Category Archives: Random Blogging

Things That Make Me Crazy

Can those who read this blog indulge me for three very personal rants?

We face so many major problems in this country right now (can we spell LA?) that it seems terribly self-indulgent to focus on a few annoying aspects of civic debate. On the other hand, I think at least a couple of the behaviors I find so exasperating are symptoms of the inability of We the People to productively address the bigger issues. (Anyway, that’s my justification and I’m sticking to it!)

#1. I recently posted about an emerging argument over regulation. Proponents of taking a closer look at our regulatory processes aren’t the knee-jerk GOP scolds who define “free market” as “free” from any government rules; the concern (as I said in that post) is to guard against over-kill. But I immediately got an email from an acquaintance saying, essentially, “finally, people are realizing that we need to get government out of the way!”

Now, I’ve known this particular correspondent for a long time, and he’s not stupid. But he drank the Kool-Aid back when the GOP’s plutocrats were insisting that government just needed to get out of the way and let good-hearted business-people run their enterprises as they see fit.

We’re beginning to see what that would look like, as planes fall from the sky.  Do we really want to get rid of FDA inspections to ensure that supermarket chickens are safe to eat?  Do we want to turn a blind eye to that factory discharging toxic waste into the local river? Stop requiring clinical trials before approving the sale of medications and vaccines?

Bottom line:  We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto! We don’t grow our own fruits and vegetables and go into the backyard to kill one of our own chickens for dinner. In a modern society, government regulations are essential.  As I said in my post, it isn’t an “either/or” proposition; policymakers need to determine what regulations are needed, and how much is too much. That’s a lot harder, of course, than spouting ideological idiocies.

#2. This platform, like so many others, is a place where people with different perspectives but generally similar civic goals come to argue about THE question: what should we do? What actions can citizens take in the face of an existential threat to the America we thought we inhabited? 

Those discussions may or may not be experienced as valuable, but one (probably inevitable) response drives me up the wall. It is the comment–in a lecturing tone–to the effect that such-and-such will clearly be ineffective, that it is simply “virtue-signaling” and unlikely to make any difference. It would be one thing if the person pouring cold water on a proposed activity ever followed up with a helpful, do-able suggestion–if the put-down was ever followed by a thoughtful “here’s what we should be doing instead,” but it never is.

One of the defects of Internet conversations is the absence of tone and body-language. Perhaps if we could see and hear the individuals who post these put-downs, they wouldn’t seem so sneering and self-important–but that is certainly what these “I know better than you and what you propose is stupid” comments convey.

#3.  I am OVER the Democrats who keep wallowing in “what went wrong” and “who was to blame” and “why the approach of those of you on the (insert ideological position) is dooming our chances in the future.” I am especially over the focus on Joe Biden, and the utterly stupid accusations of a “cover up”–as Robert Hubbell has pointed out, a “cover up” of the cognitive state of a man who was appearing daily at campaign events, delivering addresses to Congress where he outwitted the entire Republican caucus, providing interviews to major media outlets, and guiding America through a period of stable foreign relations and successful domestic policy. Biden aged in office –and we all saw that–but he was a transformational and incredibly effective President. Should he have withdrawn sooner? Probably. But for goodness sake, GIVE IT A REST. 

Meanwhile, we have a President whose election was at least partially due to the refusal of the mainstream press to give anything close to equal time to his embarrassing stupidity, his obvious mental illness (not to mention his age-related decline from what wasn’t a high bar to begin with). Even the aspects of his “character” (note quotation marks) that do receive coverage–his racism, his felonies, his rapes, his constant lies (are his lips moving?), his “out and proud” corruption –are still being normalized and sane-washed. WHY?

Okay. I’m done. Thanks for indulging me. I think I feel better.

Comments

AI Talks To Trump

I wish this had been my idea, but it was my brilliant sister who–on a whim–asked Chatgpt what Thomas Jefferson might say to Donald Trump.

This was the response:

If Thomas Jefferson were to speak to Donald Trump, the conversation would likely reflect Jefferson’s Enlightenment-era values—particularly around democracy, individual rights, limited government, and civic virtue. Here’s a speculative interpretation of what Jefferson might say, based on his writings and beliefs:

“Mr. Trump, I have always believed that government exists to serve the people, not to enrich those in power. Our republic depends on an informed citizenry, a free press, and leaders who value the public good over personal gain.

While strong leadership can be necessary, it must be tempered by respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and the separation of powers. These are not mere formalities—they are safeguards against tyranny.

Beware the temptation to sow division for political gain. A nation cannot be both ignorant and free. True greatness lies not in spectacle, but in the quiet, steady work of preserving liberty and justice for all.”

The AI then asked her if she would prefer a more confrontational, supportive or humorous version, or one tailored to a specific topic like free speech or executive power. (That question suggested endless possibilities. The fact that she didn’t pursue them shouldn’t keep the rest of us from playing with our own AIs…)

After she received the response to her question about Thomas Jefferson, she decided to ask what Jesus might say to Trump. Once again, AI responded by mining the relevant documentation–in this case, the Gospels.

That’s a powerful and complex question, and the answer depends on how one interprets Jesus’ teachings and values. Based on the messages in the Gospels—love, humility, justice, mercy, repentance, and truth—here’s a thoughtful, nonpartisan imagining of what Jesus might say to Donald Trump (or any political leader):

1. On Power and Leadership:
“Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all.” (Mark 9:35)
Jesus might challenge Trump to reflect on whether his leadership serves the vulnerable and promotes justice and peace.

2. On Truth and Integrity:
“Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from evil.” (Matthew 5:37)
Jesus often called out hypocrisy and might urge Trump to speak truthfully and act with consistency.

3. On Wealth and Responsibility:
“To whom much is given, much will be required.” (Luke 12:48)
Jesus might challenge Trump on how he uses his wealth and influence for the common good.

4. On Enemies and Rhetoric:
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” (Matthew 5:44)
Jesus might caution against divisive language and encourage reconciliation and empathy.

5. On Repentance and Grace:
Jesus welcomed sinners and called them to repentance. He might say to Trump—as he would to anyone—“Come, follow me.” (Matthew 4:19), offering grace but also calling for transformation.

Would you like a version written more like a direct conversation or modern interpretation?

When my sister shared this exercise, I asked my own Chatgpt what Ronald Reagan would say to Trump.

While we can only speculate, a thoughtful, historically grounded analysis of what Ronald Reagan might say to Donald Trump would likely reflect stark contrasts in style, tone, and certain core values—especially regarding democratic norms, civility, and America’s global role. Here’s a reasoned approximation of what Reagan might express, based on his public speeches, writings, and actions.

1. On Civility and American Ideals:

“Mr. Trump, words matter. The presidency is not only a position of power, but a moral pulpit. We must be a shining city on a hill—not a fortress of grievance and division. Insulting adversaries, attacking the press, and stoking anger may win applause, but it dims the light of that city.”

Context: Reagan often emphasized optimism, unity, and a dignified tone—even when disagreeing. He viewed America as a beacon of hope and saw the president as a steward of national character.

2. On Immigration and American Identity:

“You speak of immigrants as threats, but I saw them as assets to the American experiment. We are a nation of immigrants. We weaken our greatness when we shut the golden door to those yearning to be free.”

Context: Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted legal status to nearly 3 million undocumented immigrants. He spoke of immigrants with admiration, not suspicion.

3. On NATO and Global Alliances:

“You undermine alliances I spent a presidency building. America leads not by bullying partners or admiring strongmen, but by championing freedom and standing firm with our allies.”

Context: Reagan was staunchly pro-NATO and took a hard line against authoritarian regimes, particularly the Soviet Union. Trump’s praise of autocrats and criticism of NATO would likely alarm him.

4. On Conservatism and Responsibility:

“Conservatism is not chaos. It is a belief in limited government, personal responsibility, and respect for institutions. When we tear down the guardrails of democracy, we no longer conserve—we destroy.”

Context: Reagan valued conservative principles but respected democratic processes. He would likely object to Trump’s rejection of election results and attacks on the judiciary.

5. On Political Legacy:

“We do not inherit America’s greatness from one election to the next—we preserve it by upholding the values that bind us: liberty, respect, and the rule of law. History will judge not only what we build, but what we choose not to break.”

Context: Reagan was deeply concerned with legacy, often invoking America’s historical promise. He might warn Trump that personal power is fleeting—but democratic norms endure if preserved.

AI just confirmed it: Trump and the MAGA cult dishonor America, Christianity, and the once-Grand Old Party.

Comments

The Brain Drain

Yesterday, I warned about the ferocity of the administration’s war on knowledge, and the incredible damage Trump and MAGA are doing to America’s long dominance in science and technology.

Lest you think I was over-reacting, allow me to share some recent headlines.

Foreign universities hope to lure scientists from the US after Trump research cuts | AP News
The World Is Wooing U.S. Researchers Shunned by Trump – The New York Times
International students see fewer pathways to US careers under Trump
“‘A fear campaign.’ Students around the world are shocked, scared and saddened by US visa pause” — CNN
“America’s Coming Brain Drain: Trump’s War on Universities Could Kill U.S. Innovation” — Foreign Affairs
‘Major brain drain’: Researchers eye exit from Trump’s America; “In the halls of US universities and research labs, one question has become increasingly common as President Donald Trump tightens his grip on the field: whether to move abroad.” — AFP
“US brain drain: the scientists seeking jobs abroad amid Trump’s assault on research: Five US-based researchers tell Nature why they are exploring career opportunities overseas.” — Nature
The Economist warns: “America is in danger of experiencing an academic brain drain”.

(Links to each of these reports is available at the primary link.)

According to the Economist,

Springer Nature publishes Nature, the world’s most prestigious scientific journal. It also runs a much-used jobs board for academics. In the first three months of the year applications by researchers based in America for jobs in other countries were up by 32% compared with the same period in 2024.

In March Nature itself conducted a poll of more than 1,200 researchers at American institutions, of whom 75% said they were thinking of leaving (though disgruntled academics were probably more likely to respond to the poll than satisfied ones).

And just as American researchers eye the exit, foreigners are becoming more reluctant to move in. Springer Nature’s data suggests applications by non-American candidates for American research jobs have fallen by around 25% compared with the same period last year.

As any sentient observer might have predicted, MAGA’s war on knowledge is a win for China, which is offering big salaries to entice disaffected knowledge-workers to relocate there.

According to an essay in the Washington Post, the administration’s inability to understand the consequences of its actions is based in large part on its lack of historical knowledge.  In “Houston, J.D. Vance has a problem,” Mark Lasswell reports that Vance “barely grasps the history of the U.S. space program.”

Last week, Newsmax interviewer Greg Kelly took a break from slathering Vance with praise to delicately broach the possibility of a “brain drain” from American universities if researchers decamp for more hospitable institutions overseas. The White House, as you might have heard, is working energetically to dissolve arrangements between several research universities and the government that for the past century helped make the United States the most powerful and innovative country in the world.

“I’ve heard a lot of the criticisms, the fear, that we’re going to have a brain drain,” the voluble vice president told Kelly. “If you go back to the ’50s and ’60s, the American space program, the program that was the first to put a human being on the surface of the moon, was built by American citizens, some German and Jewish scientists who had come over during World War II, but mostly by American citizens who had built an incredible space program with American talent. This idea that American citizens don’t have the talent to do great things, that you have to import a foreign class of servants and professors to do these things, I just reject that.”

As Lasswell sardonically notes, “Vance seems to think a defunded brainiac who happens to be an American citizen is going to tell a recruiter from Aix-Marseille University, “You can keep Provence. I’d rather work on nanotechnology in my garage. U-S-A!”

The actual history of America’s space program–and scientific dominance–is rather different from Vance’s version. After the war, both the United States and the Soviet Union recruited German and Austrian scientists, engineers and technicians. (Without, as the essay notes, being too picky about their Nazi connections. I enthusiastically recommend Tom Lehrer’s “take” on Von Braun...) In the mid-1950s, they created the U.S. space program. “Von Braun and his many, many colleagues were instrumental to U.S. space supremacy — and, according to the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum, most of them became naturalized citizens in 1954 or 1955.” 

We may not have been picky about their politics, but we did understand–once upon a time–that a nation’s health and wealth depend upon its respect–and support– for empirical knowledge. 

MAGA=Morons Are Gutting America….. 

Comments

Bruce Springsteen Gets It

During a concert in Europe, Bruce Springsteen issued a criticism of Trump and his administration that generated a typically childish response from our thin-skinned autocrat.  Springsteen’s comments–unlike Trump’s– displayed a fundamental understanding of what it means to be an American–“the union of people around a common set of values.” That union, he said, is “now that’s all that stands between a democracy and authoritarianism. So at the end of the day, all we’ve got is each other.”

Springsteen recognized an essential element of American identity, an element that MAGA appears incapable of comprehending: America is, and has always been, about a set of ideals. 

Back in 1997, I wrote that it is the mission of public education to identify and transmit the values Americans hold in common,  the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and reflected through our national history.

What is the “American Idea”?

Americans value liberty. We believe in our inalienable right to hold our own opinions, to think for ourselves, to assemble with our friends, to cast our votes, to pray or not, all free of government coercion.
 
We value equality before the law– not to be confused with the fuzzy notion that we are all somehow interchangeable, and not to be confused with the belief of some religions that all people are equally worthwhile. This is a more limited proposition – –  that government should apply the same rules to all similarly-situated citizens. It was a radical notion in 1776. It is fundamental to the way we understand ourselves and our society today.
 
We value the marketplace of ideas, the supreme importance of our ability to communicate with each other, unfettered by government censorship.
 
We value government legitimacy and respect for the rule of law. So long as our representatives continue to derive their authority from the consent of those they govern, we recognize our individual obligations to respect and obey the law. If we protest a law we believe to be unjust, we recognize our obligation to accept the consequences of that disobedience. (Tell that to the Jan. 6th insurrectionists pardoned by Trump…)
 
Finally, real Americans value the “woke” civic virtues which are necessary to the realization of the foregoing values: honesty, courage, kindness, mutual respect and tolerance.

In a country where people read different books and magazines, patronize different websites and news sources, attend different churches, and even speak different languages – where the information and beliefs we all share are diminishing and our variety and diversity are growing –these are the core values that make us Americans. They are nowhere to be seen in MAGA or the Trump administration.

Recently, David Brooks underlined the difference between Americans who define patriotism as allegiance to those overarching values, and the “blood and soil” Trumpers.

Trump and Vance have to rebut the idea that America is the embodiment of universal ideals. If America is an idea, then Black and brown people from all over the world can become Americans by coming here and believing that idea. If America is an idea, then Americans have a responsibility to promote democracy. We can’t betray democratic Ukraine in order to kowtow to a dictator like Vladimir Putin. If America is an idea, we have to care about human dignity and human rights. You can’t have a president go to Saudi Arabia, as Trump did this month, and effectively tell them we don’t care how you treat your people. If you want to dismember journalists you don’t like, we’re not going to worry about it….

If America is built around a universalist ideal, then there is no room for the kind of white identity politics that Trump and Stephen Miller practice every day. There is no room for the othering, zero-sum, us/them thinking, which is the only kind of thinking Trump is capable of. There’s no room for Trump’s immigration policy, which is hostile to Latin Americans but hospitable to the Afrikaners whose ancestors invented apartheid. There’s no room for Tucker Carlson’s replacement theory. There’s no room for the kind of racialized obsessions harbored, for example, by the paleoconservative writer Paul Gottfried in an essay called “America Is Not an ‘Idea,’” in Chronicles magazine: “Segregation was also an unjust arrangement, and I don’t regret seeing that go either. But what has taken its place is infinitely more frightening: the systematic degradation of white Americans.”

Brooks is right to accuse this Trumpian cabal of moral degradation, of substituting an ugly tribalism for genuine patriotism.

Springsteen is also right: people unified around American ideals can defeat Trump’s efforts to debase America. We all need to turn out for No Kings Day.

Comments

Making Voting Hard

A fear often expressed by members of the Resistance is the possibility that Trump will declare a “national emergency” of some sort and use that declaration to cancel the midterm election. I don’t entirely discount that possibility, but I do think it is unlikely, for a number of reasons.

That said, the fear is reasonable, based on the GOP’s persistent assault on voters’ rights, and on its long history of vote suppression. The Brennan Center recently shared their study of the effects of those efforts, and the conclusions are depressing. It turns out that there are multiple ways of invalidating an election without actually cancelling it.

States have enacted dozens of laws that make it harder for citizens to vote. What impact will they have in next year’s vital midterm elections?

The Brennan Center has provided compelling evidence that these laws directly suppress the vote. And our newest research shows, even more significantly, that eligible voters turned away from casting a ballot once are much less likely to try again in later elections. They give up, it seems. Voter suppression can last years, perhaps a lifetime. That is a deeply disturbing finding, suggesting that even small effects of these new laws can cascade over time.  

Researchers looked at the results of S.B. 1, a Texas law making it more difficult to vote by mail. The state rejected thousands of mail ballot requests and mail-in votes during the 2022 primary. (Unsurprisingly the rejections were disproportionately those of nonwhite voters.)

They found that the voters whose ballots were rejected were 16 percentage points less likely to vote in the 2022 general election. “And the trend continued for the 2024 primary election — a full two years later.” As the report emphasized, “These citizens are not disinterested slackers. These are routine voters who have properly cast ballots year after year — 85 percent of those whose mail-in votes or ballot requests were rejected voted in the 2016, 2018, and 2020 general elections.”

This is one more strong piece of evidence that the recent wave of restrictive voting laws will have a great and growing impact. Last year, a Brennan Center study relying on a voter file with nearly 1 billion records showed that the gap between the participation rates of white voters and nonwhite voters has grown across the country — but grew at twice the rate in counties once monitored by a robust Voting Rights Act.

Some have suggested that the tumult over these new voting laws was sound and fury that ultimately signified little. Sure, they say, these laws may have had bad intent, but the impact was negligible.

As it turns out, voter suppression laws . . . suppress the vote. Who’d have thought it? 

If readers from central Indiana are interested in learning more about the impact of the GOP’s ongoing effort to suppress the vote, Common Cause is screening an important film at the Kan Kan theater on June 12th at 7:00 pm.

The documentary film, Vigilantes Inc, is based upon reporting done by investigative journalist Greg Palast, and it reveals how self-appointed “vote-fraud hunters” challenge the ballots of millions of voters–with a special emphasis on young voters and voters of color. There will be a discussion following the screening, featuring the filmmaker and Indiana advocates fighting voter suppression. 

You can buy tickets here.

As the Brennan Center article points out, the effects of long lines at a polling place, requirements to produce birth certificates or proof of citizenship, or “errors” disqualifying a ballot can effectively suppress an individual’s motivation to vote for years–even a lifetime.

Political analyst Michael Podhorzer has astutely observed that a “generational replacement” is being engineered: “Older and established voters keep up their voting habits, while new restrictions stymie younger voters.” Our research shows the effects of voter suppression on older voters, but it underscores how potent silent disenfranchisement can be…

The right kind of national legislation would expand access while strengthening election administration and security. The Freedom to Vote Act would set baseline national standards to ensure that ballots cannot be discarded for minor errors and discrepancies, and it would bar many state restrictions on mail and early voting. The John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act would restore the strength of the Voting Rights Act.

These reforms came achingly close to enactment a few years ago. We predicted then that if the federal courts and Congress did not protect the freedom to vote, states would be left unchecked to abuse the rights of their people. Sadly, that has happened. Congress should once again be prepared to act.

If your schedule permits, go see “Vigilantes” on June 12th. And vote for Democrats to take Congress next year, assuming there’s an election…

Comments