We live, simultaneously, in two different worlds. Ultimately, we live in the World of Nature, a world that we did not create and the world upon which all life depends. Most immediately, we inhabit a "human world" that we create ourselves. Because our human world is the result of our own choices and actions, we can say, quite properly, that we live, most immediately, in a “political world.” In this blog, I hope to explore the interaction of these two worlds that we call home.
Gary A. Patton
I was an elected official in Santa Cruz County, California for twenty years, from 1975 to 1995. Now, I am an environmental attorney, practicing law in Santa Cruz County. If you would like to contact me, send me an email at gapatton@mac.com.
Sometimes, the items that show up in my inbox seem particualarly pertinent to the day (and to our time). I am providing you with one such item, below, a meditation by Father Richard Rohr. I hope you'll read it. I particularly liked the idea that Jesus, in his meditation on the Prophet Isaiah, deleted the prophet's description of how God would visit vengence on those who didn't please him.
I would like to see a similar approach in our politics, which would be more or less the opposite of what we're getting from our current president, who is following through on his promises of "retribution" for all those who failed to support him in his 2024 campaign.
Isaiah is the Hebrew prophet Jesus quotes directly when he first introduces himself in the synagogue in Nazareth:
The Spirit of God has been given to me, YHWH has anointed me. He has sent me to bring good news to the poor, To bind up hearts that are broken, To proclaim liberty to captives, Freedom to those in prison, To proclaim the Year of Favor from the Lord. (Luke 4:18–19, quoting Isaiah 61:1– 2)
Jesus, like the prophet he quotes, reveals not only his self-confidence but also his likely and intended audience. His message of good news is not likely to be sought after or heard by the comfortable and the secure, he seems to say, but by the poor, the captives, the blind, and the oppressed—which fully explains Jesus’ behavior throughout the rest of his ministry.
Notice that Jesus deliberately does not quote the final line of the full, yet contradictory, Isaiah passage: “to proclaim a day of vengeance from our God.” It’s almost as though Jesus is tired of making God into one who limits and threatens, instead of the limitless one whom the passage has just talked about, and so different from the glorious vision of the New Jerusalem Isaiah has just described in the whole of chapter 60. Jesus refuses to let Isaiah end with caution and fear. Fortunately, we see that Isaiah does not stay there, either. Later in the book, he exclaims:
I am ready to be approached by those who do not consult me, Ready to be found by those who do not seek me. I say, “I am here. I am here!” to a nation that does not even invoke my name. (Isaiah 65:1)
This sounds like so much availability and generosity from God’s side, perhaps too much for us to hope for. And yet this is where Isaiah lands for the rest of the prophecy, until the very final verse (66:24) where he makes a seeming allusion to the fires of Gehenna. But in Jewish teaching, the metaphor of fire doesn’t focus on eternal punishment. In the whole Bible, fire is almost entirely a “refiner’s fire” of purification in this world, not a fire of torture in the next.
The final chapters of Isaiah entertain themes of universal liberation and salvation for all, beginning with eunuchs and foreigners (56:1–7), along with agnostics and the barely interested (65:1–7), continuing with hints of universal salvation (through much of chapter 65), and moving into a total cosmology with a “new heavens and a new earth” (65:17; also 66:22). These images will return again at the end of the New Testament (Revelation 21:1). Thank God the Bible ends with an optimistic hope and vision, instead of an eternal threat that puts the whole message off balance and outside of love.
A few months ago, I received an invitation to sign up for the Daily Beast podcast (see above). I didn't sign up. In fact, I regularly resist invitations to sign up for podcasts, even when the invitations include the reassuring message that I will be able to listen "wherever you get your podcasts."
Here is one reason why I have never signed up: I don't actually have a place where I "get my podcasts." In fact, I don't think I have ever actually listened to a podcast, which is probably rather unusual. It is perhaps especially unusual because I actually make an annual contribution to support a podcast that I think is pretty worthwhile, the podcast provided by The Kitchen Sisters. They are, of course, while nationally known, a local group, hailing from La Selva Beach!
But... it's true: I have never actually listened to any podcast myself. Wait a minute! Upon reflection, while I think it's true that I have never listened to a "podcast," I realize that I once regularly listened to what I think might properly be called a podcast predecessor, Bob Dylan's Theme Time Radio Hour.
At any rate, I hardly ever watch television (or streaming movies on sites like Netflix), and I very rarely even listen to the radio - despite the fact that we have an outstanding local station, K-Squid (KSQD), to which I also regularly contribute. Please feel free to click that link and to contribute yourself!
Since time is limited, I find that I end up spending most of my time "reading," rather than "listening," or "watching." I am not sure that my reading habit is any "better," in any way, than those who do a lot of their interacting with the world by way of a screen or a speaker. "Reading" just happens to be the way I do it.
Thinking about that pitch from the Daily Beast, though, I had a thought that has prompted this blog posting. Taking information in - by reading, by podcasts, by television, or however - is an activity that exemplifies "observation."
Nothing wrong with "observation," of course (we surely need it), but regular readers will remember that my own pitch is that what we mainly lack is not "observation," but "action."
In other words, observing the world, and finding out about the world (however you do it), is all fine and good, but that's just where we need to start, not where we need to end. With respect to this insight, I have given a shout out to Karl Marx before. What he said about this topic continues to resonate with me:
The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.
"Action," not "observation," is the way we'll need to do that!
I am not too much of a "party" guy. My twenty years of political/governmental experience, as an elected member of the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, was in a "non-partisan" office. When people voted for the candidates who were running for Supervisor, including me, the ballots didn't identify the candidates by way of their party registration. Voters just picked the person they liked best. Of course, politics as practiced at the national level, and at the state level, is pretty much defined by party affiliation. Only two parties really count, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. There is some pretty good evidence that neither of these political parties is all that beloved, right now, even by their current members.
Elon Musk, the world's most famous billionaire, has now started a new political party, the "America" Party (AMEP). If you click that link, you should be able to view the Federal Election Commission form, officially registering the party. Click right here for a Wall Street Journal article, reporting on Musk's new foray into partisan politics. Click here for a discussion by The Hill.
The FEC form, registering the new party, wasn't signed by Musk; it was signed by Vaibhav Taneja, who is identified as the Party's Treasurer and Custodian of Records. The official address for the Party is at 1, Rocket Road, in Hawthorne, California. That's the location of a SpaceX facility, and it turns out that Taneja is a Musk employee, apparently working at Tesla.
As I was trying to indicate, by saying that I am not much of a "party" guy, I think our political activity ought to be more focused on the people whom we elect to represent us, as opposed to party affiliations. Politicians elected by "Party" always have a dual loyalty, assuming that they have at least some loyalty to the voters whom they supposedly represent. When you have been elected with the assistance of and on behalf of a "Party," your loyalty will necessarily be divided between the voters whose votes put you into office, and the "Party" of which you are a member.
Recently, we witnessed how this divided loyalty works out in practice. Virtually every Republican Member of Congress voted against the interests of the voters in their districts, choosing, instead, to follow the demands of the Party leaders, including, of course, our current president. The Republican Party's "budget bill" will hit almost every lower and middle-income American quite hard, while huge tax advantages will flow to the extremely wealthy. The fact that they were screwing their own voters didn't stop most Republicans from voting for this bill; they followed their "Party" leaders. The same thing happened recently in the California State Legislature, as Democratic Party members voted to gut California's system of environmental review, following the directions they received from Democratic Party leaders, including specifically Governor Gavin Newsom.
Because of this inherent tension between what the "Party" wants (usually at the behest of wealthy interests of various kinds), and what is good for ordinary people - for the voters actually represented by state and federal elected officials - ordinary voters end up being disaffected from their "Party."
Mr. Musk, the world's richest person, wants to capitalize on this, hoping that large numbers of Republicans, and even Democrats, will think that his "Party" will somehow be different, and will really care about the good of the country. That's why Musk is calling his new "Party" the "America" Party. We're all "Americans," right? That "America Party" must be a "Party" that will work for us.
For what it's worth, here's my political advice: Don't you believe it!
That is Dana Fisher, pictured above. The picture comes from the Summer 2025 edition of Earth Island Journal, where it is associated with a conversation between Fisher and Maureen Nandini Mitra, who edits that magazine. The conversation is titled, "Hope Embedded In Despair." Fisher is identified as an "apocalyptic optimist." A further description of this seemingly self-contradictory term can be found in an article by Fisher in the January 2024 edition of Time Magazine. That article is titled, "Apocalyptic Optimism Could Be the Antidote for Climate Fatalism."
I think I may be an "apocalyptic optimist," too.
I have friends, and one in particular comes to mind, who frequently use the word "doomed" to describe our current situation, and who employ sentences describing some genuine reality (and genuinely apocalyptic reality) by using the "is" verb in either the present tense, or in the future tense, or both. By way of example, I am thinking of sentences like, "fascism has triumphed" [past], "democracy is doomed" [present], and "climate collapse is inevitable" [future].
If you have not noticed how close we are to the apocalypse, politically and environmentally - to the disappearance of democratic self-government in the United States, and to a major collapse of the systems that make Earth habitable - you are not paying attention. Or, more likely, you are deliberately averting your eyes (and shutting off your brain) because the current realities in which we live are so overwhelmingly threatening.
The mistake is to confuse a current description of what exists - a description that is absolutely accurate - with a statement about reality. "Reality" includes a dimension that cannot be reached by "observation," alone.
The unmeasured dimension I am talking about goes by different names. "Possibility" is one of them. I am pointing to the possibility we always have, individually and collectively, to change what we are doing right now, and to do something new, and different - something unexpected - and by doing that new thing to transform the world. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to that Earth Island Journal discussion:
Dana Fisher doesn’t sugarcoat the facts: When it comes to our climate and American democracy, we are in a bad place. The Trump Blitzkrieg is demolishing key policies that shield us from toxic pollution, that protect our lands, waters, and wildlife, and that attempt to address the climate crisis. In addition, the mass layoffs of federal scientists and academics, the daily deluge of attacks on everything from immigrant rights, trans rights, free speech, and public health, have become significant sources of stress and uncertainty for many Americans. Things, she predicts, are only going to get much worse.
But Fisher, who calls herself an “apocalyptic optimist,” says this moment of polycrisis also offers an opportunity for us to build collective power and trigger a wider movement for change. As someone who has been has been studying climate and social movements for more than two decades Fisher knows a thing or two about how repressive regimes can actually help strengthen the movements opposing them. Her recent book, Saving Ourselves: From Climate Shocks to Climate Action, offers insights on how social movements can take power back from deeply entrenched interests. Since January, Fisher, who is the director of the Center for Environment, Community, and Equity at the School of International Service at American University, has been tracking the growing resistance to Trump 2.0 in real time. She recently spoke with me about the growing belief among some activists that political violence may be necessary to protect democracy, the need for climate groups to connect with those who are feeling anxious about the climate and Trump’s policies, and how building community resilience is crucial during these times (emphasis added).
Another magazine, Sojourners, had an article in its July 2025 edition that really makes the same point. In the hard copy version, that article is titled, "The Power of Social Connections." If you're having any trouble with the idea that we ought to be approaching the future, through the present, in the spirit on "apocalyptic optimism," see if Sojourners will help you understand the need to move away from any analysis that find us telling ourselves that "we're doomed."
Doom may come. Let's not "sugarcoat the facts." But it's not here yet, and it's not "inevitable."
As I said earlier, I think I can properly be described as an "apocalyptic optimist," and I'd like to invite you to be an "apocalyptic optimist," too.
Shown above, with his right hand over his heart, is Zohran Mamdani. Mamdani has gone from being an "upstart mayoral hopeful" to become the winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. I am quoting a story in The New York Times, published on Saturday, June 28th, and authored by Matthew Haag and Benjamin Oreskes. As The Times' news story notes, Mamdani's political success was propelled by a simple message: the city is too expensive — and that Mamdani has plans on how to fix that.
Well, what is Mamdani's plan? As The Times puts it:
Much of Mr. Mamdani’s agenda relies in large measure on increasing revenue through taxes on businesses and the wealthy — part of an overarching vision to rethink how the city funds expanded social programs. Along with raising income taxes, he has pledged to shift the property tax burden “from the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods” (emphasis added).
Let me tell you what the Governor of New York State had to say about the Mamdani plan to raise taxes on businesses and the wealthy, to provide the money that will allow the City to do better for those who are currently right at the brink of personal financial disaster. The Governor (Kathy Hochul) said that "raising taxes is a nonstarter." She also said that she was "focused on affordability," and that "raising taxes on anyone does not accomplish that."
Actually, raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy, and using that increased tax revenue to provide things like free bus rides, free early child care, and a rent freeze to keep housing prices from continuing to escalate, is something that does make the city more "affordable" for those currently being priced out.
I was offended by the Mayor's statement because it is so plainly untrue. Is it a good idea to increase taxes on those who are better off, in order to help make life in New York City more affordable for those with lower incomes, who are now being priced out? Sounds good to me, but there are definitely arguments about whether that's a good idea - there are arguments on "both sides." To state, however, that doing that just wouldn't help the city's "affordability" crisis - that it wouldn't make any difference - is just plain wrong.
Political polarization is a problem. I think lots of people - most people, probably - would agree with that. So, what causes the "political polarization" problem? What can be done about it (if anything)?
Roland Fryer, writing in The Wall Street Journal, has come up with an analysis worth thinking about. Fryer is an economics professor, so he titles his opinion essay, "The Economics of Polarization." To me, his insights, based on social science research, aren't really about "economics," very much. It looks to me like Fryer is describing "confirmation bias," more than anything else.
In the column I have linked above, Fryer says the research he ultimately undertook, with a colleague, was stimulated by a continuing dispute that Fryer has with his wife. The wife likes to use her horn, proactively, and often, while driving. Fryer, himself, has long felt that this is not an effective way to prevent accidents, which is what his wife claims as a justification for her intensive use of the horn.
Below, I present you with Fryer's description of how he, and his colleague, designed an experiment to test out why even solid "evidence" doesn't seem to convince those who already know what is right. On his way to work, with his wife driving, Fryer has had a dispute about his wife's horn use habits. Fryer thought it was clear, from an incident occurring on the road, that his wife's use of the horn was inappropriate and ineffective as an accident prevention technique:
As soon as she dropped me off on campus, I ran to my office to tell a fellow economist this anomaly I had observed. Was my wife irrational? Was I? Or did we need to think about inference and decision-making a bit differently? I confided first in Matthew Jackson, who specializes in social networks. He seemed as perplexed as I was and, because he knows my wife, offered up several interpretations that would make her seem more rational. Finally, he relented, and it became one of the guiding examples for us to think differently about how humans process information when there is uncertainty.
In the simplest version of the model we developed, imagine that the truth is either A or B. Climate change either is or isn’t caused by human activity. The death penalty either deters crime or it doesn’t. No one really knows the truth—but we start with a prior belief about how plausible A and B seem. Each person observes a series of signals, information that suggests the truth might be A or B. Some signals are ambiguous and come as AB rather than A or B.
If you were fully rational and able to set aside prior beliefs, you’d store the information in a sequence—A, B, AB, AB, A, AB, A, B, B—and add it up at the end: three points for A, three for B, and three ambiguous signals.
But if you tend to align unclear evidence with your previous expectations, you would come away thinking your original instincts were right. If you construe all the “AB” signals as A (or B), you now think the evidence falls on your side by a 2-to-1 margin. Further observations of the world entrench that view rather than correcting it, because future ambiguous signals will have the same skew....
We explored the model’s implications in an online experiment with more than 600 subjects, modeled on a pioneering 1979 paper by Charles G. Lord and colleagues. First, participants were presented with questions about their beliefs on climate change and the death penalty. Then they read a series of summaries of research about each topic. After each summary, we asked participants if they thought the summary provided evidence for or against the topic on a 16-point scale. After all of the summaries were presented, we repeated the initial questions about their beliefs about the topic.
There was a very significant correlation between a subject’s prior belief and his interpretation of the evidence. More than half of our sample exited our experiment with more extreme beliefs than at the start, even though the evidence presented to them was neutral (emphasis added).
As I say, this seems like an explanation of "confirmation bias" to me. We all tend to believe, even in the face of contradictory evidence, that what we already think is correct, and that any evidence presented to us supports our existing beliefs. The image at the top of this blog posting makes clear the concept. To my mind, the most "chilling" statement, in the excerpt I have quoted, is this one: "more than half of our sample exited our experiment with more extreme beliefs than at the start, even though the evidence presented to them was neutral."
If it is true that persons become more "extreme" in their preexisting political views, the more evidence that they receive on the topic at issue (and even if the evidence they receive is contradictory or neutral with respect to the views they already hold) then we are in a lot of potential trouble. Typically, we try to "persuade" people with whom we disagree, and most notably by providing them with evidence that they are "wrong." According to the Fryer experiment, debate and discussion aimed at "persuading" those with opposite views is actually counterproductive! In fact, the whole "persuasion" process is what is stimulating political polarization.
Well, is there something we can do about this? I am thinking, specifically, about our political disagreements over public policy options. Whether or not the death penalty "works," and whether or not global warming is caused by human activities, are both good examples of the kind of policy debates in which political polarization is, perhaps, made more extreme by efforts by those on each side of the debate to adduce "evidence" to support the policy position they already believe is "best." And there are, of course, LOTS of such public policy questions about which there is profound disagreement.
Here is one answer. This answer comes by way of a well-known phrase - and here's that phrase: Let's just "agree to disagree." In other words, if we decide that differences must or should be eliminated, in the context of our democratic politics, "polarization" will be increased as each "side" believes that it must override and "defeat" the other side. When disagreements are defined as questions of "truth, justice, or the American way," it is easy to conclude that the "other side" is not only "wrong," but is, actually, "evil," and thus must be defeated, eliminated, or rendered politically powerless.
That is the way that "political polarization" seems to work, and I think that's where we are, right now!
But what about the idea that there are lots of "opinions," and that this is just fine? What about the idea that it is, actually, totally acceptable for wives and husbands to disagree about safe driving techniques (and that divorce, therefore, is not required when one of the marital partners is using the horn in a way that the other finds objectionable)?
What about the idea that Americans can have different opinions about "climate change," and its causes, and about the desirability of tariff increases, etc., and that it is actually acceptable for us to disagree about the policy questions that face the nation?
That sounds "nice," but if we have a system in which we "agree to disagree," then how do we decide whether or not to open the national parks to oil development, or to increase efforts to identify and deport anyone who has entered the United States without permission? How to we decide what actions to take about the real questions that the nation must address?
The Constitution does, in fact, provide a technique for making collective decisions that does not require that one "side" or another be "defeated." Debate and discussion takes place in Congress, and unless the President vetos the resolution decided upon by the Congress, that's what will happen. No "side" is ever permanently "defeated" or "eliminated." Polarization is reduced.
When differences generate "sides" that insist that they are "right," and that the "other side" is "wrong," and that what is "wrong" must be eliminated, polarization is increased. But it is, actually, possible to live, love, and prosper in a society that can "agree to disagree," even as the political process makes decisions, and the nation takes action - not upon the basis that "right" has triumphed over "wrong," but on the basis that this is what was decided this time, and that we might well want to revisit the issues, later on, after a couple of years, and after our next election, has come and gone.
I have to give credit to Guy R. McPherson. He has provided me with a real change of pace from the kind of advice and observation I was getting when I was growing up.
You probably have to be of a "certain age" to remember this, but a popular song when I was growing up was titled, "Home On The Range."That song was, in fact, one of my father's favorite songs. It featured the following, rather optimistic, first verse:
Oh, give me a home, where the buffalo roam Where the deer and the antelope play Where seldom is heard, a discouraging word And the skies are not cloudy all day
Look at that picture, above, provided by Mr. McPherson. He is "updating" that song. Can't you just see those deer and antelope bounding around on those great plains? Can't you just marvel at those massive and magnificent herds of buffalo, grazing peacefully in that landscape above?
The illustration at the top comes from a December 6, 2024, posting by Mr. McPherson in his "Nature Bats Last" Substack blog (you can also access it in the form of a video). Here is the "discouraging word" that Mr. McPherson provides readers, to accompany the picture he has provided:
The current Mass Extinction Event is the most severe in planetary history. It will almost certainly cause the extinction of all life on Earth. Its cause is well-known: the collective actions of too many humans for too long a time, primarily through burning fossil fuels (emphasis added).
Allow me to provide you with my personal reaction to the McPherson view of the world in which we are living today. First, I am very much convinced of the reality of "Global Warming." Second (as my father taught me), I will never stipulate to "inevitability."
McPherson is absolutely correct that our "world," our "civilization," the physical, economic, social, and political arrangements now prevailing, are ultimately dependent on the "World of Nature." I'll agree with McPherson that "Nature Bats Last." In fact, though, my thought is that by trying to prove that "WE Bat Last," we are taking the exactly wrong approach to our current situation.
Maybe we're "doomed," which I think must be Mr. McPherson's favorite word. We certainly are if we don't pay attention to the signals that "Nature" is sending us.
However, we could pay attention to those signals, and we could then "change our way of thinking," as Mr. Dylan advises. If we were to do that, we might end up surviving, but changing our "way of thinking" is just step one. After that, we need to change what we are "doing," too, based on what our thoughts are then telling us!
If we could pull that off (and I haven't given up), the deer, and the antelope, and the buffalo might still be with us. The world wouldn't be on fire, and there would still be some clear-sky days.
So, how about we give it a try? Let's pay attention to the portents, provided by Mr. McPherson, and to the possibilities, with the advice provided by Mr. Dylan:
Gonna change my way of thinking Make myself a different set of rules Gonna change my way of thinking Make myself a different set of rules Gonna put my good foot forward And stop being influenced by fools
Usher (Usher Raymond IV) is an American singer, songwriter, and dancer. He is pictured above. Anyone who is reading this blog posting will probably already know that Usher is a singer, songwriter, and dancer - even I knew that - but I had to look him up for some details.
Wikipedia tells me that Usher released a self-titled debut album in 1994, when he was only fifteen years old, and that he rose to fame in the late 1990s following the release of his second album, My Way, in 1997 (when he was eighteen). Usher headlined the Super Bowl last February, and, according to The Wall Street Journal, "Usher Doesn't Eat On Wednesdays."
Clicking this link will let you watch a video that will show off Usher's dancing, and his songwriting, and his singing. When Lane Florsheim, who interviewed Usher for The Journal, asked him for "one piece of advice that has been important to him," Usher provided the alphabetic listing that is copied out below.
"It's a bit long,"Usher admitted, but he claimed that Florsheim and her readers would "really enjoy it."
A: Avoid negative sources, people, places, things and bad habits.
B: Believe in yourself.
C: Consider things from every angle.
D: Don’t give up, don’t give in and don’t let a damn thing get you down.
E: Enjoy life today. Yesterday is gone and tomorrow will never come.
F: Family and friends are hidden treasures. Talk to them and enjoy their riches.
G: Give more than you plan to give every day.
H: Hang onto your dreams.
I: Ignore the bullshit.
J: Just do it.
K: Keep on trying. No matter how hard it may seem, it will always get easier.
L: Love yourself first, and most importantly, love God always.
M: Make it happen.
N: Never let them see you sweat.
O: Open your eyes, and see everything around you.
P: Practice makes perfect.
Q: Quitters never win, and winners never quit.
R: Read, learn, study about everything important in your life.
S: Stop procrastinating.
T: Take control of your own destiny.
U: Understand yourself first so that you can better understand others.
V: Visualize it.
W: Want it more than anything.
X: You’ve already made your spot on Earth. X marks it.
Y: You’re unique in God’s grace and no one can replace you.
Z: Zero in on your target and go forward.
I did enjoy this listing. Usher, by doing the alphabet, has given us a pretty good "piece of advice," indeed!
In fact, more than one piece, I'd say! Let's take it as a "Sunday Sermon!"
I think it's fair to say that Millman, a former "finance professional," is no fan of the recent legislation now enacted into law after both the Senate and the House of Representatives signed off on a set of policies that will provide permanent reductions in taxes for the very wealthiest Americans, and take away health care, education, and other benefits from the least privileged among us.
In his column, Millman refers to the recent legislation as the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act." This is how our current president has characterized the bill. In fact, though, as Millman properly notes in his column in The Times, "the legislation’s permanent tax cuts combined with spending increases on defense and border security and large cuts to Medicaid and other social spending would add more than $3 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, with more red ink in the years and decades after."
Does that sound "beautiful" to you?
The fact is, and I think Shakespeare was quite aware of this, people tend to believe that a "name" accurately describes the "thing" that is named. And that is not, quite often, true - either as a general proposition, or with specific reference to the "Reverse Robinhood, Rob The Poor And Give To The Rich Act," recently placed into law by the Congress.
All of us need to start calling "balls" and "strikes" as they really are. That should include The New YorkTimes, and its columnists and commentators.
Voters across the nation will give credit to the name of this recent legislation. To those not really getting into the study of what has actually been done, the "intention" of the bill will probably seem "sweet."
But what the Congress and our current president have done is to rob and rape the people of this country.
Today's date, July 4, 2025, comes exactly 249 years after the date that our Declaration of Independence was signed. Next year (God willing that there will be one) is going to be the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. Our celebration, today, is the celebration of the system of government that the American people established, so many years ago. The essence of the Declaration (and the essence of the system of government based upon it) is found in the following statement:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted [...], deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
To repeat what has just been quoted, we have now believed, for almost 250 years, that governments derive their "just powers" from the "consent of the governed." In case it hasn't crossed your mind, this statement is totally inconsistent with any idea that our elected president could ever properly make a claim that, "I, alone, can fix it."
The purpose of our government, as stated in the Declaration, is to secure three fundamental rights to all persons subject to the government (which, in case it hasn't crossed your mind, includes those persons subject to our government but who may not actually be citizens themselves). The rights which our government is directed to "secure" are the following: (1) The right to Life; (2) The right to Liberty; and (3) The right to the pursuit of Happiness.
Those commitments are what we are celebrating today. They are, in fact, "rights," not just words. They are rights for "everyone" (not just citizens).
According to an article in the April 11, 2025, edition of The New York Times, our current president is absolutely serious about obtaining United States control over Greenland. Even though April has now come and gone, I do believe that this is still the case. However, according to the headline that appeared on that article from last April, there might also be a "good news" aspect to the president's plans: Here's the hard-copy version of that headline: "Trump Aims to Persuade, Not Invade, Greenland." Online, as is often the case, the headline is a bit different, but it sends the same message: "Inside Trump’s Plan to ‘Get’ Greenland: Persuasion, Not Invasion."
Well, I am all for "persuasion," instead of "invasion," whatever the question. I had a thought, though, after reading that article, and here it is. When we think about "persuasion" instead of "invasion," with respect to the United States acquiring control and dominion over Greenland, WHO, exactly, needs to be persuaded? That should be Question #1 - at least the way I see it.
Our current president thinks that acquiring control over Greenland would be a good thing. Maybe he's right - and quite possibly he is not right. However, to use an expression I learned from my mother: "Who buzzed his buzzer?"
In other words, as our "Chief Executive," as the head of the "Executive Branch" of government, the president's job is not to think up and then pursue plans that he, and he alone, dreams up, and thinks would be good. The president's job is to execute policies established by our elected representatives, "in Congress assembled."
Before the president is supposed to go galivanting off to "get" Greenland, by either invasion or persuasion, the nation needs to have been persuaded that this would be a good idea. The nation needs to have made a decision about the desirability of doing that, and needs to have decided that this should be a national objective. The president, in other words, got it backwards. Who ever heard of that idea, until our current president took office? Who buzzed his buzzer?
We are coming right up on our permiere national holiday. It's tomorrow. In honor of that day, let's refresh our recollection of how our government is supposed to work. Getting elected as president does not mean that the president gets to do whatever the president thinks might be a great idea.
WE, "the people," have to decide that.
WE need to be "persuaded," first, before anyone purporting to "represent" us starts stating what ought to be done.
Let's not forget that!
And.... one day in advance, here is my wish to all those who might have an occasion to read this:
There really was such a thing as a "Dire Wolf," now extinct. Click this link to read all about it. Many people (myself included), probably relate to the "Dire Wolf" as a species portrayed in "Game of Thrones." Those who know the species only through the fictional world created by George R. R. Martin can be forgiven for thinking that the "Dire Wolf" was a literary creation, not a real-life predator. Martin's wonderful series of fantasy novels, collectively denominated, A Song Of Ice And Fire, is where most of us learned about the "Dire Wolf."
Back in April, there were lots of stories about the "return" of the "Dire Wolf," by way of genetic efforts at "deextinction." Click here for a story from Time Magazine. Here is a link to a story in The New York Times. The Times' story emphasizes the "slap in the face" that one of the scientists experienced when he saw the white coat of the genetically recaptured canine. "Dire Wolves" are bigger, and their bite is stronger than those of ordinary "Gray Wolves." Another feature, of course, is that their coats are "white," as befits a species that inhabits a literary series that incorporates "Ice" into its title.
In fact, though, this "Dire Wolf" revival, and especially the genetic recreation of the wolf's white fur, seems out of synch, doesn't it?
As I presume everyone reading this knows, planetary global warming, which is now threatening to conduct lots of other species into extinction (including, quite possibly, the human species) is going to create a world in which "ice," and "snow," and everything "white," are going to be ever more scarce, if even existing at all.
Maybe, we should focus on combatting global warming, as a higher priority than bringing back the "Dire Wolf," summoning it to a world not of "Ice and Fire," but of "Fire" alone.
As you will see if you read "The Two Visions" document, Marien postulates two alternative futures. One possible future is a "Service Society," which will generate "more affluence, leisure, urbanisation, state intervention, effective use of intellectual technology, and the growth of a new class of professional elites."
Alternatively, Marien outlines a "decentralized" society. He notes that "decentralists regard further industrialism as unworkable, and believe that GNP is an obsolete and misleading measure. Decentralists think the economy is on the brink of collapse, that state intervention is either inept or onerous [or both], and believes that 'technocrats' are ignorant of the real world. Decentralists see self-sufficiency as the good life."
While the document I have attached to the end of this blog posting is "long," I do believe that thinking about these "Two Visions" is worthwhile, even though I instinctively reject the idea that our choices in this life are "binary," and that we are either doomed or destined to live in one world, or the other, pick your favorite flavor now.
The "World," inhabited by all of us is the product of what we do, both individually and collectively. We can, certainly, wait around to find out what happens to us, but when we do that, we are, actually, letting others decide the important questions that we should (and do) care about, so it would be better for us (and for everyone) if we assumed our responsibility for creating the conditions that we then experience.
Observing what is happening to us is all good and well. That's far better than being oblivious. Ultimately, though, most of us don't give ourselves enough credit. That's my belief, anyway. The "World" we inhabit is is, in fact, a "Political World," as the title of this Blog proclaims. Individuals, coming together to act collectively, actually decide what happens, and what kind of world we will create for ourselves, and for our children.
I know, from personal experience, that a small group of dedicated, active, and concerned people can "make history" - and not just at the local level, either, though that is where our individual and collective actions in the political arena are first made manifest.
Fifteen to twenty-five people located in Santa Cruz, California (in the early 1970's) "Saved Lighthouse Field," which was their objective. I was involved. I went on to become a locally-elected official and served for twenty years as a Santa Cruz County Supervisor. During that time, our local government not only fundamentally altered the future then unfolding in our local community, but we helped organize local governments up and down the California coast, and achieved a twenty-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling, preventing new offshore oil production in all coastal areas in the United States where offshore oil production was not already underway. This required sustained action by the United States Congress, and resulted, in addition to the moratorium just described, in the creation of a number of marine sanctuaries, including The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.
What is the "purpose of life"? I think, among other things, that it is to create a world in which we, and all life, can flourish. The "World That God Created" (see the picture above) is coming apart at the seams. We can watch it happen, or we can do something about it.
My advice? "Saddle Up," folks! Don't you dare think, even for a minute, that you, and I (and all of us together) can't transform reality, and create the world we want. Take it from Iris DeMent, who is "working on a world," that she "may never see." The only other actual option is just to watch, and to observe, and to see what kind of world is delivered to us by the actions taken by others.
Are we really willing to let our current president decide?
oooOOOooo
THE TWO VISIONS OF POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY Michael Marien
DECENTRALISM FILE
Michael Marien (1938- ) is the Director of Information for Policy Design, a public policy research and information center located in LaFayette, New York. After receiving his doctorate in social science from the Maxwell School of Syracuse University, Marien became a research fellow at the Educational Policy Research Center of the Syracuse University Research Corporation, where his most extensive publication was a comprehensive bibliography on trends, forecasts and proposals in education. This work led to publication in 1976 of Societal Directions and Alternatives, a cross-indexed and critically annotated bibliography of over a thousand books and articles on current public policy concerns.
In the course of compiling this monumental work, and in editing the subsequent bimonthly “Public Policy Book Forecast” newsletter, Marien was struck by the fact that there seem to be two quite different usages of the term “post industrial society”, and that the proponents of one have no interest in, understanding of, or contact with the proponents of the other.
Marien points out that the proponents of a decentralist future have been remarkably ineffective in getting their vision onto the national policy agenda, which is totally dominated by advocates of the “post industrial service society”. Unless decentralists overcome this serious debility, Marien argued, Western society has little to look forward to than continued efforts to promote economic “growth” in conventional terms, combined with efforts to address unemployment problems by expanding the service sector labor force.
The following excerpt is the concluding section of Marien’s article, “The Two Visions of Post-Industrial Society”, from 9 Futures: The Journal of Planning and Forecasting 415-431, October 1977 (England).
“It is useful to summarise some of the key differences between the two visions of post-industrial society, keeping in mind that the liberal “limits-to-growth” position lies somewhere in between, employing much or the ecological, post-materialistic rhetoric of the decentralists while maintaining the assumptions of the service society.
Who holds what position? Advocates of the service society arc virtually all social scientists (particularly those who are successful in conventional terms), and a few Marxist historians and social reformers. Those favouring decentralisation often have an intellectual background in the humanities, although, increasingly, they are joined by ecologists. There are no survey data, but there would probably be little correlation with social class and income, and a strong correlation with location in urban or rural areas and with the degree of affiliation with large institutions.
Methods employed. Service society advocates promulgate their views as objective forecasts and often use various quantitative methodologies; decentralists speak openly of their values and stress “alternatives” or “alternative futures”.
Key concepts. Service society advocates claim general progress in recent years involving more affluence, leisure, urbanisation, state intervention, effective use of intellectual technology, and growth of the new class of professional elites. Decentralists regard further industrialism as unworkable. GNP as an obsolete and misleading measure, the economy as on the brink of collapse, state intervention as inept or onerous, technocrats as ignorant of the real world, and self-sufficiency as the good life.
Attitude toward technology. Service society advocates view technological growth as inevitable; if it has caused problems, only new technology can solve them, and technology assessment can prohibit or restrict undesirable developments. Decentralists hail intermediate, small, appropriate or convivial technologies, which cost less and can be used and understood by most people.
Ultimate future. Service society advocates see the inevitability of bureaucracy, growing interdependence in the national and global community, and the impossibility of returning to a more agrarian society. Decentralists stress self-help and independence in small local communities, and the necessity and desirability of returning, to some degree, to an agrarian life.
View of opposing position. Service society advocates ignore decentralists or see them as nihilistic, romantic, anti-science, anti-progress, ineffective, utopian, and moralistic. Decentralists view their opponents as amoral technocrats, elitist experts, reductionists, middle class welfare careerists, and the tools of big government, big business, and big labor.
In an unguarded moment, Alvin Toffler described the contrast as “people of the future” versus “people of the present” and “people of the past”. On the other side, E. F. Schumacher distinguishes between “people of the forward stampede” and “the homecomers” who seek to return to certain basic truths about man and his world”. The Mother Earth News hints at an even simpler pair of labels: the difference between “Playboy” and “Plowboy”.
There is little problem in viewing the decentralist or eco-agrarian view as an ideology, a system of beliefs, or, as described by Daniel Bell, a “secular religion”. But Bell’s definition of ideology insists that it must be accompanied by passion, a definition that comfortably shields the covert ideology of the proponents of the scientific service society.
A careful reading of Bell’s cumbersome opus. The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (which is more accurately seen as a venture in welfare-state ideology) will reveal a great number of statements that promote science, technology, and professionalism in their present forms. For example, the emerging ethos of post-industrial society is seen as the ethos of science; the technocratic mode is seen as the mode of efficiency—of getting things done; it is predicted that there will be more social-mindedness in the professions; and the norms of professionalism are described as the norms of the new intelligentsia, departing from the prevailing norms of economic self-interest.
Professionalism flourishes in a welfare state of abundant services, and new concepts of property prevail, the most pervasive manifestation being a new definition of social rights, as claims on the community to ensure equality of treatment (the most important right being that of full access to education). Bell sees the politics of the future as a concern of the communal society. The argument advanced in the present article is that the predominant characteristic of the politics of the future will be the conflict of views surrounding the very notion of a communal society.
Finally, Bell fires a broadside at the non-scientists:
“In the social structure of the knowledge society, there is for example, the deep and growing split between the technical intelligentsia who are committed to functional rationality and technocratic modes of operation, and the literary intellectuals, who have become increasingly apocalyptic, hedonistic, and nihilistic.”
“This division is no doubt aggravated by such a characterisation, and by the recurring tacit suggestion that the knowledge of science and technology is the only knowledge that matters.”
At present, the vision of the service society is still the dominant vision of post-industrial society. But it has been severely weakened in this decade by the environmental crisis, the energy crisis, and the economic recession. The threats of pollution have added new and unexpected costs to the production of food and material goods, aiding the arguments of those who advocate organic agriculture. The energy crisis has made us deeply aware of our finite resources and has also supported the argument for less wasteful methods of production. Finally, the unanticipated economic difficulties have made expansion of the service sector far more difficult, at least for the near future.
If the energy crisis is effectively solved by the emergence of some low-cost technology or technologies, the sense of unbounded affluence might return; there would then be ample wealth for expanding the service sector. But continuing economic difficulties would favour decentralisation and the promulgation of a greater degree of self-sufficiency.
Apart from the fortunes of the economy, another major factor in the future of decentralisation is the ineffectiveness of the decentralists in presenting their arguments. The advocates of a service society have a strong political voice and are well established in the academic world and in think-tanks, which are seen as the key institutions of the projected society. Advocates of the decentralist view, on the other hand, tend to be involved in small organisations, not, appropriately enough, in large institutions.
The result in the USA is an unequal contest between institutional Goliaths with short names, like Brookings, Harvard, Rand, and the Urban Institute, and little Davids with long names, such as the Institute for Liberty and Community, the International Independence Institute, the Institute for Self-Reliance, and the Princeton Center for Alternative Futures. Moreover, many decentralists are apolitical, tending to work in their gardens or to organise do-it-yourself co-ops, rather than to press their demands on government or engage in policy debates. Indeed, for anyone who regards government assistance as inept or corrupting, it would be inappropriate to do so. And in that many decentralists lack the credentials and conceptual tools to debate with the technocratic elites, they are excluded from, and/or exclude themselves from, serious discussions of economic and social policy. Finally, the decentralist argument tends to be excessively romantic, with back-to-the-earth visions of the independent good life or communal experimentation proposed as the solution to many or our urban ills. The vision, of the service society, however, arc seldom seen as romantic because they are issued by experts, in a reasonably sober style.
Despite these severe handicaps, the decentralist position in the 1970s is gaining strength. The major battleground in the near future may well be in agriculture, where the reigning forces of high-technology, capital-intensive, chemical agriculture may be effectively challenged by the eco-agrarian forces, which advocate small-scale organic agriculture—to conserve energy, produce more some wholesome food, reinvigorate rural communities, and provide jobs.”
