#215 / The Majesty Of The Magnificent Moguls

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

The image above is associated with an article that ran in The New York Times on June 29, 2026. Online, the article ran under this headline: "Investors In Public Companies Are Losing Their Voting Rights." That headline doesn't reveal how or why this loss of voting rights has occurred and is occurring. 

The hardcopy version of the article has a different headline, and that one does make clear just why investors in public companies are being stripped of the voting rights that have, traditionally, gone along with ownership of shares in a public company. Here's the hardcopy headline: "Tech Moguls Are Limiting Voter Clout Of Investors."

The online headline doesn't assign any responsibility. That hardcopy headline does! Pictured front and center in the picture, above, is Bret Johnsen, the chief financial officer of SpaceX, with the photo taken on the day of the company's "Independent Public Offering," or IPO. Wikipedia identifies Johnsen as "an American billionaire business executive," making him one of the "Moguls" spotlighted by The Times' hardcopy headline. 

I think that The Times' article is worth reading. Use the link in the first paragraph of this blog posting to access it. I am told that even non-subscribers should be able to read the whole thing. 

In short, what The Times' article is telling us is that it used to be taken for granted that if you invested your money in a company, you became the "owner" of a "share" of the company in which you invested. That's the reality to which the name, "share of stock," refers. 

This idea is no longer automatically true. When you invest in a company, you don't, automatically, become one of the "owners" of the company, according to the "share" of the company that is reflected in your financial commitment to it. Here's how it's going now, according to that article in The Times: 

One share, one vote. 

It’s a longstanding principle of investing in a publicly traded company that means that the number of shares an investor owns is equal to the number of votes he or she can cast on critical issues like mergers and acquisitions, board appointments and executive pay. 

SpaceX’s entry in the stock market is the latest challenge to this principle, swelling the ranks of large and influential public companies that give shareholders little say in how they are run. 

The arrangement means that even after Mr. Musk’s company sold more than $85 billion in shares in its record-setting initial public offering, he still maintains control. It echoes similar moves by other founder-led technology behemoths like Alphabet, which went public in 2004, when the company was known as Google, and Meta, which went public in 2012 when it was called Facebook. Mr. Musk owns about 40 percent of SpaceX shares but controls over 80 percent of the votes. Mark Zuckerberg, who founded Meta, owns about 13 percent of Meta shares but controls about 60 percent of votes. And Larry Page and Sergey Brin, the founders of Google, together own about 10 percent of Alphabet but control more than 50 percent of votes (emphasis added).

 In case you haven't noticed, the "Moguls" want our country to be run on the same principle. "One person, one vote." Do you remember that slogan from our battle to include both women and racial "minorities" in the system of democratic decision-making that we would like to believe operates to provide us with what most people call "democracy"?

Watch out, folks! "Democracy" means "voting." "Self-government" is something that is related, but is actually quite different. Unless we start asserting ourselves politically (and we can, with respect to stock ownership issues, and with respect to issues relating to the power of the voters in general) we are headed into an autocracy of the majestic and magnificent, big-money "moguls" who seem to think that they know better than the rest of us what we all ought to be doing. 

If you read my blog with any regularity - and I do encourage that - you have heard this message before!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/25/business/spacex-shares-ipo.html

#214 / Faith And Practice (Which Comes First?)

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

From time to time, I revisit some of my past blog postings - perhaps just to remind myself of what I used to think. It turns out, when I do engage in this kind of research into my personal past, that I usually discover that I am continuing to think just what I used to think. I am betting that this is not that unusual! 

I started making daily blog postings on January 1, 2010, and I recently found that one of my earliest blog postings, published on March 17, 2010, was titled "Quakerism 101." Here is a brief excerpt from that blog posting, from more than sixteen years ago: 

Members of the Religious Society of Friends don't pledge themselves to any specific and commonly held liturgy, doctrine, or creed in connection with their membership. They do, however, record what might be thought of as their religious "findings" in books of "Faith and Practice." These publications are the "discipline" that guides Quakers in their worship, and in their participation in the larger society. "Faith and Practice" books are usually published by various Yearly Meetings. Yearly Meetings are generally larger, regional associations of Monthly Meetings, which are the local unit of worship and membership. 

[PLEASE NOTE: Despite their name - "Monthly Meetings" - these regular "meetings for worship" are actually held weekly. If you're from somewhere around Santa Cruz, California, you can click here for information on the Santa Cruz Monthly Meeting, and note that,"You're Invited!"]

One might assume that the title of what amounts to an "instruction manual" for Quakers - "Faith and Practice" - reveals how things go, and how they are supposed to go, in the religious lives of those who call themselves "Quakers." One might well think that "Faith" comes first, and then "Practice" follows. I'm not so sure that's wrong, either!

However, I have recently had what the Quakers would probably call a new, and different, "leading." I have found that "Practice," when it comes first, actually may be an origin and bulwark of "Faith" - or, at least, "Practice" may be one real and effective route to "Faith." 

Quaker "Practice," which involves being still, and waiting for a "leading" from the Spirit, does prove an avenue to "Faith." I can absolutely testify to the truth of this, from my own personal experience. Daily "Prayer" is, obviously another kind of religious "Practice," and that, too, may lead to "Faith." 

Not long ago, and I can't remember where - but somewhere on the Internet, I am almost certain - I read that it is expected that Christians should pray the Lord's Prayer on a daily basis. If you look to Wikipedia, for guidance on "Christian Prayer," here's what you'll find: 

The most prominent prayer among Christians is the Lord's Prayer, which, according to the gospel accounts (e.g. Matthew 6:9-13) is how Jesus taught his disciples to pray. The injunction for Christians to pray the Lord's Prayer thrice daily was given in Didache 8, 2 f., which, in turn, was influenced by the Jewish practice of praying thrice daily found in the Old Testament, specifically in Psalm 55:17, which suggests "evening and morning and at noon," and Daniel 6:10, in which the prophet Daniel prays thrice a day. The early Christians thus came to recite the Lord's Prayer thrice a day at 9 am, 12 pm, and 3 pm, [and] many Lutheran and Anglican churches ring their church bells from bell-towers three times a day: in the morning, at noon and in the evening, summoning the Christian faithful to recite the Lord’s Prayer.

Now, I was not praying daily (and certainly not three times a day). That's a "Practice" I had not incorporated into my daily life. Having been given the idea that such a "Practice" is what I ought to be doing, and incorporating that practice into my daily life, I have started doing that. 

The result - if you'll credit me, here, and this is a report based on my personal experience - has been a noticeable and growing "Faith" that I (and we) will sustain and survive all of the immense trials, tribulations, and troubles that confront us, and all the dangers and distress that we are dealing with right now. Please note that I most certainly am thinking about our politics. "Practice" has preceded "Faith" in my recent experience. 

So, I am just passing along this observation, in case anyone who reads this blog posting might want to see if the same is true for them. Just a genuine statement of my personal experience - for anyone who would like to "give it a try." 

If you don't already know The Lord's Prayer, here it is: 

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive those that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/2008/08/george-fox/

#213 / The Queen Of August

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

My wife, Marilyn, and I have had a long (and very wonderful) life together. Maybe you can pick us out of the picture I have featured. It was taken in China, shortly after we met.

Marilyn's birthday is August 1st. At family gatherings in honor of the day, she has sometimes been celebrated as the "Queen of August." I wouldn't be surprised if I were told that the picture above was taken on August 1st, but my memory is not that good! It could have been!

I try to get birthday greetings out to my friends and acquaintances on their birthdays. Here's a salute to that Queen of August, with love and gratitude!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

Shirley Pang (Callahan LeMelle)

#212 / Socialism Versus Capitalism

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A Facebook Friend published the image above, just shortly before our recent July 4th holiday, which marked the 250th anniversary of the American Revolution. 

I majored in history in college, and if I am remembering things right, when we created our democratic republic - by and after the American Revolution - we did not identify our newly-created government as either "socialist" or "capitalist." 

I want to suggest today, even though our memorable 250th anniversary has passed, that Americans should double down on the governmental system that we initiated after that revolution. One name for it is "democratic self-government." Some call it "democracy." I do prefer the "self-government" designation, since I think that's the main point. 

Just as I deplore our ever more partisan and polarized politics - so often reduced, now, to Red v. Blue, or Republican v. Democrat - I deplore the idea that self-government needs to take a back seat to some economic system. Bi-polar disorder comes in various flavors. What system do you believe in?

Let's stop thinking that we need to pick some economic system as the key to government. 

Let's believe in ourselves!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.facebook.com/democraticsocialismnow

#211 / When Do We Fire Our Nuclear Weapons?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. writes for The Wall Street Journal. That's his picture, above. In a column published in late June, Jenkins provided a little information on when the United States government plans to fire off its nuclear weapons (emphasis added):

It may be hard to get your mind around, but the U.S. government is ... panicked now over potential loss of control of its information domain...  In 2018... it conspicuously added strategic cyberattacks to the short list of provocations that might prompt a U.S. nuclear response. Then came an early 2025 paper by former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and colleagues. It warned that China might pre-emptively strike U.S. data centers if it feared it was losing the race to artificial superintelligence.

May I make a comment? The proper time to use nuclear weapons is... (wait for it): NEVER.

I suggest that the United States of America start working to make sure that no off-the-wall president, or even an "on-the-wall" president - and even when encouraged to do so by a Wall Street Journal columnist, or anyone else - is ever able to push that button. 

I retrieved the picture above from an article in SciTech Daily headlined this way: "How To Shelter From a Nuclear Explosion." Ha! Now there's a "joke headline."

Let me say it again: There is no "acceptable use" of nuclear weapons. EVER. Let's start working to make sure that neither our country, or any other country, is possessed of an ability actually to do so. 

Eliminating the threat of nuclear war will not be easy. I know that the genie is out of the bottle - and, yes, I'm looking at you, Israel, and Russia, and China, and North Korea, and Pakistan, and Great Britain, etc. And, most of all, I am looking at THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

Never! Whatever the excuse! So let's get to work on making that impossible, however great the temptation, starting with the United States of America.

Home Sweet Home!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credits:

(1) - https://www.wsj.com/opinion/government-isnt-doing-better-on-ai-than-on-ufos-789197a3

(2) - https://scitechdaily.com/how-to-shelter-from-a-nuclear-explosion/

#210 / Belle Burden And Some Good Advice

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

So, what do you think about Belle Burden's divorce? Holly Peterson, writing in The Wall Street Journal, has some definite opinions. If you'd like to get her view, click the following link to read Peterson's article, which is titled, "What The Obsession With Belle Burden’s ‘Strangers’ Says About America." 

If you are like me, you might first like to know who Belle Burden is. I didn't know anything at all about Belle Burden (in fact, I had never even heard of her) until I started writing out this blog posting and went to the Internet for information. 

Apparently, Belle Burden is some kind of high society "somebody." Her mother, Amanda Burden, has an extensive Wikipedia profile (big money and political connections are extensively mentioned). Belle Burden doesn't have her own Wikipedia entry (at least at the time I am typing out this blog posting). However, I invite anyone interested to do a Google search on "Belle Burden, Strangers." Holly Peterson is not the only one who has some opinions about Belle Burden's divorce, and about Burden's description of that divorce in Strangers. After glancing through five pages plus of Google results, I think that "obsession" does seem to be a good word to describe the public's engagement with Belle Burden's book. 

Here's a link to information about the book. The cover of the book contains the following endorsement by Joyce Carol Oates: "Riveting... Examines the very nature of intimacy." 

I haven't read Strangers, but I did enjoy learning about the controversies it has engendered, and I particularly liked the following observation, found in the Peterson commentary in The Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):

Whenever the topic of “Strangers” comes up, and it does constantly in my professional and social groups, I can’t help but bring up my one crucial question: “What do we think the husband’s side is?” 

Suggesting we imagine the husband’s experience during the marriage and subsequent breakup feels like I’ve broken a blood oath with women warriors. The reaction is swift, defensive and many times delivered with the vitriol of an adolescent facing the cosmic injustice of screen-time limits. 

“He’s despicable!” 

“He tried to take her houses!” 

“He never wanted to see the kids again!” 

People glare at me as if I’d shot their dog. 

I’m not defending anyone’s behavior. I’m proposing a discussion. Why do so many readers I speak to believe they can be a fair judge presiding over every moment of this couple’s dreams and disappointments? 

A refusal to sit in the gray area hasn’t just infected how we digest the latest literary sensation; this mode of communicating (or not communicating) has taken over our entire political and social discourse.

"Sitting in the gray area" is something we all need to learn how to do. I am thinking, particularly, about political polarization (not divorce controversies) as I say this. Click that link and you will see that my concerns about this are not new.

In order to address the problems that we confront (and we do confront them "together"), we need to get beyond polarized descriptions, and polarized understandings, about how the world works, and is working, and what we need to do about it. 

That's true within marriages (and when marriages are dissolved). It's also true - really true - when we think about self-government, and how we can accomplish that, given that while we are "in this together," we do have different experiences and different views. 

That "in between" area is, perhaps, properly described as "gray." It's certainly not "black or white," and it's not "Red" or "Blue," either!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.wsj.com/arts-culture/books/belle-burden-strangers-divorce-070c03c6

#209 / We Might Well Ask Ourselves, "Why?"

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Why should a middle-class nurse pay a larger share of her paycheck [to Social Security] than a wealthy corporate lawyer?

The question I have posed above comes from Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Moreno, writing in The New York Times, in a column whose online title reads as follows: "Bernie Moreno and Elizabeth Warren: Our Plan to Save Social Security."

That's Bernie Moreno, in the picture at the top. I am telling you this just in case you didn't immediately recognize him (and I'm betting that anyone reading this blog posting probably didn't). I know a lot about Elizabeth Warren, and would recognize her anywhere, but I certainly wouldn't know Bernie Moreno if he knocked on my door - something that is highly unlikely, since Moreno is the senior U.S. Senator from Ohio, and I am virtually certain that he does not regularly visit or vacation in Santa Cruz!

In case you're totally clueless, our Social Security System is heading for real problems, the key problem being that the monies being placed into the Social Security Trust fund are not going to be adequate to fund future Social Security payments, starting in 2030, or thereabouts. 

If you click the link I have provided above, and read the Moreno-Warren article (it's a "gift" article and should be available even to non-subscribers), you can find out more. The key point I am attempting to highlight is that if those people who have annual incomes above $184,500 were to pay the same percentage into Social Security that people pay who have the same annual income that I do (and that you do, too, probably) the Social Security System's solvency would be extended for another generation. 

As Warren and Moreno correctly note: 

This is a no-brainer: The wealthiest Americans, who have benefited the most from America’s opportunities, should contribute the same percentage of their income as a factory worker in Chillicothe, Ohio, or a teacher in Worcester, Mass.

Or, I might say, a teacher or a restaurant employee in my own hometown of Santa Cruz, California.

So, we might well ask ourselves, "Why?" Why don't they? 

Well, the rich get let off the hook because our political system is reacting to the power of money. It's supposed to react to the power of the people. 

Who do you think could do something about that?

Right! YOU could!

And me, too, of course!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/bernie-moreno-ohio-senate-win-election-sherrod-brown-rcna173881

 

#208 / Speaking About The Unspeakable

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

You can call this blog posting a "book review," if you'd like. It isn't, though, a full-on book review, but is more properly seen as my quick and very personal commentary on JFK And The Unspeakable, a 2008 book by James W. Douglass, which I have just finished reading. A picture from the cover of the book is presented above. 

Wikipedia has a write-up on the book, and Douglass has written a follow-on book, too, Martyrs To The Unspeakable: The Assassinations Of JFK, Malcolm, Martin, And RFK, which was published in 2025. I have also read that second book. In fact, I read the second book first. I am recommending them both!

John C. McAdams, formerly an associate professor of political science at Marquette University, taught courses on American politics and public policy - and he taught a course on the John F. Kennedy assassination. His views are quoted in the Wikipedia write-up on Douglass's book that I have linked above. They are not very flattering. McAdams is quoted as follows: 

As bad as Douglass's account of Kennedy's foreign policy is, his depiction of a plot to murder JFK is worse—unspeakably bad, in fact. To paraphrase Thomas Merton, Douglass's muse and inspiration, the bunk and nonsense Douglass recycles goes beyond the capacity of words to describe. He is utterly uncritical of any theory, any witness, and any factoid, as long as it implies conspiracy."

I do not agree with McAdams. I found both of Douglass's books quite believable and quite compelling. The second book, so recently published, essentially argues that the "security state" that Douglass credits with the assassination of JFK has continued in existence ever since, and is ultimately in charge of what we think of as our democratically-elected national government. 

If Douglass's analyses of the assassinations of John Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy are correct, there is no certainty, whatsoever, that our nation is, in fact, being governed by a system of democratic, citizen self-government. 

As the Wikipedia write-up tells us, the titles to both of Douglass's books contain an allusion to Thomas Merton's 1966 book, Raids On The Unspeakable, which, according to Douglass, refers to "a kind of systemic evil that defies speech" (emphasis added). 

Is our nation, in fact, in the inexorable grip of such an evil? Many who contemplate what is happening in our nation, today, and what is happening around the world, are, in fact, succumbing to a despair that can be traced back to some sense that current events, and our future, are in the grip of some terrible and nameless horror - some unspeakable evil - that truly is, somehow, beyond definition. 

I choose not to succumb to any such despair, but I do want to say that evil is "real," just as the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., and RFK were all too "real," and which assassinations were grounded in evil realities which we have not confronted, and are perhaps afraid to confront, even in our most private thinking. 

The idea that some ominous, and unspeakable, and evil force is driving us towards annihilation, towards the extinction of life on Earth (the exact terror that Douglass tells us that President Kennedy faced, and then acted to confront) can, in fact immobilize us. The antidote will be found as we find each other, and as we join hands in our determination to respond to the all-too-dire realities that are here and now, and that will face us in the future, and to remember that the world which we most immediately inhabit is, and will be, in the future, a world that we create, ourselves, by what we do - together!

At the top of each one of my blog postings, I present our situation, as I see it:

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.”

We should honor and respect the World of Nature, the World That God Created, and we should never forget that its limits are real limits which bind us, and both demand and deserve our respect. Still..... it is just as important fully to understand how powerful our freedom is, because in the Human World, the world that we create, there is nothing that is impossible. 

Some might say this is an odd, or even an uncalled-for reaction, but I found JFK And The Unspeakable to be a story that can help empower us - and that can fill us with courage - and not a story that must inevitably send us into a spiral of despair.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/2834255-jfk-and-the-unspeakable

#207 / Telling The Awful Truth

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Pictured above is Jim Windolf. 

As I mentioned a short while back, in one of these blog postings, Windolf is an editor for The New York Times. He has also just written his first book - a book about The Beatles and Bob Dylan. Windolf's book documents their amazingly intense interactions, interactions which have been much more extensive than I ever knew - and also much more profound. Windolf's book is titled, Where The Music Had To Go. 

On Pages 306 and 307, right near the end of his book, Windolf speaks about his personal understanding of life, and of the meaning of life. "Life," Windolf says, "is wonderful and horrible. The hours may pass sweetly, but we know from an early age that we're under a death sentence." Artists, Windolf contends, "record it all from deep inside experience and thought." He honors and celebrates how both Dylan and The Beatles have done just that - individually, and sometimes together. 

The following observation immediately follows Windolf's statements about life, and about how artists experience and react to it: 

"An artist tells the awful truth simply to tell it and to make a genuine connection with other people." 

Windolf's statement about what he calls the "awful truth" about life, took me aback. I certainly can't disagree that we learn - and usually early, as Windolf says - that we're all going to have to die. I have made exactly that point repeatedly in my sixteen years of writing my daily commentaries in this blog. Memento Mori is the phrase I have most often used to deliver this reminder. 

However, when you click that "Memento Mori" link, above, and visit my blog posting from 2021, you will find that the "Memento Mori" reminder that we must die is supposed to be a message of "comfort." 

The word "awful" is what takes me aback, I think, in what Windolf says right at the end of his book.

Merriam-Webster lists the following as the very first definition of "awful."

(1) - extremely disagreeable or objectionable

But... (and this definition is not the one that usually comes to mind) "awful" can also mean:

(3) - "inspiring awe."

If that's what "awful" means, in what Windolf writes, my immediate reaction to his statement about the "awful truth" of our life can be set aside. In fact, I deeply believe that the "truth" we most need to recognize about our life is that it does present us, in fact, with an "awe-filled" truth, and not an "awful" truth, as that word "awful" is most commonly used. 

What Windolf reports in his book really does fill the reader - with me, at least - with a sense of "awe" at what both Dylan and The Beatles have done with their music. Their music, so much of it, is a revelation of how important, and wonderful, it is to have been permitted to be alive in this world of celebration, challenge, and woe. 

This world of celebration most of all!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Jim-Windolf/223380705

#206 / Sasse On The Filibuster

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

That's Ben Sasse, pictured. From 2015 to 2023, Sasse served as a United States Senator, representing the state of Nebraska. Sasse was diagnosed with stage four pancreatic cancer last December, but "rather than retreat into seclusion with his family, Sasse is choosing to die in a visible and vocal way. Sasse spends the few hours he has every day communicating his vision for America and his optimism about the future."

As part of his effort to get the word out on the things he cares most about, Sasse published an editorial statement in the July 20, 2026, edition of The Wall Street Journal. Online, Sasse's statement was titled, "America Needs The Filibuster." If you click that link, you should be able to read Sasse's argument in its entirety. 

Below, I am providing you with an excerpt (emphasis added). I, personally, think that Sasse makes a pretty good argument in favor of the filibuster:

Articles I, II and III of the Constitution divide power among three federal branches: legislative, executive and judicial. Each branch checks the others, but the Founders put the most authority in legislative hands. As a result, we divide lawmaking power yet again, between two very different bodies. We put the House and Senate on different time horizons and give them different constituencies. 

The upper house is built for the long view, with six-year terms that encourage a deliberative trustee model of representation. Senators owe their states both judgment and conscience. The House provides faster-loop warnings about public frustrations. Two-year terms and smaller districts combine to encourage a more urgent, passionate delegate model of representation. 

Despite these differences, enacting a federal law requires navigating both complex institutions in the same 24-month window and also giving the president an opportunity to weigh in. It’s a long shot by design. We do this in part to give the public time to come aboard—or to object angrily. We also do it because civic life works better when one-size-fits-all nationwide laws come with buy-in from large cross-sections of this continental republic. 

That’s American Constitutionalism 101. While the Senate’s filibuster rule isn’t in the text of the most glorious political document ever written, it plays a critical role in limiting and dividing power. Via procedural requirements to secure a supermajority of 60 votes before legislation can be passed, the filibuster safeguards the spirit of the Constitution’s anticonsolidation objective and prevents the misery of never-ending Flight 93 elections.

This argument, as I said, seems to make a pretty good case for the filibuster. "American Constitutionalism 101" does demand a "division of powers," and our Constitution does intend to encourage give and take, as national policy is developed, with compromise being, essentially, required, not just wished for. 

There is, though, a problem with Sasse's endorsement of the filibuster - at least in the current state of our politics. The "Constitutionalism 101" model of our national policy-making system depends on the idea that decisions that impact the nation, are supposed to be made by the legislature. Currently, our politics is not working that way. The "reign" of the current president (I use the word advisedly) is premised on the idea that "I, alone, can fix it." Our current president is the only one who has ever had the effrontery to say this out loud. However, a politics that lets the Executive, not the Legislature, make most of the key decisions renders the Legislative Branch almost irrelevant - and this has been going on for a long time!

Want to go to war? Well, who decides that? It appears, from the most recent decisions on that topic, that it is the president, and the president alone, who decides on whether the nation is to go to war. What about other major policy decisions - like whether or not to withdraw humanitarian aid, killing hundreds of thousands of babies in Africa? Again, recent experience says it's the Executive who makes those decisions (or maybe one or another of the current president's billionaire/trillionaire friends and major political contributors). If the Congress had to decide these questions (as "Constitutionalism 101" would require), neither of those decisions would have gone forward. 

The failure of the Legislative branch, subordinating itself to the Executive, has become even more destructive of good, democratic decision-making because of the extreme polarization of our politics. Instead of legislative decision-making being tied to compromises coming out of discussions and decisions of hundreds of different members of Congress, who come from different states, and who, thus, have different ideas, and different priorities, both the House and the Senate are now, almost always, either "Red" or "Blue," "Republican" or "Democrat," and the choices are binary. Since whoever is the president leads "the party," an argument that policy changes should be made operates on a four-year minimum turnaround time. 

Sasse's argument is this: 

The filibuster prevents the dramatic pendulum swings that are the natural result of simple-majority lawmaking. Every election and every vote becomes an existential crisis in a system that no longer plods through checks and balances.... 

Unfortunately, we already have the problem that Sasse claims that the filibuster is intended to solve, and the problem is related to the primacy given to the president, when the president is supposed to "execute" the policy decisions made by the Congress. Instead of worrying about the filibuster, right now, I suggest, that we solve our current problem. 

I have not been hesitant in suggesting that electing our current president was a "mistake." If we want to get back to "Constitutionalism 101," we are going to have to make government "by the people" actually work. It's not working now; that's for sure. The only way it can work is if we, the people, take charge and assert political control over those Members of Congress who are supposed to "represent us" - and who can actually do so, too, if they'll just use their power as it's supposed to be used. 

It's a delusion to think that it's enough just to make a binary choice and put a new "party" in charge, to to elect a new president. Great to do both, but the structural problem is that our Congress is no longer setting national policy - which means that "we, the people," aren't setting national policy, That, in the end, is a problem for which we have no one but ourselves to blame.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ben-sasse-dismisses-some-christian-nationalism-as-impractical.html

#205 / Eight Tribes?

 

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Kristen Soltis Anderson is a New York Times Opinion writer. She is also a pollster for the Republican Party. Anderson's politics, in other words, are undoubtedly quite different from my own. One of her "Guest Essays," however, which was published online in The Times on July 20, 2026, does have at least one observation with which I definitely agree. The Times titled Anderson's "Guest Essay" as follows: "America Has Eight Political Tribes. Which One Do You Belong to?" Clicking the link should let even non-subscribers read about Anderson's "Eight Tribes." 

Here's the statement from Anderson's essay with which I am unequivocally in agreement (the key assertions are bolded in the quotation, below): 

Voters are rarely in complete alignment with one political party or the other. They might lean to the left on guns and abortion but turn out to be law-and-order hawks on border security and policing. Some purists might see this as ideological incoherence; as a pollster, I call it completely normal. 

In fact, it is the rigid alignment within the parties in Congress, which has increased over the years, that is abnormal. We have a two-party system, but the American electorate is much more complex than the partisan binary would have you believe.

I have been - and rather frequently, too - pontificating in my daily blog postings against the "polarization" of our politics, which promotes the idea that we, the people (citizens and voters), have essentially two choices. You can either vote "Blue" or "Red," "Democrat" or "Republican." Our politics, in other words, is said to give us a simple binary choice. Pick your poison!

That "pick your poison" expression came immediately to mind, because to the degree that our politics has been, and is, relegating us to a "binary" choice, that politics has truly been "poisoned" for many, many citizens and voters. The reason for our widespread rejection of politics is the implicit demand that every one of us needs to select the "team" with which we wish to affiliate. Again, you're either "Red" or "Blue," "Republican" or "Democrat." LOTS of us don't see ourselves in this binary way, where politics is concerned, and so lots of us are rejecting "politics" itself, since it seems that you do need to "pick a side" if you want to get involved in politics in any meaningful way. 

I disagree that politics is best understood as providing us with a "binary" choice, and the bolded statements from Anderson's Opinion Essay are absolutely on target, I think. 

Where I disagree with Anderson is her suggestion that there are, actually, eight different political "tribes." Eight choices, rather than two, is an improvement, I guess, but I think that there is always a fallacy involved when we turn an observation into a statement about the nature of "reality." I definitely disagree that the "tribes" that Anderson identifies are "realities," and that the citizens and voters of the United States can be defined within one of the categories advanced by Anderson.

In fact, we are all "different," individually, and we also change our opinions and our allegiances based on both our observations and our experience. Trying to "understand" and "define" politics by "tribes," or "categories," is always to mistate what "politics" is actually about. "Politics" is the methodology we use to govern ourselves, as a diverse public, millions of people, different, individually, in almost every way, but all "Equal," as the Declaration of Independence so properly notes. 

If we look at how our Constitution tries to establish a framework to guide our experiment in self-government, we see that we expect to govern not on the basis of "parties," or "tribes," but on the basis of geographically-linked "elected representatives," who represent and are responsible to hundreds of thousands of different individuals. These elected representatives (collectively known as the Congress), then have to come to an agreement - of some kind - with hundreds of their colleagues, who represent different "districts," and through the "district" system, hundreds of thousands of other citizens and voters. 

Where has our "politics" gone wrong?

Well, if we really believe in "self-government," we need to be involved in government ourselves. That's the first big failing in our contemporary political life. "Politics" gives us "government," and that means that we each need, in some real way, to be involved in "politics." 

What kind of political involvement am I talking about? Based on the idea that we "govern" by first electing representatives, to make political decisions for us, we need to get involved in the elections by which we pick our representatives. Thereafter, we need to follow what those elected representatives do, to try to make sure that they actually do what we want them to do. We do both of these things by getting organized with others, who agree with our concerns, and then (as necessary) we cajole, harass, or inspire our elected representatives to do what we want them to do. If our representatives don't seem to be doing what we want them to do, we then need to organize to  replace those representatives who are failing effectively to "represent" the constituents as they are supposed to. 

Personal, political involvement by a significant number of citizens and voters is the key to democratic self-government. It's a lot of fun (but there's a lot of work involved, too, of course). Note, that if the government isn't doing a good job representing what the voters and the citizens actually want, the voters and citizens have to make them do so. If the citizens and voters think that's too much work (which is frequently true), then they shouldn't expect the government to function in a way that achieves what the people actually want. 

Our current "pick your poison" system of political polarization essentially lets citizens and voters off the hook. Our political "parties" become the decision-makers, and money (as always) will almost always win the day.

"Red" or "Blue," or eight different "Tribes"? It's no wonder that people hate "politics!"  

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/20/opinion/voters-political-parties-coalitions.html

#204 / Balcony Solar

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

Robinson Meyer has some good news to share. In an article on the Opinion page of The New York Times, Meyer tells us that "Backyard Solar Is The Next Frontier." Online, Meyer's article is titled, "The Tiny Solar Panel That Could Change America."

The purpose of my blog posting today is not so much to comment ("hip, hip, hooray" would be an appropriate comment), but rather to alert anyone reading this blog posting that there may be a pretty cheap, pretty easy, and pretty effective way for you to join the fight against Global Warming (even if you're a renter). 

"Backyard" solar is also called "Balcony" solar. Here are a few excerpts from Meyer's article, though I do encourage you to read the whole thing (something that The Times says you can do by clicking that link I have provided in the first paragraph - even if you're a non-subscriber):

It’s not so easy to harvest the sunshine if you live in America. Homeowners can hire someone to install solar on their rooftops, but it can take many years for it to pay for itself. You might be able to buy a share in a nearby solar farm, but only if you’re lucky enough to live in a place where community solar is available. If you live in an apartment or condo, forget it — in many states, you have no options at all. 

But that might be changing soon in more than half the country. A technology — known as plug-in, balcony or garden solar — is already enormously popular in Germany, in part because you can buy a kit for less than $600 at IKEA. It’s a small solar panel system, often producing up to 1,200 watts of electricity, or generally more than a refrigerator consumes, that you can affix to a wall, hang on a railing or prop up in a garden — and then plug directly into a wall socket. With the help of a small device called a micro inverter, it pumps electricity into your household circuits to offset your power demand.... 

Plug-in solar demonstrates one version of the coming changes: With its small size, it makes balcony and backyard power production possible. But it’s only one messenger of many from that new world. As batteries continue to develop, larger and larger amounts of energy will be stored at ever-smaller sizes and scales, and that will enable innovations and technologies we cannot yet imagine — technologies that will change our world as much as the sextant, the bicycle or the jet engine. Some new zero-carbon energy technologies are already at the cusp of widespread deployment or at least technological feasibility: enhanced geothermal, space-based solar, mined hydrogen, new forms of nuclear fission and even nuclear fusion. 

Balcony solar will play one small role in that drama. It is cheap and modular and an affable addition to the energy system. And it may yet teach Americans the importance of adding new energy generation, recruiting ever more Americans to the head-spinning potential of the new technologies that stretches out before us — should we only wish to change.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://balconies.global/en-ca/our-balconies/

#203 / Possibility #3

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

"Possibility" is "my category." That has been my claim throughout the time I have been writing this blog - and for a long time before that, too. 

My first blog posting with the title, "Possibility" was published on July 19, 2010. "Possibility #2" followed on July 20th, the very next day. Almost sixteen years later, I typed out "Possibility" as the title I was proposing to use for today's blog posting, but before I posted my commentary, I searched back into my past blog postings, just to be sure that I hadn't used that "Possibility"  title before. As just noted, I had! 

As I did search back through the sixteen years that I have been writing and publishing one blog posting every day, I also discovered probably a hundred or more blog postings of mine that speak, in some way, to "possibility." As I say, "possibility" is what I consider to be "my category," meaning that I believe that thinking about what is "possible," as opposed to confining ourselves to thinking about what already exists, is the best way to relate to the world. Thinking about "possibility" can open up our thinking to a future about which we can be hopeful, and can help us direct our efforts in ways that will have some kind of positive impact. Thinking about "possibility" can also help us defend ourselves against a future that appears, so often, to be compounded of doom and despair.

I was fortunate, while an undergraduate at Stanford University, to have been enrolled in an Honors Program In Social Thought And Institutions led by Professor Charles Drekmeier. Those enrolled in that honors program, which is described a bit in the obituary linked to Professor Drekmeier's name, studied one word, or one phrase, during the entirety of their two-year enrollment in Dr. Drekmeier's Honors Seminar. Our group (in 1964 and 1965), studied and reflected upon the word, "Utopia." In fact, while officially enrolled as a major in "History," I really believe that I majored in "Utopia" during my time in college. That is undoubtedly where I finally determined that "possibility" is "my category," though I do want to credit my father, too. One of my past blog postings, "Father's Day Stories," provides a guide to how I was already heading in the direction of "possibility" by the time I got to college. 

oooOOOooo

In today's blog posting, I want to highlight a column by Peggy Noonan, published in The Wall Street Journal on May 30, 2026. Noonan's column, which definitely touches directly on possibility, was titled, "Becoming Who You Are Ain’t For Sissies," and clicking that link just provided should let you read it, as a "gift article." Noonan's picture, above, shows her in 1986, when she was 36 years old. The picture was furnished by Wikipedia.

I routinely read Noonan's columns, since I do subscribe to The Wall Street Journal, and Noonan makes a weekly appearance on The Journal's "Opinion" page, published on Saturdays. Noonan was a speechwriter for President Ronald Reagan, and her politics and mine are certainly different. Still, she is often on the "right side" of current controversies, in my opinion - though definitely not always!

I consider Noonan's May 30th column to be a stellar introduction to "possibility," and I do hope that anyone reading this blog posting will take the time to read what Noonan has to say. I also hope that the "gift column" link I have provided will, in fact, let non-subscribers access Noonan's compelling story.

In short, Noonan was a kind of F*up and a "failure" during her high school years, and she had no expectations, whatsoever, of going to college, or of having any other kind of significant "success" in life. Her seventh-grade school counselor told her as much. A chance encounter, though, after Noonan had graduated from high school, as she worked as a waitress, convinced her that she did, in fact, have "possibilities" which she should pursue. 

She pursued them! 

I bet Noonan would say that "possibility" is her category, too, just like I say it's mine. Read her story and see if you agree. I hope anyone reading this - and reading Noonan's column - will decide that "possibility" should  be their own category, as well.

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Noonan

#202 / Who's His Boss?

 

Vice President J.D. Vance

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

A headline in the June 1, 2026, edition of The New York Times (I am referring to the hardcopy edition) did readers, and the nation, a significant disservice. Here's that headline, as it appeared in the paper dropped on my front walkway on Monday, June 1st:

Is Vance Heir Apparent In '28? His Boss Doesn't Seem Sure

So, here's the quiz question: What's wrong with this headline? 

Here's what's wrong: The President of the United States of America is not "the boss" of the Vice-President. The Vice-President is an independently-elected officer of the nation, as provided in Article II of The Constitution. The Vice-President is not a direct "subordinate" whom the president is entitled to boss around. Were that the case, Vice-President Mike Pence should have done what the then-president told him to do, after the 2020 elections, and subverted those elections, keeping in power the then-president, who lost his office in the elections held in 2020.

Citizens of the United States - many of whom do not, routinely, read the Constitution, and who don't, much, research what it says - should not be misled by what is often claimed to be the nation's most important daily newspaper. 

Let's be clear. Our current president believes that his election as the nation's Chief Executive is an entitlement that allows him to boss everyone around (including the Vice-President and including the Congress). That's not what our Constitution says. That is emphatically not what our Constitution says.

Let's not forget it!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/05/30/us/politics/is-jd-vance-the-2028-front-runner-trump-has-questions.html

#201 / Social Media Has Its Upsides!

Click Here For The Blog In The Original

I received a social media message, a week or so ago, which kind of came out of the blue. I am copying that message, in full, below. I am also presenting a social media photo (above) that is associated with the person who sent me the message. 

I liked both the message and the photo, though I really don't have any inkling of what the photo might actually be seeking to convey! All I can say is that the photo above did put me in a pretty good mood - as did the message, too: 

Hello Gary, I only recall meeting you once, I believe it was in Safeway in Felton, many many years ago, but I and many of my fellow Santa Cruz residence will forever owe you a debt of gratitude for all the energy and resistant strength that you put into keeping our beautiful home from turning into a copy of the Santa Clara Valley. Were it not for you places like the lighthouse field, pogonip, the wingspread property and countless others would be lost forever. I wish there was somebody to pick up The baton from this point forward. Looking at what’s becoming a destructive trend to turn Santa Cruz into Los Angeles north. I appreciate your efforts even more. You fought some pretty tough battles against some very determined adversaries, and you won more than your share. You did us a wonderful service and many of us will continue to be grateful for that All the best

As you can see, that is a pretty nice message, and I truly appreciated receiving it - and, of course, I sent my "thank you" back right away. That message did come out of the blue, so it was one of those "made my day" communications! 

In all fairness, let me report that not all the messages that come my way on social media are so positive. For instance, here is an actual (no kidding) exchange dating from a few weeks before I received the laudatory message I have just copied out, above. MY social media posting comes first, with the reaction message next: 

MY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTING:

THE RESPONSE I RECEIVED TO MY SOCIAL MEDIA POSTING:

You are included into a sick fuck crowd that was created during the sixties. You represent a hate group that is far more evil than the Nazis or the KKK. You will never understand this until you die and meet with Satan.

oooOOOooo

Luckily, I don't get too many messages like that one!

As for the nice comment that I have put into this blog posting, I am naturally happy to have my efforts as an elected official recognized in such a positive way. In fact, though, while I played a major part in the land use and social justice policy changes that occurred during my time on the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors, all the accomplishments were made not by me alone, or by any individual, but by our engaged and active community, working together. I was honored to be an official charged with helping to implement the changes that our community wanted, but when I make a pitch for your personal involvement in politics, it's because I know what dedicated community action can do. 

We, truly, did "change the world," in Santa Cruz County (and in the state and the nation, actually), and I want anyone reading today's blog posting to know that when I put in a pitch for your personal involvement in "politics," and tell you that your involvement requires way more effort than just "voting," I do so because I have lived through a time when members of my local community did make positive things happen, using their government as the mechanism to make those good things happen. 

There's a lot more still to do, just in case you haven't noticed! I'm kidding! I know that we are all painfully aware that's true. Please don't give up on "politics," or think that "politics" is just the same thing as "resistance," or that your political involvement means "voting," pure and simple. 

Getting together, in person, with others who share a vision of what needs to happen positively, and what needs to be prevented from happening, negatively, is the way we can create the kind of world we need, and most ardently desire. 

Together, we can change the world. Check out that nice message I got. Let us remind ourselves of what we can do - and then.... let's get to work doing it!

To Subscribe, Please Click This Link

Image Credit:

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10155891414963904&set=a.439613293903