of a vocal push by Mr. Miller, long a powerful behind-the-scenes player in Trump administration policy, to justify American imperialism and a vision for a new world order in which the United States could freely overthrow national governments and take foreign territory and resources so long as it was in the national interest.

Finally, let me quote Oona A. Hathaway, who is a professor of law and political science at Yale and is the president-elect of the American Society of International Law.  Her opinion column in The Times tells us that "The Great Unraveling Has Begun." 

What does Hathaway mean by that? I urge you to read the full article to see. I am informed that no paywall should prevent you from doing that, so just click the link. In short, Hathaway indicates that the kind of approach to foreign relations espoused by Stephen Miller - "might makes right," meaning that the United States can and should just take whatever it wants, since it's powerful enough to do so - would be a "blatant assault on the international legal order," and would end eight decades of relative peace. "Unraveling" is one way to say it.

If you think back to the years of your lifetime, Hathaway is telling us that those years have been, for the most part, years of "relative peace." Since I am eighty-two years old, my own experience does encompass all of those eight decades called out by Hathaway, and I wouldn't exactly call them "peaceful." However, Hathaway is talking about a comparison of post-World War II conditions to the conditions that came before. In that context, you can make a case that things have been much better over those eighty years than they were during World War I (16 million civilian and military casualties) and during World War II, which was the deadliest military conflict in history, with 70–85 million deaths caused by the conflict, representing about 3% of the estimated global population of 2.3 billion in 1940.

Now, of course, nuclear weapons will be available in any major new conflict, and it's questionable that anyone will survive a war in which they are deployed. Back in 1963, Bob Dylan pointed this out, singing that if "God's on our side He'll stop the next war.

Stephen Miller, obviously, thinks he knows better.

Hathaway says that "as the United States fails to abide by the underlying principle of the international legal system it once championed, the already ailing system faces total collapse." 

There may still be a chance to save it, but the decades of imperfect but transformative peace that the U.N. Charter helped create cannot survive what I am calling "Miller Time."

It's no time to kick back and relax!


Image Credits:
 

Monday, January 12, 2026

#12 / Stephen Miller: His Concerns Reviewed

 


That is Stephen Miller pictured above, and here's the headline that prompted this blog posting: "Miller Cites Children Of Immigrants As A Problem." The article appeared in The New York Times, back near the end of last month - on the "day before Christmas," as a matter of fact. Lovely holiday sentiments!

Naturally, I was interested in finding out about the news behind the headline. Specifically, I wanted to know the nature of the "problem" that Miller has identified. Well, here it is. According to Miller, "seven decades of immigration has produced millions of people who take more than they give." The Times' article does immediately note that this assertion "has been refuted by years of economic data." As Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. immigration policy program at the Migration Policy Institute puts it, "study after study has demonstrated the upward mobility of children of immigrants."

Upon reviewing Wikipedia's write up on Miller (click the link to his name, in the first line, above, if you'd like to review it yourself), it is clear to me that Miller has zealously objected to "immigrants" since his high school days. My observation is that when people start deciding that any particular "group" is causing problems, and demands that members of such group be penalized, it is appropriate to demand that the focus should be on the behavior objected to, as opposed to declaring that a particular "group" is, ipso facto, causing the identified problem.

"Taking more than they give," Miller's stated concern, could be defined, I suppose, as applying to those persons who receive more in government "benefits" than they have contributed in taxes, or who have made some other demonstrable contribution to our society that offsets what they have received. Candidly, that measurement would put lots of non-immigrants in the same category as the "immigrants" that Miller denounces and derides. You have probably heard the designator "white trash." If we are going to object to "immigrants," for the reason specified by Miller, we should probably start trying to deal with impecunious white people, too.

In fact, lest anyone mistake my personal position, I do not think we should be trying to get rid of "immigrants," or poor white people, or any other "group." My continuing claim is that we are "in this together," and that includes ALL of us. And in case it hasn't become clear to anyone who is reading this, I would argue that we are "in this together" not only in the United States of America, but in "the world." 

If it is true that the entire world is, in fact, "in it together," as I think the threat of nuclear war, and massive starvation, and desertification, and global warming, with all of its anticipated impacts, including mass extinctions, make clear, we need to make allies with everyone, and figure out how to work together as "people of this planet," not glory in efforts to pick out groups to belittle and denounce. 

The article that prompted this comment was published, as I disclosed earlier, on "the day before Christmas." You'll read my comment after Christmas has come and gone, but let's try remembering that "Christmas Spirit" that we heard about on December 25th, and make it a year round thing. 

Mr. Miller is invited to try that out, himself!

Sunday, January 11, 2026

#11 / Father Forgive Them

  


New Year. New Deal! 

I wrote a blog posting on the New Deal, once - way back in 2011. You can click this link to review it. That blog posting centered on the idea that Roosevelt's New Deal represented "debt forgiveness, American style." I think we need another round of that!

I have been thinking quite a bit about various varieties of "forgiveness," and the place of forgiveness in politics, and this being a Sunday, I thought it might be good to refer you to Luke 23:34. I guess that reference provides a kind of extreme example of forgiveness, since Jesus clearly thought that forgiveness could be extended to just about the worst thing you might ever conjure or contemplate doing. If you are not already familiar with the verse I have mentioned, that is the verse that quotes Jesus saying, "Father, forgive them; they know not what they do," just as the Romans were getting ready to drive those great big nails right through his hands and feet.

What Jesus called for could be a pretty good model. That's what I have been thinking.

After our president oversaw the kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro, in order to bring him to the United States to face what might  be a pretty well-justified criminal prosecution, a good friend and I started talking about forgiveness, and apology, and what role they should play in politics. 

A pretty big role, is what we concluded. Not only do we all make mistakes (big ones; really significant ones), we also do bad things which really can't be called "mistakes." Sometimes, we do bad things intentionally! 

During World War II, for instance, the United States government rounded up thousands of Japanese-American citizens and put them in concentration camps. Those who were rounded up weren't drug dealers or criminals, either, and it was that guy Roosevelt who did it. The Supreme Court signed off on the legality of doing that, too, with Justice William O. Douglas writing the opinion. 

In this case, the United States Government did, later on, provide an official national apology to those impacted, and who were still alive at the time the government got around to that apology. That is the only example my friend and I could immediately think of in which the U.S. Government apologized, and took some remedial action, after realizing that it had acted badly. There may be other examples, too, but we weren't able to bring them to mind. 

Might be a good precedent for the future, though! That's what we concluded. 

We do make mistakes, and we do intentionally undertake actions that are just plain wrong, and we do these things both as individuals, and and collectively through our government. If we have been adversely affected by such an action, do we want to double down on recrimination and hatred and decide to hurt those who have hurt us? Some mode of forgiveness might be better. 

You know, singing with those "better angels." 


Saturday, January 10, 2026

#10 / I, Alone




The person pictured above is currently serving as the President of the United States of America. He won his election to that office in 2024, and he did so, largely, on the basis of the following, undoubtedly well-remembered, assertion: "I, alone, can fix it."

Mr. Trump has certainly not backed away from that claim. The front page of The New York Times on Friday, January 9, 2026, headlined its lead article as follows: "Trump Asserts His Global Power Has One Limit: Himself." That's the hardcopy version, which differs from the online version not only by utilizing a slightly different headline, but also by utilizing an even more striking picture than the one I have copied above, which comes from the online version of the article. 

I believe that it would be wise for every American to think about the claims being made by our current president, as featured in The Times' story (emphasis added):

President Trump told The Times during a wide-ranging interview last night that he alone was the arbiter of his authority as commander in chief. He brushed aside international law and other checks on his power to order the U.S. military to strike or invade nations around the world. 
When asked if there were any limits on his global powers, Trump said: “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.” 

You might call these claims "autocratic." You could even call them "megalomaniacal." These claims are definitive evidence that our current president believes that he - and he exclusively - is empowered to act for our nation, and that he, and he "alone," can decide every question relating to our nation's present and future. 

This recent article is clear evidence that our current president believes that his voice, and his decisions, and his "morality," are the only things that count. His "own mind," our current president says, is "the only thing that can stop me."

Our current president's claim to possess the unilateral power to speak for, to make decisions for, and to act for the United States of America (with no one else having any say-so) is inconsistent with what our Constitution says about the powers of the executive. That claim, though, is completely consistent with the following news stories in the same edition of The Times that I have quoted above, these recent news stories documenting recent actions by the government which came exclusively from the president:


The United States of America can lose the distinction of being a "self-governing" democracy if it acts as if the above claims, made by our current president, are either acceptable or true. 

They are not true, and are flatly inconsistent with what our Constitution says about the powers of the president, and they are not acceptable, either, if we intend to remain a "self-governing" people, acting through our representative democracy. 

Power must be met by power, which is not the same as, and is completely different from, "violence." Organized political action is demanded of us. 

Now. 

Friday, January 9, 2026

#9 / One Nation, Indivisible




I ran across the picture, above, as a posting on Facebook. Here is the text that went with it: 

On May 25, 1986, something truly remarkable unfolded across the United States. More than six million people from every walk of life joined hands, forming a single human chain stretching from New York City all the way to Long Beach, California. 
The event, known as Hands Across America, transformed strangers into neighbors and made hope visible. While celebrities like Michael Jackson and Lionel Richie helped shine a spotlight on the cause, the real power came from everyday people—parents and children, workers and students—standing side by side with a shared commitment to fight hunger and homelessness. 
For fifteen unforgettable minutes, a living ribbon of humanity crossed cities, deserts, farmland, and rivers, proving that even in a vast and diverse nation, unity is possible. 
The effort raised millions for food banks and housing programs, but its greatest legacy wasn’t financial. It was the message it left behind—a reminder that when we reach out and join hands, literally or figuratively, we can create something far greater than ourselves. And perhaps now more than ever, it’s time to reach out again (emphasis added).

I looked up "Hands Across America" on Wikipedia (you can see the entry by clicking the link), and I found that there seem to have been some "breaks" in that human chain (but not so many that the idea didn't come across - or at least, so it appears).

"HANDS ACROSS AMERICA" GAVE ME AN IDEA!

How about doing this again, and calling it something like, "One Nation, Indivisible"? I think we ought to be aiming for coordinating the effort with our upcoming mid-year or November elections - and the fact that this is the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence makes such an event timely. We need to remind ourselves, and to make visible, that the people of the United States are "together in this," and that "we, the people" refuse to stand down or be silent as attempts are made to sabotage our system of democratic self-government from the top on down. An unbroken "hand to hand" line of those who have stepped forward to make such a statement visible, from the East Coast to the West Coast, would be quite a demonstration!

Most people reading this will, undoubtedly, be familiar with "Indivisible," the national group. I think this group has the organizational ability to make such a nation-spanning event happen. Indivisible has helped to mobilize millions of people, in local communities all across the United States, to engage in "No Kings" demonstrations which have made clear that the American people reject the undemocratic aspirations of our current president (and the supine Congress that has ignored its Constitutional responsibilities). 

Besides the national organization, there are lots of state and local Indivisible groups, too. California has an Indivisible group to coordinate local groups around the state. Santa Cruz County has a countywide Indivisible Group, with about 5,000 members. The Santa Cruz County Indivisible group has a number of "Issue Teams," which focus on specific policy areas. I, for instance, am personally active in the "Environmental Issues Team." There is an active Pajaro Valley Indivisible group, and there's an Indivisible Monterey Bay group, too. Such groups exist all across this nation - and they all know that our governmental system is being fundamentally challenged. 

Let's make our upcoming "mid-terms" about this challenge, and show our national determination to reject the efforts of our current president to carry out an "Agenda 2025 (and on)," intended to eliminate democratic self-government in the United States. Properly deployed, "we, the people" can make very clear to every current and prospective Member of Congress (and to the Supreme Court, for that matter) that we will not stand by and watch our elected officials, and others, ignore what our Constitution says, and that we will simply not allow unchecked executive power to operate as though "we, the people" don't actully exist. 

Let's show them that we exist! 

Let's see if Indivisible will step up to organize what would be, without a doubt, the most impressive demonstration ever undertaken of our national commitment to the Constitution, and to the principles made so clear in our Declaration of Independence. Let's join hands, across America, and show everyone (including ourselves) that we have not forgotten, and never will, what Abraham Lincoln told us at the end of the Civil War. Let's demonstrate that we are, in fact, still willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor to the proposition that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," shall not perish from this earth!

Thursday, January 8, 2026

#8 / I Get Tired

 


Mitch Daniels, senior adviser to the Liberty Fund, president emeritus of Purdue University, and a former Governor of Indiana, wrote an opinion piece for The Washington Post, which was published in that newspaper on November 12, 2025. 

Daniels' column was titled, "Public norms have been warped. Is the damage permanent?" Here is how Daniels began his column:

There is some small fraction of Americans — conspiracy bloggers, radio hosts, performance artists somehow elected to public office — who prosper from and presumably revel in this century’s rapid collapse of long-standing norms in the public square. Like it or not, standards of both conduct and discourse have shifted unmistakably and radically downward.

I pretty much concur with Daniels' judgment about the downward shift that is so horribly visible in our contemporary politics. "Red" and "Blue" are screaming at each other, as the image that accompanied Daniels' column (and that is reproduced above) makes visually clear. Since Daniels was a Republican, during his political career, his statement is particularly welcome.

Here is what I get tired of, though! The headline on the column, which may or may not come from Daniels himself, asks a pertinent question, but the title suggests that the answer to that question will be found by observation.

We can observe. And we can act. If things are as bad as Daniels paints them (and read the column itself to verify that Daniels thinks things are very bad), it is critically important that our discussion of the current reality not be limited to description and observation alone. 

IF things are bad (and they are), outlining all the realities of that (and ending the review of the realities right there) isn't the right approach. People tend to believe that whatever "is," at any present time, defines what is possible. Why? Because what exists now is "real," of course. All the bad things that Daniels outlines are definitely "bad," and they are definitely "real," but they are not "inevitable."

I am tired of political commentary that is "observation" and "description" alone. What is most important is not what exists right now. What is most important is what we WANT to exist. 

We can change what exists. We can do something new and different. We will have that option right up to the end of the world. 

I get tired of people describing what's wrong, and leaving it at that. 

Here's the real question: What are we going to do about it?


Wednesday, January 7, 2026

#7 / Going Shopping In The "Friendship Market"

    


Janice McCabe is an associate professor of sociology at Dartmouth College, and she has some advice on "How To Make New Friends In The New Year." That link should take you to an article that appeared in The New York Times,  but online, you'll find the headline is a little different.

McCabe says that if we are having difficulties making new friends the problem isn't, necessarily, our own social awkwardness - which is what we often tell ourselves is the problem. According to McCabe, we may simply not be in a thriving "Friendship Market." Here's a quick explanation of what she is talking about: 

In a thriving friendship market, a majority of people in a particular setting are interested in “buying” or “selling” friendship. For example, middle schoolers merging into a new high school, or first-year students arriving at college. New connections abound. 
But we spend much of our lives in weaker friendship markets, where people are open to conversation, but not connection. A parent shows up at a P.T.A. meeting, and even if others are friendly, they keep their distance. Or people move to a new city for work, and acquaintances don’t turn toward their bids for connection. Even intentionally putting yourself out there doesn’t inspire reciprocation if a friendship market has closed: Others already have fully formed friend groups.

Since I am always telling people, by way of these daily blog postings, that they should "Find Some Friends," I was naturally interested in what McCabe had to say, by way of advice. She suggests the following: 

The key ... is not just to start an activity or join a club so you can meet new people. It’s to join one related to a new sense of self or an identity you’re looking to deepen (emphasis added).

I realized, as I read McCabe's article, that when I tell people that they should "Find Some Friends," that what I am really urging them to do is to seek out a "friendship market" in which those who show up to shop are trying to transform themselves into effective and powerful political actors, to accomplish a political purpose. Let me make myself clear to those who may have read my "Find Some Friends" admonition before. That bolded statement is exactly what I mean when I say "Find Some Friends."

I can tell you from personal experience that showing up in a meeting of a small group of people who were trying to mobilize their power and the power of the community to "Save Lighthouse Field" (and who met, weekly and in-person) was personally transformative for me, and I made friendships through those weekly, in-person meetings that are still vital and active, fifty-plus years later. 

Plus: The friendships that were forged within the Save Lighthouse Point Accociation have not only lasted for a lifetime, but also led to a kind of civic and political revolution in my hometown that has "made all the difference," to cite to Robert Frost's wonderful poem about choice.

So, let me say it again: Find Some Friends (and help change the world)!


Image Credit:

Tuesday, January 6, 2026

#6 / Our Deepest Need




David Brooks, a columnist for The New York Times, is telling us that "our deepest need ... is the need to overcome ... separateness, to leave the prison of ... aloneness." You can click right here for the January 3rd column - and no paywall will block your access, either; at least, that's what I'm promised!

Actually, the words I have just quoted in my first paragraph are not original with Brooks, who is, himself, quoting Erich Fromm in making this assertion. In two of the places where those three dots appear, they are not just an ellipsis, but indicate where I have removed the word "man" and the word "his." From the time of the American Revolution to now, it has been common to use the word "man" to mean all human beings, with the masculine form of the possessive pronoun then being gramatically required. I think it is high-time for this convention to be revised. Using "man" in this sense can definitely be an occasion for confusion, not clarity, given that more than half of the human beings now alive identify with the word "woman," not the word "man." 

The reason that I have provided a "gift" link to Brooks' entire column is so that no paywall will prevent you, if interested, from reading the entirety of what Brooks has to say. I do recommend that you "give a listen" to Brooks' message. Here are some quotes (all Brooks, this time, with emphasis added): 

  • I’ve come to appreciate people who are ardent about life. To paraphrase that great philosopher of love, St. Augustine: Give me a man or a woman in love. Give me one who may be far away in the desert but who yearns and thirsts for the springs of passion. Give me that sort of person. She knows what I mean. But if I speak to a cold person, a suspicious person, a mistrusting person or a calculating person, he just doesn’t know what I’m talking about.
  • I’ve composed this little homage to love because Americans seem to be having less of it. Think of the things people most commonly love — their spouse, kids, friends, God, nation and community. Now look at the social trends. Marriage rates hover near record lows, and the share of 40-year-olds who have never been married is at record highs. (Cohabitation rates are up, but that doesn’t come close to making up for the decline in marriage.)
  • Americans are having fewer kids. Americans have fewer friends than before and spend less time with the friends they have. Church and synagogue attendance rates have been falling for decades. The share of Americans who said they feel patriotic about their country is down, especially among the young. From 1985 to 1994, active involvement in community organizations fell by about half, and there is no sign of a recovery.
  • In 2023 a Wall Street Journal/NORC survey asked people about what values were “very important” to them. Since 1998, the shares of Americans who said they highly valued patriotism, religion, having children and community involvement have all plummeted. The only value Americans came to care more about, the survey found, was making money.
  • But economic forces can’t explain everything. These trends are not just about who people want to date and marry; we’re seeing a systematic weakening of the loving bonds that hold society together — for community, for nation, for friends and on and on. What’s going on? My short answer would be that you can build a culture around loving commitments, or you can build a culture around individual autonomy, but you can’t do both. Over the past six decades or so, we chose autonomy, and as a result, we have been on a collective journey from autonomy to achievement to anxiety.

If, reading what Brooks has to say - he calls the phenomenon he describes "The Great Detachment" - you are as concerned as Brooks is, let me suggest that the kind of "political" involvement that I have been urging - which begins with "finding some friends" - is one easily accessible antidote.

A New Year is just beginning, and this would be a very good time to countermand any inclination you might have for "detachment," and start building one of those friendship groups that can serve as the mitochondria of the revolution we so profoundly need

 
Image Credit:

Monday, January 5, 2026

#5 / What's The Point?

 


Nancy Mace is a Member of Congress who was elected five years ago to represent a Congressional District in South Carolina. She is a Republican - and she is the first woman ever elected to represent South Carolina in Congress. Click the link to Mace's name if you'd like to see how she presents herself on her official officeholder website. Mace sits on the House Armed Services, Veteran’s Affairs, and Oversight committees. She also is the Chairwoman of the Cybersecurity Subcommittee on Oversight.

The picture of Mace, above, does not come from her website. It comes from the online version of a December 10, 2025, New York Times opinion column, authored by Mace, and if Mace seems to be in distress in that photo that is most definitely consistent with what she says in her column. As is typical, the online and the hardcopy titles to her column are different - but not that much. The hardcopy version of the column is titled, "What's The Point Of My Being In Congress?" Online, the title is even more brutal: "Nancy Mace: What's The Point Of Congress?" Maybe The Times will let you click that link to read Mace's essay. If not, please remember that those with a Santa Cruz County Library Card can get free access to The Times.

Here is Mace's anguished appeal from her column in The Times (emphasis added):

I came to Congress five years ago believing I could make a difference for my constituents, for South Carolina and for a country I love deeply. I was the first woman to graduate from the Citadel’s Corps of Cadets. I don’t scare easily. 
But I’ve learned that the system in the House promotes control by party leaders over accountability and achievement. No one can be held responsible for inaction, so far too little gets done. The obstacles to achieving almost anything are enough to make any member who came to Washington with noble intentions ask: Why am I even here? 
A small number of lawmakers negotiate major legislation behind closed doors and spring it on members with little notice or opportunity for input. Leadership promises members their provisions will be in a bill, then strips them out in final drafts. Every must-pass bill is loaded with thousands of pages of unrelated policies, presented as take-it-or-leave-it. The House has abdicated control of appropriations, which the Constitution says must originate here, to the Senate. 
For much of our history, most House business was conducted under an open rule: Any member could offer any germane amendment. Over the last two decades, both parties have moved to closed and structured rules, in which no amendments or only handpicked amendments are allowed votes. The House has not considered a single open rule since 2016. Leaders of both parties have systematically silenced rank-and-file voices.
 
I do hope you understand why this description is so tremendously distressing. What our Constitution contemplates, and what genuine "self-government" requires, is that each person elected to the Congress can and will be held accountable by those voters whom that Member of Congress "represents." If, as a practical matter, an elected representative can't actually have any impact on the laws that Congress adopts - these being dictated by those special interests to whom "party leaders" owe allegience, because those special interests provide the funding that allows those "party leaders" to achieve their leadership positions - the voters who have eleted a representative can't really require their representative to do what those voters want. Indeed, why are those "representatives" even in Congress?

I consistently claim that we can make representative self-government work, but Mace's column makes clear that this won't happen without a truly significant shift in the personal involvement of voters around the nation - the "WE," in "WE, the people."

This kind of personal involvement may seem like simply too much to ask. Is it? 

Not if we want to return our nation to a system of genuine self-government! 

We need to put on our "John F. Kennedy Boots" and get to work. Click this link for my reference!
 

Sunday, January 4, 2026

#4 / God We're Not

 


The Bible is quite clear that God created Adam and Eve (the first humans). Modern science credits evolution. Without getting too deep into a "religious" / "scientific" debate, I think it's fair to say that human beings, today, often think that they can take over where God left off (or can utilize their own powers as a substitute for any future evolution). The way many see it, human beings will be, and should be, in charge of the process of creation, going forward. 

Think about "robots," for instance! 

Lots of people think that Artificial Intelligence (so-called) and our mastery of technology will lead, pretty soon, to the creation of humanlike "robots," and that these human-created robots will then be able to do anything that a human being can do - and will be able to work 24/7 besides. An article in the Sunday, December 14, 2025, edition of The New York Times explores that possibility - and it discounts the idea that human beings will be able to create robots which can then replace humans for lots of things that human beings think are important.

The Times' article was titled as follows in the hardcopy version of the paper: "Robotics Pioneer Says The Field Has Lost Its Way." That "pioneer" is Rodney Brooks, who makes the following point: 

Humans don’t have a language for gathering, storing and communicating data about touch, the way we do for language and imagery. Our fingers’ remarkable sensing ability collects all kinds of information that we can’t easily translate for machines. In [Brooks'] view, the visual data preferred by the new guard of robot start-ups simply won’t be able to recreate what we can do with our fingers.

So, there is one example - "touch" - where someone who ought to know says that we are not going to be able to duplicate, by our own inventions, one of the most important aspects of what it means to be human.

Whether you want to credit "God," or prefer "evolution" as the creator of human beings, I definitely want to back up what Mr. Brooks says. We don't (and can't) create ourselves, or any suitable replacement for ourselves. The "World of Nature," which I sometimes call "The World God Made," exists before and independently of everything that human beings do. Our task is not to sub-in for God (or Nature). Our job is to create our own human-developed world - what I call the "Political World" - which can't replace that World of Nature that God created, and that needs to be respectful of it. "Global Warming," and its threat to life on Earth, is the latest example of what happens when human beings think that they don't have to pay attention to the laws that govern the universe, and think that they can make their own laws to tell "Nature" what to do.

We need to know our limits, in other words! We need to "stay in our own lane." Actually, I think that's what that whole Adam and Eve story is all about!

Saturday, January 3, 2026

#3 / Maybe Curry Is Trying To Tell Us Something

 


The Warriors' game, last night, against The Oklahoma City Thunder, was extremely disappointing to anyone who self-identifies as an "Authentic" Warriors' fan. I have been a Warriors' basketball fan for a long time. Prompted by a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle, I looked into my past blog postings to see if they provided me with any evidence of just how long I have been following the team. I found that my blog posting for June 1, 2017, had this title: "Democracy And The Warriors." That indicates that I have been paying serious attention to the Warriors for over eight years - and probably longer than that. The theme of that 2017 blog posting, by the way, in case you don't want to click on the link and read it for yourself, was that the "team," rather than the various individual players, outstanding as many of those players were (and still are), is what has made the Warriors so great. 

Apply that lesson to our own "political world," and you will understand one reason that I honor what is sometimes called, "Warriors' ball." Focusing on the "team," not on "individuals," is how we should be doing "politics," too, not just basketball. We are "in this together," and we should be glorying in that truth.

That recent article in The Chronicle that I mentioned is focused on an individual, not the team. The focus is on Steph Curry, who is pictured above. The title of the article, online, is as follows: "Watch Warriors’ Steph Curry Closely, And See What You’ve Been Missing." In the hardcopy version of the story, which I read in the morning on New Year's Eve, Scott Ostler's article had this title: "Curry Rolls With The Punches, And He's Having Fun Doing It." The last line suggests that Curry may be "trying to tell us something." 

Let me quote from Ostler's article, noting that despite the focus on Curry as an individual, the story does emphasize the importance of the "team," too:

Curry is the last realist. He knows he doesn’t have some kind of golden entitlement to go out on top, to win one or two more titles. He knows this isn’t the 73-win Warriors, or even the 2022 miracle Warriors. This is a tougher slog, and he’s fine with that. 
Curry is the glue. It’s been a rocky season, with head coach Steve Kerr going all Nutty Professor in juggling his rotation. Surely it was more fun for Curry in the old days, when every night, the same five strutted out for the opening tip-off. Now, some nights it must feel to Curry like he’s dropping into a blacktop pickup game, learning his teammates on the fly. 
What other NBA team with even remote championship aspirations has only two players, Curry and Jimmy Butler, who are guaranteed to be in the starting lineup and the closing unit every game? 
But Curry knows that all the juggling and experimenting is an ongoing effort to maximize Stephen Curry, so he doesn’t complain. He simply keeps adjusting to the adjustments. 
Draymond Green could be a problem, with his erratic play and explosive temper. Give the fans a vote right now and Green would be gone tomorrow. But you know who’s riding with Green, warts and all? Curry. 
Curry rolls with the changes. With Butler, the team has gone to a more pick-and-roll centric offense, but Curry can deal. He appreciates the incredible professionalism Butler brings to the party, the deep basketball wisdom. 
Curry doesn’t complain about the Jonathan Kuminga situation, which would drive many superstars crazy. Your team is at an athleticism disadvantage every game, and yet your most athletic player can’t get off the bench? The strategy right now is to pretend Kuminga doesn’t exist? 
Hey, Curry knows that’s part of the deal. He knows the GM is working to address the problem. 
Curry plays on. Monday, the Nets threw the kids at him in waves, big and athletic. Third quarter, Curry hits a sidestep three over 6-foot-8 Egor Demin, who is 19. Then he dazzles and breaks down the agile, 6-11 Nic Claxton on a fadeaway three. Noah Clowney, 6-10 and age 21, can’t stay with the old man. Playing short minutes the night after a brutal overtime loss, Curry goes for 27, including five difficult 3-pointers. 
Maybe it’s ultimately a losing battle. Last season’s 23-8 stretch run after Butler arrived, perhaps that was fool’s gold. The trade deadline may come and go, with no Butler-level miracle deal. 
Whatever happens, Curry will roll with it and rise above. 
It may be a losing battle, it may signal the fast approaching end of a career, but Curry, instead of crying, is fighting, and dancing, and it’s a hell of a show. 
Maybe he’s trying to tell us something (emphasis added).

When I read the article from which I have just quoted, what struck me most forcefully was the idea that the Warriors' battle to continue to be a championship team could be a "losing battle," but that Steph Curry is not discouraged, or depressed, or disillusioned. He's "dancing," even though he may well know that the end is fast approaching. 

Isn't life itself just like that? It's a "losing battle," because we all know that there's a fast approaching end, coming up quick. Faced with that existential reality (and so we all are), Steph isn't "crying," he's "dancing;" he is glorying in the life still in him, and....

Maybe Steph is trying to tell us something, not only about how basketball should be played, as years and disappointments take their toll, but how life should be played, how our brief life should be seen as a glory, not as what amounts to a failure, as hopes of greatness fade.

A "life lesson" from Stephan Curry? I do think he has a message for us all. I do think he is trying to "tell us something." 

Ears to hear, anyone?

 
Image Credit:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/warriors/article/warriors-avoid-another-late-letdown-bench-steps-21266495.php

Friday, January 2, 2026

#2 / A Mutual Pledge

 


A few days ago, I made comments on a new book, The Greatest Sentence Ever Written. For those who might have missed my earlier blog posting, this new book is focused on what is, essentially, the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence

Today, let me draw attention to the last sentence of the Declaration of Independence. It reads as follows: 

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).

Yesterday, I implicitly suggested that we need, now, in the United States of America, to be considering how to carry out a new kind of "revolution" - consisting of genuine, fundamental, and "real" changes to our government and how it is working - and I did so by highlighting Hannah Arendt's wonderful book, On Revolution. Arendt celebrates our revolution, but is not uncritical, and I think that is the correct way to consider the genesis and the current status of "Democracy in America" (to appropriate the title of an important book by Alexis de Tocqueville). 

In short, we need to make some changes around here, and it's our obligation to do so, starting now, should we wish to continue to exercise the important obligations of "self-government," which was the aim and ambition of the American Revolution, now 250 years old. 

Should we wish to take back effective responsibility for "running the place," as I like to put it, we need to change what we are doing in our "normal lives." At least some of us need to do that. Small groups of "friends," who are "pledged" to enter into politics, to make needed changes, is how truly revolutionary changes can be achieved. There is no better way to understand what is required than to see what those who signed the Declaration of Independence claimed was necessary. To effect the kind of changes needed (and explicitly disavowing every and any thought that "violence" is to be used), we need to mobilize both "our lives" and "our fortunes." 

We need, in other words, to reallocate our time (our lives) and to invest our reallocated time into activities that can shift political power from the elite and entitled to all of us "ordinary people." That means, just to be clear, that group of ordinary women and men who have been designated, from the inception, as "we, the people." That is the group that Abraham Lincoln reminded us is who we really are, as citizens of the United States of America. 

How we spend our individual time, what we do with it, and how we mobilize our financial capabilities, as great or small as they may be, will be determinative of the outcomes that can transmute our "possibilities" into "realities."

For those who understand that it is, in fact, a "sacred honor" to be called to "self-government," and to achieve in reality what that phrase demands of us, there is much work ahead. 

And a whole New Year, just beginning, to address the tasks before us!
 

Thursday, January 1, 2026

#1 / A New Year's Message - 2026

 

 
If you are reading this, you will be doing so on or after January 1, 2026 - and if you are reading this blog posting (or any part of it) on that day itself, please accept my personal good wishes for a Happy New Year!

Today's blog posting outlines some of my (mostly general) thoughts about what we need to be working on, and working for, during this year upcoming, a year that is exactly 250 years after 1776, which is generally accepted as the year in which the American Revolution was initiated. This New Year would be a good time to start working on some genuinely "revolutionary" ideas for the years ahead. 

In fact, of course, for those who remember a bit of American history, the "shot heard 'round the world," and the armed confrontation that began overt hostilities with Great Britain, came in 1775. The Declaration of Independence, though, outlining the reasons for, and the purpose of our revolution, was signed on July 4th, 1776, and that means that the official anniversary of our 250th year as a nation is coming up soon. 

Our "national purpose," and the purpose of our national government, as established by the American Revolution (an event which is well described and well discussed in On Revolution, by Hannah Arendt), is best presented - in my view - by three different documents:

(2) The Constitution, and 

Today's blog posting (it's pretty long, so be warned) presents some of my thoughts about how we can (and actually must) carry forward our national purpose, as defined in those three documents. 

"Revolution" is not a bad topic as we enter a New Year. Here we are, on January 1st! Our Earth revolves, and the seasons change, and now, today, on January 1st, we face - as we do again and again, and as we always will - the question of what we should do!

oooOOOooo

What We Should Do (Introduction)

This lengthy blog posting (you have been warned) addresses a key topic, "what we should do." When I say, "we," I mean to reference our collective opportunity to act, together, as citizens of The United States of America, and this "What We Should Do" listing should definitely be recognized as "a partial list." We are able to do (or at least we are able to attempt to do) what we decide we want to do. This truth is axiomatic for those of us - and I hope that includes virtually all of us - who believe in the dignity and power of "self-government." 

"Possibility" is what I like to call "my category." In my view, virtually all things are possible in the "political world," the world that we most immediately inhabit. But we do live in two worlds, the way I see it. The "World of Nature," that I sometimes refer to as "The World That God Created," can be described by the "laws" of physics, and the "laws" of the other natural sciences. These "laws" describe "necessities." We can't countermand the law of gravity here on Planet Earth. But the "Political World" that is defined by the "laws" that we promulgate ourselves is different. Our human-created laws tell us what we want to happen, not what has to happen. 

Those of us who grew up during the time of the Civil Rights Movement, and during public opposition to the War in Vietnam, well remember that we (or many of us, anyway) defied the human laws that told us that we were supposed to do things we thought were wrong. We didn't follow those human laws that told those of us who were Black that we couldn't sit in the front of the bus, or sit at the dime store lunch counter. We didn't follow those human laws that told those of us who had reached our eighteenth birthday that we had to register for the draft, and then, if called, go off to kill other people we didn't even know. 

In our "Political World," what actually happens will be determined by what we actually do, ourselves, as we mobilize our individual and collective energies and assets to create a reality that we wish to establish and inhabit. In this blog posting, I try to provide at least a little bit of an idea of what I think are some projects worth undertaking, some ambitions worth accomplishing, but what I really think we should do is not only to pursue my own listing of possible projects, but that we should augment the suggestions I advance with those that will be put forward by others. 

Put forward by YOU, for instance!

What YOU should do - your own personal assignment, in other words - is what you think is right, and what you decide just might be "possible" if you devote your life to it. It should be YOUR dream. My father told me, on my eighteenth birthday, that "if you don't have a dream, Gary, you will never have a dream come true." My gloss on my father's excellent advice is that we need to be sure that we're thinking not only individually, but in terms of our collective lives together, too, as we do our dreaming. We need, in other words, to incorporate the wisdom of Bob Dylan as we dream, and then we need to act, to bring our envisioned future into reality. 

Dylan told us, as he sang about the possible loss of everything, in a song that focused on the yet to be experienced World War III, that "I’ll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours.”

Bob Dylan "said that." 

I say that, too. 

I also say this: We are "all in this together." 

oooOOOooo

What Do I Know?

I am here confessing to being an "old guy." I was born on the Day After Christmas in 1943. That means that I am 82 years old, today, as I post this entry into my blog. The kind of "revolutionary" changes that I am advocating in this blog posting are generally brought into being by the young. Just to be clear, though, while I am admitting to being an "old guy," and am doing so right up front, I am still feeling like that "young man" who did a whole lot of things during the time I qualified as "young," and who still thinks that everyone - including me, and including all those "old folks" who are still upright and ambulatory - is capable of doing something to "change the world." 

"Changing the world" is the project I am proposing for this brand New Year. And don't worry if that seems too grand an undertaking for you to want to become involved. The world is going to be changed - for better or worse - no matter what you do. Both possibilities, by the way, must be acknowledged, and this, I think, should be a major motivation for you to decide to be involved yourself. You don't actually have to do anything specifically intended to change the world, but I, personally, strongly advise trying to have some specific objectives in mind, and trying to make things happen, instead of letting them just happen to you. In my experience, a "coalition" of the old and the young is what is really called for. That, in fact, was the kind of coalition that transformed realities when I was in the "young guy" category. 

During my life, I have had extremely good luck. Both my Mother and Father were wonderful. I had two sisters and a brother. All equally wonderful! Today, while my parents are gone, my siblings and their children are alive and still present in my life, and I also have a wife, and both a son and a daughter and three grandchildren. All wonderful! And so many wonderful friends!

I can testify, personally, that I have been involved not only in the individual, world-changing relationships just listed, but that I have also been engaged with those friends I mentioned in making significant changes in the world I most immediately inhabit, here in Santa Cruz County, California. In 1999, I was named by my hometown newspaper as one of two people who had the most impact on Santa Cruz County during the 20th Century. Comparisons are "odious," to quote my mother, but eliminating the comparison inherent in what the Santa Cruz Sentinel said about me, it really is true that I have been involved in helping to make major changes in our local community - and that such actions have had some statewide, and even national impacts, too. 

In other words, when I ask myself the question, "What Do I Know," I really do know that it is possible to "change the world." It's done by individual action - but mostly by action with others. The world is changed, in other words, by "politics," so often discounted as somehow suspect or dishonorable. What should we do? We should act together (that means "politically") to make progress on the challenges and opportunities we know we have before us. 

BOTH "challenges" and "opportunities." 

Dealing with them both, not only "individually" but "together." 

That is what we should do, as we unroll this New Year we now confront. 

oooOOOooo

What We Might Do
(A Very Partial List)

In order to achieve significant changes, we need to act together, and we need to take the actions, together, that are necessary to accumulate, and then employ, political power. I begin with this because I believe that many of us have not achieved a right relationship with political power. To many, "power" is something that someone else has, and to which we are subjected - often unwillingly. In fact, though, we do not live in a "dictatorship," as a few of my friends seem to enjoy proclaiming. 

In the United States of America, we have a political system that is outlined in the Constitution, and that was inspired by the Declaration of Independence. Abraham Lincoln summed it up, so wonderfully, and so briefly, in his Gettysburg Address. Lest we forget, that political system is best understood as "self-government," a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." 

BY the people! That's the most important part of Lincoln's summation of what our politics and government are all about, here in the United States of America. That is STILL what our politics and government are all about, even after 250 years, and it is STILL what it's all about even as we have, collectively, elected a president who really does believe that HE is the government. 

WE are the government - that is the foundation premise of what we call our "democracy." Because we ARE the government, we need to take responsibility for the government, which means that we need to go beyond "protests" and "resistance." Protests and resistance are absolutely necessary, particularly in our current political circumstances. However, if we are, truly, THE government, we need to be, effectively, "running the place," as I like to put it. 

Are we? Most people would say, "No," we're not. If that is your own diagnosis, an important part of your personal assignment, starting now, is to figure out how you, personally, can start exerting political power, and can start changing the things that you object to, and realizing the things you want to see happen, using your personal time, money, and commitment. Today is a good day to think about this. Today is, after all, the day which is recognized as a proper time to make New Year's Resolutions.

I have been suggesting, and reiterate my suggestion, that we each need to "find some friends." I am talking about joining, or forming, a relatively small group of other people who all agree on what they should be trying to do, politically. Such a group needs to get together, in person, on a frequent, and regular, basis, to discuss where they are in their efforts. The purpose of such a group is to amalgamate political power, so as to achieve some specific changes that will demonstrate that "we, the people," are, in fact, actually governing ourselves.

Tip O'Neill had a way of explaining politics that goes as follows: "All politics is local." A small group, in any community, can amalgamate political power sufficient to cause the government (of which we are in charge) to do something that the government is not now doing, or to stop the government from doing something that it shouldn't be doing. Suppose your "small group of friends" has an idea that others think is the "wrong idea." Well, then your small group may not be successful, if the others are more effective than you and your group is, but you should be trying, with that small group of friends of which you are a member, to get our political system (at every level) to start doing what you think is the right thing to do - or what is necessary to do. 

Right here, I expect that many who are reading this will say that this assignment is "impossible," or that trying to do something like this is simply "not going to work." If that is your reaction, you are, essentially, saying that you do not have any belief that a system of "self-government" can succeed. Maybe, you might tell yourself, that could have happened back 250 years ago. Or, maybe, even fifty years ago, which is when I got involved with local politics in my local community, in Santa Cruz, California. 

If that is your reaction, let me tell you that this reaction is reasonable. But here is what we all have to remember. Making self-government actually work, in the way I am urging, is definitely not possible if you, personally, and others who are those "friends" I am asking you to seek out, are not willing to change their own individual lives as a first step, and to "reallocate their time." 

Most of us allocate our time to surviving economically and then entertaining and enjoying ourselves. Most of us are not focused on "politics," and the task of building and then using political power. But if "self-government" is to become a "real thing," we must, individually (and together) change how we deploy the time we have available to us. When people joined themselves in the struggles of the Civil Rights era, they set aside other plans. Similarly for those who became active in the anti-war movement. Not everyone is going to be willing to change their live, and to reallocate their time (which is the same thing). But, actually, not everyone has to. Just some. For any one of us, individually, it's a personal question: "Am I willing to change my personal life, so as to help accumulate and deploy collective political power to seek to achieve something worth giving my life to?" 

If your personal answer is "yes," you're on your way! 

Here are some ideas that might be motivating. It's a "partial list," and I have tried to provide a few examples of "political projects" that make sense to me, on the local, state, and national levels. Like I say, I think it always makes sense to remember Tip O'Neill's call for a focus on politics at the local level, but when people start being willing to give up more of their life and time, their entire lives, in fact, one person - YOU, or ME - can have a significant and world-changing impact on something that needs changing at the state, or national, or even global level. 

Here are a few ideas to think about, as possible political projects. This is, definitely, only a "partial list," and these thoughts are presented at a very high level of generality:

  • Elect city officials in the City of Santa Cruz (including a new Mayor) who will not defer to "the staff," but who will work to get the votes on the Council necessary to tell the city staff what they are going to do, and what they are going to work for during the year(s) ahead. Then, pick your issue for the City to address - there are lots of them. For instance: (1) Giving power back to local neighborhoods, with respect to proposed new developments; (2) Using funding available for affordable housing for local workers, not just people who make the "median income," given that this "median" now reflects those who are now earning way more than local workers get paid; (3) Establishing a set of affordable housing policies that require that new residential units be price restricted on resale, so they will always be affordable to what local workers can afford; (4) Achieveing a reduction in the city bureaucracy, using the money saved by doing that for projects and expenditures that are more directly and demonstrably beneficial to the community; (5) Establishing city-sponsored participation opportunities in each of the new "districts" set up by recent Charter changes, so that local neighborhood areas begin to realize their actual political power. 
  • Take similar action at the County level of government.
  • At the state level, how about enacting a workable system of taxation that will require those who have great wealth to contribute more to collective efforts to deal with the housing, health care, and educational crises that are so clearly being ignored by our current state policies? And what about making sure that local governments are are given real power to impact every one of the state programs and operations that impact  local communities, from wildfire protection to assistance to the homeless?
  • At the national level, "taxing the rich," can empower and fund state and local efforts to solve our affordable housing crisis, and can make available meaningful work opportunities to everyone, and provide reliable and affordable health care and education for everyone, too. Plus, our national policies can be reconfigured to make environmental restoration and effective efforts to combat global warming a top priority (more important than building new battleships, for instance), giving the world, and our own nation, a chance to survive the runaway global warming that is putting human civilization in danger.

In sum, this is a New Year in which we can, and must, decide that we will stop subordinating ourselves to to "what's happening to us," most of which is "bad," and will start working, both individually and collectively, to realize our more "utopian" dreams of how to change the world for the better. That should always be our assignment, right? Changing the world for the better? What could be more important - and satisfying? What could be more necerssary? 

Since it is true that we do "live in a political world," we need to do a better job of mobilizing our personal and collective political power to make the changes we know need to be made - and we can't expect someone else to do it. We need to get on it, and stop acting like it's someone else's job, or that we can't do it. 

Because we can.

https://contemporarythinkers.org/hannah-arendt/book/revolution/