#160 / Private Credit

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

My gratitous investment advice is freely given, here on my daily blog. I do NOT recommend "crypto." Click this link if you'd like to see my multiple explanations for why I don't. 

I am also not a fan of so-called "Private Credit." I just want to make my views on that topic clear, since the "Streetwise" column in the May 11, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal suggests that "Private Credit Likely Isn't Disaster." That link cites the "hardcopy" version of the headline. Online, the headline is even more forthcoming, and more cautionary: "Private Credit Isn’t a Major Threat—Probably."

"Probably?" Hey, if that's how you like to make your investment decisions, please feel free to roll your dice. Like "crypto" (this is my opinion), "private credit" is, essentially, a "bet" that the value of the investments made are going to go up. In other words, most "investments" in the arena of "private credit" are fundamentally speculative.

I found out, recently, that the so-called "gift article" links that I have passed on, from The Wall Street Journal, are time-limited, and since I sometimes write my blog postings quite a bit "ahead" of the date on which they are posted in this blog, the idea that clicking on a "gift link" will get you to the article is almost as speculative as your potential "private credit" investment. 

My apologies to anyone who tried to utilize one of my past Wall Street Journal "gift link" postings. I'm not going to advertise them in any of my future blog commentaries. But, to make up for this past error, and to make this blog posting much longer than it would otherwise be, I am providing, below, the entire text of James Mackintosh's May 11th "Streetwise" column, providing those who read it with the following assurance: If you invest in "private credit" offerings you won't lose your money, probably. 

Probably! 

And.... to cite to my favorite songwriter-philosopher, Bob Dylan: "I just said, 'Good luck.'”

oooOOOooo

Private Credit Isn’t a Major Threat—Probably
The question is whether trouble in the sector could spill into the wider economy or—disaster—the wider financial system

By James Mackintosh
May 9, 2026 

Financial history provides lots of lessons, but few are more obvious than those regarding lending.

When lending rises rapidly, watch out: Much of it won’t get repaid. When lenders focus on how to get money out the door, rather than whether it will ever come back, watch out. When lenders finance long-dated loans with money that can be taken out sooner, watch out. And when the lenders have a lot of leverage, rely on dodgy credit ratings or are influenced to lend by regulatory demands, prepare for serious problems.

Welcome to the world of private credit.

Individual investors are already finding that private credit sold to them doesn’t deliver what they hoped, and many have been unable to get their money back as quickly as they thought.

The question is whether private-credit trouble could spill into the wider economy or—disaster—the wider financial system, especially the banks where ordinary people keep their deposits. I’m inclined to think that while a bunch of private-credit investors might lose money, losses for the rest of the financial system will be manageable.

But I’m also cautious about repeating the mistake of Ben Bernanke, who as Federal Reserve chairman in 2007 told the world the financial system was insulated from subprime mortgage failures.

Within months of his reassuring words it was clear that tendrils from subprime had wormed their way deep into finance, and the resulting loss of trust led first to a recession and then to the biggest financial crisis since 1929.

So, go back to those historical warnings.

• Rapid rise in lending: check. Private lending has risen 10-fold in a decade and a half, though estimates vary wildly from $1.6 trillion in assets under management just in the U.S. to well above $3 trillion, depending on what is included. 

• Focus on lending, not repayment: check. This is more anecdotal, but even now the discussion among big private-credit funds as they gathered at “Junk Bond King” Michael Milken’s annual conference in Los Angeles was about how to deploy big gobs of money, much of it to data centers, power and other suppliers to artificial-intelligence firms. 

• Asset-liability mismatch: check. This is only a small part of private credit, but individuals who didn’t read the fine print of semiliquid business-development companies have discovered that the promise of quarterly withdrawals comes with a cap. When everyone wants to get out, everyone gets only a bit of their money. It started with Blue Owl, but now private-credit funds run by Apollo, BlackRock and KKR have limited withdrawals. A slow-motion run on these funds is under way. 

• Leverage: perhaps. According to the Office of Financial Research, most funds borrow almost nothing, but 5% of funds borrow 3.6 times their capital or more to juice returns. That’s still less than the 10 times or more typical for banks, but it’s a lot for a fund. Regulators also worry that a lack of transparency has allowed leverage to be layered in ways that might escape attention.

“Leverage in private credit exists at multiple and varying levels, including within the portfolio companies, private credit funds, at the sponsor level, and investor financing,” said the Financial Stability Board, a global grouping of regulators, on Wednesday. “This layering effect may amplify losses during market stress.”

Regulators mostly worry that trouble in private credit will spill over to banks that lend to it or to insurers that invest in it.

This past week, another bank was drawn in. The failure of Market Financial Solutions, a private British mortgage lender, caused a loss of $400 millionfor HSBC, which had lent money to an arm of Apollo Global Management for a warehouse facility to MFS.

“You always tend to see these kind of excesses after a very benign period for credit,” said Dan Ivascyn, chief investment officer of Pimco, the bond manager. “It started with a very reasonable thesis—banks were pulling back because of regulation—and has now expanded into more and more aggressive forms of lending.”

The scale of private credit in all its forms is comparable in size to U.S. subprime in 2007. But even with the layers of debt, private credit doesn’t seem to have nearly so much leverage and leverage on leverage as back then.

It could be that the failure of MFS and U.S. “cockroaches” Tricolor and First Brands are a sign that the easy lending amid zero rates in 2020 and 2021 is finally catching up with companies. Lots of other private-credit-backed companies have quietly modified terms to avoid formal defaults, known by detractors as “extend and pretend,” while the use of payment-in-kind rather than cash interest payment rose sharply as rates increased.

Private lenders say concern is overdone, overblown by the publicity around the funds that restricted withdrawals and too much exposure to loans to software companies. But the sector remains opaque.

Debt BuildupAs interest rates rose, borrowers added to debt via payment in kind (PIK) rather than pay​interest in cash.

“It’s troubling that we don’t have more information,” said Austan Goolsbee, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. “The oldest rule of financial accounting is nobody hides good news so that makes me think that whatever’s there is probably bigger and more threatening than it first appears.”

Private-credit losses would have to be big to cause serious problems for their leverage suppliers, with total borrowing from banks and other lenders by private-credit managers estimated by the OFR at up to $540 billion, mostly on fairly conservative terms.

A previously unthinkable risk now being entertained by some is trouble at life assurers. A run—where customers rush to withdraw their money, forcing deeply discounted asset sales and spiraling into catastrophe—is dismissed by most, because of the high penalties and taxes that have to be paid to get out of an annuity or life policy.

But with life companies now holding about 10% of their assets in private credit, according to the Financial Stability Board, their holdings opaque, many owned by private equity, and a widespread belief that they benefit from shopping around for credit ratings that minimize their need for capital, it is enough of a risk to be discussed by major investors.

Equally, bank lending to private credit might be more concentrated, badly structured or more leveraged than the banks and their regulators realize, and so might go wrong more quickly than expected in a recession.

“A whole lot would have to go wrong for it to get to be a systemic issue,” said Anne Walsh, chief investment officer of Guggenheim Partners Investment Management. “I just don’t get the sense that this one has the same hallmarks as past issues.” She’s probably right. Probably.

oooOOOooo

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/rise-private-credit-next-financial-bubble-anton-portocarrero-32cze/

#159 / The Ellsberg Paradox

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Jan R. Thomas, working with Daniel Ellsberg's son, Michael Ellsberg, has published a selection of Daniel Ellsberg's writings. I am sort of taking for granted that anyone reading this blog posting will know who Daniel Ellsberg was, but click the link to his name if you don't, for a brief Wikipedia write-up. 

The "short version" is that Ellsberg was a Defense Department analyst who made public The Pentagon Papers, a top-secret 1967 Department of Defense study that detailed America's political and military involvement in Vietnam from 1945 to 1967. Ellsberg, who helped write this study, faced years in prison for making these secret papers public, but he escaped a prison sentence (thanks to the improper activities of President Nixon). By letting the public know what was really going on in Vietnam, Ellsberg helped to bring the Vietnam War to an end, and is a hero to Vietnam-era antiwar activists and draft-resisters, like me, and to those who are working, now, to end the threat of nuclear annihilation. 

The image at the top will provide you with the title of the recent book I mentioned above, which is a collection of hundreds of Ellsberg's thoughts, culled from his handwritten, personal notebooks. They are certainly worth reading!

Not extensively discussed in the book is "The Ellsberg Paradox." Here is how Wikipedia explains it: 

In decision theory, the Ellsberg paradox (or Ellsberg's paradox) is a paradox in which people's decisions are inconsistent with subjective expected utility theory. John Maynard Keynes published a version of the paradox in 1921. Daniel Ellsberg popularized the paradox in his 1961 paper, "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms". It is generally taken to be evidence of ambiguity aversion, in which a person tends to prefer choices with quantifiable risks over those with unknown, incalculable risks. 

Ellsberg's findings indicate that choices with an underlying level of risk are favored in instances where the likelihood of risk is clear, rather than instances in which the likelihood of risk is unknown. A decision-maker will overwhelmingly favor a choice with a transparent likelihood of risk, even in instances where the unknown alternative will likely produce greater utility. When offered choices with varying risk, people prefer choices with calculable risk, even when those choices have less utility (emphasis added).

To provide an example, suppose you will be paid $100 if you pick a white marble out of one of two different urns set before you. You only get one pick! You know that each urn contains 100 marbles, and you know that Urn #1 contains 50% black marbles, and 50% white marbles, with Urn #2 containing an unknown percentage of white marbles and an unknown percentage of black marbles. You can decide which urn to choose from; so, which urn do you pick? As it turns out, people will most often choose to pick from Urn #1, where the probabilities are certain, even if they're not that great. People intrinsically dislike situations where they cannot attach probabilities to outcomes, even if that is not, really, rational.

With respect to decisions about war and peace, we often think that we can estimate, pretty clearly, what our chances will be if we fight. We don't, though, have a very clear idea what our chances would be if we didn't fight - if we were to "give peace a chance," to quote John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

The Ellsberg Paradox relates to "decision theory," and what Ellsberg tells us - in his notes in the book, and by way of the "Ellsberg Paradox" - is that we need to take a chance on doing what we think is "moral," and "right," not what we think will "win." 

Seems like a lesson worth learning, don't you think?

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/search/?q=truth%20and%20consequence

#158 / How Many Times? How Many Roads?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

"Blowin' In The Wind" is one of Bob Dylan's most famous songs (and one of the songs, written very early in his career, that established him as a musician to pay attention to, to take seriously - a musician who, in fact, would later win the Nobel Prize for his songwriting).  

I have come to believe that this song, "Blowin' In The Wind," is actually a profound meditation on a deeply "religious" or "spiritual" understanding of what our life is all about. The following verse is found in the New Testament, in the Bible, in John 3:8 (King James Version):

The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.

In other words, as I interpret this, the Bible is telling us that the Spirit that has created and that animates and sustains this world - the Spirit that inspires and shapes our individual lives - cannot be defined by our own categories, and cannot be held to the timelines that we would like to impose upon it. Our deepest desires, though - what we most deeply need - are present. They are not ours only! Our Creator cares for us, and is not in ignorance of our longings. How long will it be until prejudice and discrimination come to an end, till justice is done? How many times must we kill each other, and destroy the cities that we have built to shelter and celebrate our lives? How many times? How many roads? How many years? 

Have faith. I think that is the message. There is a Spirit that knows our hopes and needs. An answer to all our questions will be provided - but not according to our own schedule or demand. This is, indeed, a "religious" and "spiritual" thought. Our answer is coming. It is on the way!

Fear not!

oooOOOooo

I am providing both the lyrics to "Blowin' In The Wind," below, and a YouTube link here, and also furnished above, that will let you hear Bob Dylan sing that song.

 

Blowin’ in the Wind
Written By: Bob Dylan

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you call him a man?
Yes, ’n’ how many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, ’n’ how many times must the cannonballs fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

How many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, ’n’ how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, ’n’ how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

How many times must a man look up
Before he can see the sky?
Yes, ’n’ how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, ’n’ how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind

Copyright © 1962 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1990 by Special Rider Music

oooOOOooo

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://youtu.be/vWwgrjjIMXA?si=S-6fPTR7zgbhEws2

#157 / Emphasis On The "We"

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Matthew J. "Matt" Garcia is a professor of Latin American, Latino and Caribbean studies, history and human relations at Dartmouth College. He is also the author of “From the Jaws of Victory: The Triumph and Tragedy of Cesar Chavez and the Farm Worker Movement.” In an opinion column that ran in The Santa Cruz Sentinel on Thursday, March 26, 2026, Garcia says that it is "time for Cesar Chavez to fall." The column also ran in The Los Angeles Times on March 19, 2026. 

I am assuming that those who are reading this blog posting of mine, in early June, will know all about the disclosures naming Chavez as a sexual predator. No further need to rehearse, or even comment upon those things - at least, so I think.

I do, however, want to provide you with the last paragraph in Garcia's column (emphasis added): 

We need to acknowledge that whatever the UFW accomplished, it often did so as a collective. There’s a reason the UFW’s slogan, “Sí se puede,” is translated as “Yes, we can.” History shows us that organizers, workers and advocates solved problems by coming together, not by blindly following orders from Chavez. This is the moment for Cesar to fall.

Yes, WE can! "Sí se puede." The grammatical fact is that "we" doesn't actually appear, in any literal way, in that Spanish expression. It's just implied!

In all our endeavors, and particularly in politics, let's never forget the fact that the emphasis is always on the "WE."

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2026-03-19/cesar-chavez-abuse-allegations-united-farm-workers

#156 / Even Smart People Get Fooled

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I am citing, today, to the March 21-22, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal. Specifically, I am making it possible for you to read an article titled, "Why Even Smart People Believe AI Is Really Thinking." That's a "gift link," or so I am told. No "paywall" should prevent you from reading what Christopher Mims has to say about that subject. Just click the link!

Thinking that software "agents" that respond to our directions are actually "thinking," just like we do (and better, actually) is what Mims is calling the "Turing Trap." 

The "Turing Trap" is something quite different from the "Turing Test," which is something that you have probably heard about. The "Turing Test" is a way to try to figure out whether or not a computer has attained human intelligence. As Mims explains, "if a person chatting with a bot couldn't tell if it was human, it might as well be declared intelligent." So, people are starting to believe that AI "Chatbots" are now just as "intelligent" as humans. People aren't able, really, to tell the difference. 

Mims calls this a "trap," because there is a fallacy in this idea that "intelligence" is the same thing as "speaking." However, "speaking isn't the same as thinking, let alone being," claims Mims.

I encourage you to read Mims' article. Here's from his final paragraph: 

It appears we have created in AI a compelling technology that hijacks instincts that are essential to our survival. It’s unclear where we go from here, but if today’s lawsuits over the addictiveness and harms of social media are any indication, we’ll potentially see years of disagreement—and damage—before AI companies face real consequences.

Real people. In "real life." Small groups of them, meeting in person. That is where the politics that remakes our world begins.

To Subscribe, Just Click This Link

 

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/ai-tools-sentience-b98fc6e6

#155 / Here's A Quote

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Marc Johnson, pictured above, was an influential professional skateboarder who helped define modern street skating and made formidable tricks look effortless. He "played a leading role in shaping the San Jose and Bay Area skateboarding scenes and had a hand in some of the most recognizable developments in street skating in the late 1990s and early 2000s." 

My report on Johnson relies on what I learned from his obituary, which ran in the June 2, 2026, edition of The New York Times. Johnson died on May 26th. He was 49 years old. 

Here is a quote, from Johnson, which I commend to you: 

If you think of something, you can do it, you know?

Johnson was onto something, there, with that quote from his "Hot Chocolate" skateboarding video! That "Johnson Rule" works for skateboarding. And it works for politics, too (which does have some similarities to skateboarding, after all). That "Johnson Rule" works for life in general! 

Try it! That's my advice. You might like it. In politics, it's best practiced with friends!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/29/sports/marc-johnson-skateboarder-dead.html

#154 / Killing For Fun

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

An Associated Press article that appeared in the May 9, 2026, edition of the Santa Cruz Sentinel bore the following headline: "Trump Is Lifting Restrictions On Hunting In National Parks." The same story appeared in numerous papers from around the nation. Hunters will probably cheer; at least, that's my supposition.

As for me, I think it would be good for us, as human beings, to start trying to wean ourselves away from the idea that killing is fun. Our national parks, I think, should not be turned into killing grounds. That is, clearly, my personal opinion. I know that others have an opposite thought.

Given that we, as Americans, pride ourselves on our 250-year old commitment to democratic self-government, I believe that decisions about opening up our national parks to hunting should be a decision made by our elected representatives, debating the issues involved. 

That isn't what has just happened, and this recent story provides one more example of how the nation is currently going down a different path, in which one person, our president, has arrogated to himself a decision that really needs to be made not by executive fiat, but by democratic debate. 

Just saying! If we don't demand democracy, and (really) insist on it, all the "No Kings" demonstrations in world aren't going to steer us back to self-government.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://tpwd.texas.gov/education/hunter-education/online-course/firearms-and-ammunition-1/sights-and-safeties

 

#153 / Same Fate As The Dinosaurs?

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

If you have been following the news, you probably know that SpaceX will soon promote an Initial Public Offering (IPO) - a sale of its stock to the public. This stock offering will possibly end up making Elon Musk (pictured) the world's first trillionaire. As the BBC tells us, in the article I have linked in the first line of this blog posting, "SpaceX makes rockets, offers a satellite internet service called Starlink, and also owns Musk's controversial artificial intelligence (AI) firm xAI. The initial public offering (IPO) on the US stock market is set to be the largest in Wall Street history and could start next month under the ticker symbol SPCX."

Naturally, the BBC is not alone in covering this news. The Saturday-Sunday, May 23-24, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal had a couple of articles on the SpaceX IPO. Ben Cohen wrote a column titled, "SpaceX’s Ambitions Are Intergalactic. Its Business Is Selling You Internet." Corrie Driebusch's article appeared under this headline: "SpaceX Is Aiming for Civilization on Mars. Its IPO Couldn’t Be More Old School." Both of these are worth reading, and I think that clicking on the links will get you to them. Here is an excerpt from Cohen's column that caught my attention (emphasis added): 

SpaceX consists of three segments: space, AI and connectivity, which is primarily driven by Starlink. Last year, the Starlink division was responsible for $11 billion of revenue, which amounted to more than 60% of the company’s total sales. It was the most valuable part of the business—and the only profitable one. And for years, it has been absolutely essential to the success of SpaceX. As it turns out, even companies that defy the laws of gravity are bound by the laws of economics. 

The mysterious finances of Musk’s company were detailed this week in SpaceX’s IPO filing, which is far more bonkers than financial paperwork has any right to be. 

The highlights include the company describing itself as “the most ambitious, vertically integrated innovation engine on (and off) Earth,” claiming a total addressable market of $29 trillion, revealing that Musk’s pay package is tied to “the establishment of a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million inhabitants” and declaring: “We do not want humans to have the same fate as dinosaurs.”

Now, when I say that the report above "caught my attention," I am somewhat understating my reaction. First, Musk, apparently, thinks that it's actually going to be possible to transport a "human colony" to Mars - a "colony" with "at least one million inhabitants." Remember how much time, effort, and money it took to put a couple of guys on the Moon? A million on Mars? Wow! That's a truly different thing, indeed. 

But check out the last line I have quoted. Musk doesn't "want humans to have the same fate as dinosaurs." We do remember what happened to the dinosaurs, right? They all died, as conditions on Earth changed to make the planet incapable of supporting their life, going forward. 

So.... it looks like Musk believes that this is what's going to happen in the relatively near term (within Musk's lifetime) with respect to human beings. Humans are either going to die out here on Earth, or they are going to have to migrate to Mars, to avoid extinction. As a personal note, Mars does not seem very hospitable, or a nice place to live, at least to me (witness the photo below). 

My suggestion? Let's forget about putting our money into a company that is betting against the continued ability of human beings to live on Planet Earth, and start investing our money on keeping Earth habitable. Wouldn't it make more sense to use our financial resources to fight off global warming, and to bring peace to the world (eliminating the possibility of a global nuclear war), instead of betting on some whacked-out potential trillionaire's dream that he, and a million or so pals, can all scoot off to Mars, avoiding the extinction of human life on this planet?

Check out the pictorial comparison below. Don't you agree that sticking with Earth is the better bet?

Earth

Mars

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg4pe2953q1o

(2) - https://www.walmart.com/ip/Earth-From-Space-Satellite-Image-Photographic-Print-by-Unknown-24-x-24-Sold-by-Art-com/6260921363

(3) - https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/mars-lander-will-peer-inside-the-red-planet/

#152 / The Law Of Small Numbers

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

 

Robert Hubbell (who happens to be a lawyer) writes a Substack blog about politics. Hubbell calls his blog, "Today's Edition." I subscribe to Hubbell's daily blog, and if you don't subscribe yourself, I suggest that you should check it out. It is quite informative, and there is a no-cost option available. 

On May 28, 2026, Hubbell's newsletter provided "some perspective on the Texas primary results." As you may remember, if you are following our national politics with at least some attention to events taking place in states far from where you live (I am assuming that most of the people reading this blog posting of mine do not live in Texas), a guy named Ken Paxton, running for the United States Senate in Texas, defeated the current U.S. Senator, John Cornyn, in a primary election to decide who would be the Republican Party candidate in November. 

Cornyn, as the incumbent U.S. Senator since 2002, can boast a long record in the Congress. I would characterize his record as quite conservative, but principled. Paxton, who beat out Cornyn in the primary, has been the Attorney General of Texas since 2015, and is regularly called the "most corrupt politician in America." While this charge has been lodged most notably by James Talarico, the Democratic Party candidate for the Senate in November, Talarico is not the only one who thinks that this is a good description. 

At any rate (I'm getting distracted from the point I wanted to make), Hubbell's blog posting on May 28th discussed "The Law of Small Numbers," and I thought that his commentary was instructive: 

The breathless reporting about the margin of Paxton’s victory could create the misimpression that Trump is getting stronger. Not true. Trump is maintaining his death grip on a shrinking minority, even as he is losing support nationally across all demographics. 

Moreover, the turnout in Texas was pathetic, making it dangerous and foolhardy to draw conclusions about the relative strength of Trump, Republicans, and Democrats among Texas voters. Only 8% of Texas registered voters participated in the run-off election. 

In some counties, Paxton and Cornyn received votes in the single or double digits. For example, in Zapata County, Paxton garnered 22 votes, while Cornyn won 6 votes, making it appear that Paxton crushed Cornyn 79% to 21%. 

Given the tiny number of votes cast in Zapata County, it would be easy for the Law of Small Numbers to lead observers to incorrect conclusions. 

For example, the latest available data from the Texas Secretary of State shows there are 7,886 registered voters in Zapata County, meaning the turnout in the Republican runoff—28 voters—was very close to 0%. 

Moreover, because Zapata County is predominantly Latino (93%), someone not paying attention to the low turnout could erroneously conclude that Paxton has very strong support in counties with large Latino populations. 

Instead, the most reasonable inference to be drawn from the Zapata County results is that in a county that is overwhelmingly Latino, there was virtually no support for Paxton or Cornyn (emphasis added).

Hubbell's point? His point is that how election results are reported does not, in all cases, tell us what's actually going on. One of the virtues of the Hubbell newsletter is that it does, as it advertises, look at our politics through the "lens of hope." Many citizens, today, have stepped away from "politics," because they do find it "hopeless." Maybe it's not! Maybe that's just the way politics is often reported and discussed, and this is why what we read about politics ends up elevating "hopelessness" over my favorite category, "possibility." 

I actually think that's true, and the antidote (I speak from experience) is our personal participation in politics - not as "observers," but as actors, as those who believe it's possible to change the world, and who work at it!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.chaivillagela.org/content.aspx?page_id=4002&club_id=599592&item_id=2296682

#151 / Walk In The Light

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

oooOOOooo

Walk In The Light (The George Fox Song)

There’s a Light that is shining
when the world began,
And a Light that is shining
in the heart of man:
There’s a Light that is shining
in the Turk and the Jew,
And a Light that is shining,
friend, in me and in you.

[Chorus]

Walk in the Light,
wherever you may be!
Walk in the Light,
wherever you may be!
In my old leather breeches and
my shaggy, shaggy locks,
I am walking in the glory of the Light, said Fox.

oooOOOooo

George Fox (pictured) was the "First Quaker." If you click right here, you can read an "Autobiography," edited by Rufus M. Jones. This "Autobiography" is based on George Fox's Journal. Click that link to read his Journal. Clicking here will let you see the entire lyrics of that "George Fox Song." 

In my blog posting last Sunday, "Light" was featured, as I cited to William Blake's poem, "The Little Black Boy." "Light," indeed, features in all things relating to the Society of Friends (Quakers), including in the Meeetings for Worship that the Quakers hold on Sundays, which the Quakers call "First Days." When Quakers gather to worship there are no sermons. No one with supposed "authority" says anything. Anything said during a Friends' Meeting comes spontaneously from those gathered in silence. 

Sometimes, some astonishing are said during Meeting - some "weighty" things, some revealing things, some poignant things. During the Meeting, or at the rise of the Meeting, those in attendance may be moved to ask all those present to hold some person, or some concern, "in the Light." 

I believe I attended my first Quaker meeting in 1963 or 1964, at the Palo Alto Friends' Meetinghouse on Colorado Street, in Palo Alto. I used to walk over from Stanford, where I was an undergraduate student. In Santa Cruz, Friends meet at the Meetinghouse on Rooney Street. 

As I said in an earlier blog posting, you are invited!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43031/43031-h/43031-h.htm

#150 / TIME TO VOTE (Cummings For Supervisor)

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I usually vote almost immediately. I get my mail-in ballot; I fill it out; I dispatch it the very next day. I assume that a lot of California residents and voters do that. This year, things are a bit different. The absurdity of a Governor's race with, I think, 61 candidates has led many to hold off till near the very end, so that their vote won't end up creating a situation in which the General Election, upcoming in November, will end up being a contest between two Republican Party candidates, even though only about 25% of registered voters in California are Republicans. It will be interesting to see what happens in this so-called "Jungle Primary." 

At any rate, if you happen to be a voter who has been holding off voting, to let published polls give you some guidance about how you ought to vote in the Governor's race, this blog posting is to remind you that the time has come. Election Day is June 2nd. Get your ballot in by Tuesday or miss your chance. Personally, I am planning to walk my ballot down to the County Building at 701 Ocean Street (the place where I worked for twenty years as a County Supervisor for the Third Supervisorial District). There's a "dropbox" for ballots right near the foot of the stairs, or you can go inside and head to the Second Floor, and give your ballot to the Elections Office in person. 

IF, by any chance, you happen to be a voter in the Third Supervisorial District (most of the City of Santa Cruz, Bonny Doon, the North Coast, and Davenport), you don't actually need to vote for County Supervisor this time around. Justin Cummings, the current Third District Supervisor, is running for reelection unopposed. I have endorsed Justin, and I have actually worked for Justin in both of his campaigns for Supervisor. I think I know what the job requires. Justin is the "real deal," and is doing an exceptionally good job. Even if your vote is not actually needed to make sure Justin is reelected, I hope you'll vote for Justin in the Third Supervisorial race.

That's my opinion. That's a "good government" vote. Take it from someone who has some experience!

Justin Cummings

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.wvia.org/2024-01-23/how-do-i-register-to-vote 

(2) - https://patch.com/california/santacruz/candidate-profile-justin-cummings-county-supervisor

 

#149 / Unnatural Selection And The God Complex

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

In tody's blog posting, I am advertising two articles, both available in the May-June, 2026 edition of Mother Jones. I subscribe to the magazine, and I am not certain that non-subscribers will be able to access these articles. Nonetheless, maybe these articles will be available to those who may read this blog posting, and if they are, I am letting you know that I definitely found them worth reading:

#1

"Unnatural Selection: Creating Baby Geniuses To Thwart The AI Threat? (Yes, Really)," by Abby Vesoulis.

#2

"The God Complex: Tech Billionaires Want Christians To Believe In AI," by Kiera Butler.

I presume that you can see the thematic connection between these two articles. Both report on some of the preoccupations that are claiming the attention of various "Tech Billionaires." Now, "Tech Billionires" is a category with which I am familiar only by way of report, and not by way of any personal experience. Based on this somewhat limited source of information about such people, let me say that "Tech Billionaires" come across, to me, as disgustingly self-absorbed and so completely convinced of their own greatness that I think I would find it very difficult to stay in the same room with any one of them for any appreciable amount of time. 

The names that come to mind: Bezos, Musk, Zuckerberg, Thiel, Ellison, Altman (and so on) are undoubtedly known to you. In the two articles I am referencing, above, specific names are only slightly associated with the comments made. 

To characterize the comments made in the two articles to which I am citing, the first article reports that some "Tech Billionaires" seem to want to substitute in for "God," or for "Nature" (for those who find the word "God" a little off-putting). Apparently, a number of the so-called "Tech Billionaires" are taking concrete action to create their own "Baby Geniuses," so that the intellectual eminence of the "Tech Billionaires" can be transmitted to future generations (and particularly to those persons in such future generations who will bear their names, and, key to the concept, their genetic characteristics). 

The second article, which associates "Christianity" with some of the "Tech Billionaires," documents their efforts to make sure that Christians will love Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) at least as much as they love the intelligence made available to "ordinary" people, by way of their Creator ("God" or "Nature" - pick the term that you like best).

Here is a brief quote from article #2 (the one focusing on "Christianity"):

The likes of Palantir’s Peter Thiel and other religious techies such as Andreessen Horowitz’s Katherine Boyle and Anduril’s Trae Stephens ... argue that far from being the demonic force [that some suggest] technology is more comparable to a savior—even a Christlike messiah. Not only are Christians called to embrace technology, but they have an obligation to do so, because progress itself is a moral good (emphasis added).

Again, I trust it is clear that the "Tech Billionaires" mentioned in Article #2 want to substitute themselves in for "God," and (relevant to those religious persons who identify as "Christians") for Jesus Christ Himself. 

WHY, you might ask, would I suggest that anyone should read these articles (as I did, in fact, suggest as I began this blog posting). Well, I am of the general opinion that when someone actually knows what's going on, they will better understand how to value and relate to these "Tech Billionaires" who assert - directly or in other ways - that they are "superior beings." 

Hey, folks. They're not! As I have already said, it strikes me that they are disgustingly self-absorbed and improperly convinced of their own greatness. They are not models to emulate. They are models of what to avoid.

Give the "Tech Billionaires," and their ideas, and whatever they propose, a very wide berth, and distance yourself (and your political efforts) from any of their policy (or religious) recommendations. 

That suggestion is why I wrote this blog posting. That's my recommendation!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/04/gene-editing-optimization-thiel-altman-armstrong-andreessen-ai-iq/

 

#148 / Talarico On Disillusionment

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

James Talarico (pictured above) is from Texas. He is running for the United States Senate, and will be facing off against our current president's personal pick. If you aren't familiar with Talarico, then just lick the link that I am providing so you can read a New York Times' article entitled, "5 Things To Know About James Talarico." Once you know something about Talarico, if you'd then like to send him a campaign contribution, here's the place you need to click!

Below, I am providing you with an excerpt from a commencement address that Talarico recently gave to graduating seniors at Paul Quinn College, the oldest HBCU in Texas. If you don't want to read Talarico's commencement address,  here's a link to the commencement address on YouTube.

I want to highlight one specific statement in this recent speech by Talarico: 

Disillusionment has a bad reputation. But being disillusioned means being freed from illusions — to see reality. To know the truth. As painful as it may be, your disillusionment is a superpower. You can see the world as it is and dream of the way it ought to be.

"Disillusionment" can be our "superpower," but there's the caveat. You must not allow your "disillusionment" to be accompanied by "despair" or "discouragement." That will only lead you - and all of us - to "defeatism" and "defeat." 

Tallarico is absolutely right in saying that once we have become "disillusioned" with what exists now, we are freed to create the world we want, the world that "ought to be." 

And can we do it? Well.... YES!

And just in case any of my own respect for Bob Dylan might have rubbed off on you, please remember the final verse of that song I quoted a while back, and the lesson it proclaims: 

Something is burning, baby, something’s in flames

There’s a man going ’round calling names

Ring down when you’re ready, baby, I’m waiting for you

I believe in the impossible, you know that I do

oooOOOooo

Unshakeable Things: Gen Z and the New Great Awakening

By James Talarico

As a former teacher, graduation days are always special to me. The world these young people are graduating into is not easy.

I called my speech “Unshakeable Things: Gen Z and the New Great Awakening” because, as I told the graduates, I believe we are on the verge of a New Great Awakening. This generation — with disillusionment as their superpower — will lead us.

I want to share an excerpt of what I said below. If you’d like to see the full address or send it to a young graduate you know, you can watch it here.

Paul Quinn College was not built by politicians. It was built by Black preachers holding classes in church basements and living rooms just seven years after emancipation came to Texas.

For 154 years, Quinnites have been guided by a deep moral commitment to all of God’s children — regardless of their skin color or their zip code.

This place has spiritual roots. This place is rooted in faith, in service, and in love. Today, I want to call you to live out of those roots.

When this school fell on hard times, God sent a teacher, a leader, a visionary — Dr. Michael Sorrell — to pick up the pieces.

Dr. Sorrell returned this school to its roots. He doubled down on serving the poor and the marginalized. He transformed this college into one of the best HBCUs in the country and sparked a revolution in the process.

I’m reminded of the words of scripture: “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.” In this new world Dr. Sorrell is building, all who have been counted out, who have been left behind, who have been forgotten — the stones the builders rejected — will be the cornerstone. A revolution from below.

Because in the words of Dr. Sorrell himself, “in the history of mankind, how many revolutions have started from above?"

You may not believe that a world rooted in faith, service, and love is possible.

In your short lives, you’ve seen a pandemic and an insurrection, natural disasters and artificial intelligence, mass shootings and mass deportations. All piped through your screen into your soul. You have scrolled through more suffering, more division, more chaos than any generation in human history.

You’ve grown up in an economy that isn’t built for you. The American Dream is on life support. 90% of Baby Boomers went on to earn more money than their parents. For Millennials, it’s 50%. For Gen Z, it’s even lower.

And we know that Black Texans have 10 times less wealth and are half as likely to own a home.

This current cost of living crisis is the culmination of 50 years of trickle down economics. 50 years of the top 1% rigging this economic system and this political system for their own benefit — at our expense.

Young people can’t buy a home, but Jeff Bezos has 12. Young people can’t afford to fill up their gas tank, but Mark Zuckerberg is launching helicopters from his mega-yacht. Young people pay more than their fair share of income taxes, but Elon Musk can get away with not paying a penny.

All this has left your generation disillusioned.

Disillusionment has a bad reputation. But being disillusioned means being freed from illusions — to see reality. To know the truth. As painful as it may be, your disillusionment is a superpower. You can see the world as it is and dream of the way it ought to be.

… 

Scripture tells us, “All of creation will be shaken, so that only unshakable things will remain.

The world as we know it is shaking — the old certainties, the old institutions, the old corruption. The old world is dying — and a new one is struggling to be born.

In the rubble of this shaken world, you’ll find the stones the builders rejected. The people who have been told they’re too poor, too different, too young to matter. You will be the cornerstone of a new world built on unshakable things: faith, service, and love.”

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/03/us/politics/james-talarico-democrat-senate-candidate.html

#147 / Thanks For The Stress Test, Mr. President!

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Writing in the May 25, 2026, edition of The New York Times - which was published on our Memorial Day Holiday - Adam Liptak thanked our current president for helping to make visible (and thus potentially susceptible of a cure) a "blind spot" in the United States Constitution. Actually, Liptak's article did not directly speak out any "thanks" to our current president, but a full reading of what Liptak wrote allows me thus to characterize Liptak's excellent column. 

In the hardcopy version, which I encourage you to read in full, Liptak's analysis was titled, "Founders Had A Blind Spot, And Trump Is Exposing It." Online, which is where you will go if you click the next link, the title is slightly different: "Were The Constitution’s Authors A Little Too Optimistic?" 

I believe that no paywall will prevent you from reading what Liptak is telling us. In short, what Liptak is telling us is that our Constitutional system basically assumed that only persons of good character would be chosen to lead the nation (with our first president, George Washington, providing the model). You will remember, I am sure, that Washington is associated with a boyhood promise that "I cannot tell a lie." Even if that story isn't truly accurate, as it probably isn't, the fact that the story is still told, and celebrated, demonstrates what we would like to think would be the character of anyone who is chosen to serve the nation as its president. With respect to the current incumbent, of course, the opposite is what is most likely to be the case, when we consider our current president's reputation for honesty. It is not too far from the mark to say that our current president "cannot tell the truth." 

Here is an abbreviated presentation of Liptak's analysis (emphasis added):

In a parliamentary system, the executive and the legislature are in dialogue rather than structural opposition. Prime ministers generally do not serve fixed terms and may be removed by a vote of no confidence.

The framers rejected that model for something new. They were looking for a sweet spot. They wanted a president less powerful than the king they had rebelled against but more effective than the state governors of the time, who were all but powerless, or prime ministers, who were creatures of the legislature.

Defining the scope of the new office had an improvised quality. James Madison, writing to Washington just before he left for the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in April 1787, said he had not given the matter much thought. In those same papers, Madison acknowledged that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands” may “justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

The framers believed that the threat of impeachment and removal would be a decisive check on the president. They envisioned a Congress that would be jealous of its institutional power and would muster, when appropriate, not only a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives to accuse presidents of misconduct but also a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict and remove them. 

To the extent that they [were] worried about a demagogue, they ... expected that impeachment would deal with scoundrels.

[However], they failed to anticipate a development that would make impeachment improbable: the rise of political parties.

To this day, the idea of self-sustaining political competition built into the structure of government is frequently portrayed as the unique genius of the U.S. Constitution, the very basis for the success of American democracy ... yet the truth is closer to the opposite. As competition between the legislative and executive branches was displaced by competition between two major parties ... the machine that was supposed to go of itself stopped running.

The rise of political parties, to say nothing of the current extreme polarization between them, has made other forms of congressional supervision of the president vanishingly rare. There have been four presidential impeachments in the history of the United States, of Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton and, twice, Donald J. Trump. In none of the four cases did the Senate muster the required two-thirds vote to convict. 

These days, those circuit breakers are gone: Voters elect senators, and the Electoral College is a formality. A structure designed by elites wary of direct democracy has moved toward one far more responsive to the popular will. 

That has made the government more vulnerable to the sort of populism that the framers feared. But it may also — whether expressed in public opinion, on the streets and at the ballot box — supply a counterweight to the executive overreach that some of the men who drafted and ratified the Constitution feared.

To repeat myself, Liptak is not really "thanking" our current president for putting our Constitution to a "stress" test, but the fact that our system of democratic self-government is being "stressed," and "tested," is quite clear - and has some real benefits, in instructing us on how things have to change. In the end, Liptak is telling each one of us, as citizens, that it is up to us to prevent "executive overreach." 

Liptak, in other words, hasn't given up. Neither have I. 

You shouldn't, either!

 EXTRA READING: 

Ben Rhodes' opinion piece, also in the May 25, 2026, edition of The Times: "Whatever Happened To America's Great Orators" [Hardcopy Title]; "This is How A Party Ends Up Looking Like A Clown Car" [Online Title].

Jon Meacham, The Soul Of America: The Battle For Our Better Angels.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/25/us/constitution-framers-president-executive-monarch.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lFA.RtIy.x8yz4lJrowgM&smid=url-share