DeSantis Property Tax and Schools

Published in TC Palm, 5/21/25 - Letters to the Edidtor

Regarding the article “DeSantis Fires  at GOP Leaders Over Tax Plan”:

Given:

Donald Trump is opposed to educations, as shown by his cuts and reorfanization of the Department of Education.

DeSantis is a Trump worshipper, as shown by his priorities.

Therefore, we should expect DeSantis to be against improvement in the education system in Florida.

The way DeSantis plans to carry out his mission to de3stroy the public school system in Florida is by lowering the property tax.  Most school systems in Florida rely on their local property taxes to fund the public schools.

If property taxes are cut enough by Tallahassee, local public schools, already bereft of adequate funds, will be in even worse shape than ever before.  This will increase the gap between the elites in our society and the underserved in our society.

Has anyone else noticed DeSantis has never mentioned the effect of his propty tax cuts to local schools?

David Kimball, Vero Beach

 

GOING ALONE

 

GOING ALONE

Now that I have a car, I’m going to do something tonight that I haven’t done for several years – go to the theater alone.

When I was in my early 30’s, while living in Chicago, between my two marriages, I would go on a date. Chicago is known for having several small theaters, many of which were launchings for Broadway shows like “Yentl” and “Big River”. It was a great place/scene for theaters. The only problem was, they were “unknowns” and so you never knew what to expect.

I remember going on a date one time to see “Yentl”, the stage version. For those of you who have seen the movie, the stage version was quite different than the movie version with Barbara Streisand. The stage version was about a Jewish woman/girl who was in love with learning; the movie version was about a Jewish woman/girl who was in love. (Typical Hollywood adaptation.) In the production, there was a scene where the boys, and Yentl, are walking in the woods and come across a large stream. The boys take off all their clothes and jump in the river to cavort. Yentl, a girl dressed as a boy so she can receive an education, is faced with a conundrum: She can’t take off her clothes and reveal that she is not a boy, yet all the boys are calling for her to join them in the river. As the boys were shedding their clothes to go in the river in the stage version, the scene included a full frontal nudity scene. This was back in the early ‘80’s and considered very “avant garde”.

As I was watching this scene with the full frontal nudity, I didn’t mind it at all. But I was “concerned” how my date would handle it. I became so focused on my date’s reaction, which couldn’t be told to me during the play, that it was difficult to relax and enjoy the performance.

Another time, the same thing happened with another date and play, but this time the subject matter was homosexuality in the Army. Again, I watched the play hoping that my date didn’t mind and I was hoping she didn’t thing I was trying to “tell her something about me”.

I learned that I could/would enjoy these performances more if I went by myself rather than with a date that I didn’t know.

As I would attend theaters, or concerts, or dance performances, I realized that men didn’t go to these cultural events by themselves. Often, there would be women by themselves, but more often there would be two women attending together. But there were never two guys attending without the assumption that they were gay. (Again, this was in the early 80’s.) It was interesting to look around the audience while making these observations.

One exception to this was when I attended the MET HD performances, live productions from the MET that were broadcast to show on movie screens in theaters all over the United States, there would be several men by themselves. After making this observation, I discovered that many of these men were Italians who had grown up appreciating opera.

I have lived for two years at Discovery Village, an Independent Living Facility, without a car. As a result, I didn’t go anywhere unless someone drove me. I didn't attend cultural events except a few concerts with the Space Coast Symphony where I was hosting the French Horn player who lived in Miami and needed a place to stay locally. I just received a car this week so I am now free to go places by myself, and tonight I’m going to the Vero Beach Theatre Guild to see “The 28th Street Boarding House” by myself. I’ve been to the Vero Beach Theatre Guild enough times to know what to expect: Almost all older people, few people under 60 years old, and mostly women.

I’m sure it will feel like Old Home Week to me. (Smile)

David Kimball.

Open Letter to the US Supreme Court

 Open Letter to the US Supreme Court

Pru Pru Facebook Post

April 14 at 11:50 PM  ·

An Open Letter to the United States Supreme Court

 

Nineteen retired four-star generals and admirals tried to warn you.[1]

They submitted a letter—a plea from those who’ve spent their lives upholding the Constitution.

They urged you not to grant absolute immunity to this man.

They said it would undermine the U.S. military and shatter the rule of law.

And here we are.

Let’s talk about what you did.

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY has NEVER existed for any American president in history—until now.

Let that sink in.

Not for Nixon.

Not for Reagan.

Not for Clinton.

Not during war.

Not during scandal.

Not even at the height of executive power grabs.

This isn’t a long-standing legal principle.

This is brand new.

And you created it—for one man.

But here’s the thing about precedent: it isn’t sacred.

It can be reversed.

And you’ve done it before—boldly and without hesitation.

Plessy v. Ferguson gave us “separate but equal.”

Brown v. Board ended it.

Bowers v. Hardwick criminalized LGBTQ relationships.

Lawrence v. Texas struck it down.

Roe v. Wade stood for nearly 50 years.

You undid it in Dobbs v. Jackson.

Precedent stands—until a case forces it to fall.

So let me ask you:

What kind of case would be enough to force a reversal?

A case involving abuse of power?

A case where legal limits weren’t just stretched—they were obliterated?

A case where something heinous occurred?

Well—you have one.

A man, Kilmar Abrego García, was deported in direct violation of a federal court order to turn the plane around.

He was sent to a country he was legally protected from.

To a prison notorious for torture and human rights violations.

The administration admitted he was sent in error.

He was ordered returned by a federal judge.

They refused.

Then you ordered them to “facilitate” his return.

They still refused.

A federal judge demanded proof of life.

A location.

A plan.

The administration shrugged and said: There’s nothing we can do.

Let’s be honest—if this happened in another country, we’d call it what it is:

Kidnapping. Trafficking. Slavery. State violence.

Right now, the case is civil.

But it doesn’t have to stay that way.

If criminal charges are ever brought—if even one federal prosecutor reclaims their spine—this case could return to your courtroom. And when it does, you’ll have a choice to make:

Continue to let this rogue leader rule as a king above the law.

Or restore law, order, and justice to her rightful place—as a coequal power to the executive branch.

To do nothing—to remain silent in the face of this—would be a betrayal.

Of your oath.

Of your power.

Of the people you serve.

We the people call on you now: honor your oath.

You are the highest law in the land.

DAMMIT act like it.

Restore law, order, and justice.

Or kneel in the dust of what was once America.

 

Let’s stop pretending you’ve done your job.

You ruled.

You said “facilitate his return.”

And when the administration ignored you — you did nothing.

No contempt charges.

No enforcement.

No consequences.

You think you get to check a box and call it justice?

You watched a man vanish into a blacksite prison with no proof of life — and you let it happen with your weak words.

“Facilitate.”

Ridiculous.

Bring his *ss home now.

That’s what should have been said.

You are not bystanders to this fall.

You are not guardians of democracy.

You are the black-robed collaborators in the slow-motion coup unraveling the Constitution.

Let’s be honest:

You could end this right now by rejecting absolute immunity completely.

By stating — unequivocally — that no one is above the law.

By using the full weight of your office to enforce your rulings.

But you haven’t.

Because deep down, some of you are afraid.

Afraid of him.

Afraid of his base.

Afraid of your own legacies unraveling.

Afraid of what you’ll unleash if you actually hold this man accountable.

You are afraid of the monster you helped create.

But fear is not a judicial philosophy.

And silence is not neutrality — it’s consent.

You’re letting a man rule like a king.

You’re watching people disappear.

You’re letting one branch spit in the face of another.

He is threatening to disappear AMERICANS.

A M E R I C A N S!

You are not a coequal branch of government anymore.

If you continue to do nothing—

You become nothing more than a lapdog.

So unless you want history to remember you as the Court that watched America and Americans die —

Do your job.

---

[1] https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/profoundly-ahistorical-4-star-generals-side-with-jack-smith-tell-supreme-court-trumps-immunity-claims-are-assault-on-democracy/

Finally A Strategy Against Trump

 Finally a Strategy

The author of this letter is questionable, but the content is great regardless of the author.

Dear Democratic Party,

I need more from you.

You keep sending emails begging for $15, while we’re watching fascism consolidate power in real time.  This administration is not simply “a different ideology.”
It is a coordi nated, authoritarian machine — with the Supreme Court, the House, the Senate, and the executive pen all under its control.

And you?

You’re still asking for decorum and donations. WTF.  That won’t save us.  I don’t want to hear another polite floor speech.  I want strategy.  I want fire.  I want action so bold it shifts the damn news cycle — not fits inside one.

Every time I see something from the DNC, it’s asking me for funds.  Surprise.  Those of us who donate don’t want to keep sending money just to watch you stand frozen as the Constitution goes up in flames — shaking your heads and saying,  “Well, there’s not much we can do. He has the majority.”

I call bullshit.

If you don’t know how to think outside the box…
If you don’t know how to strategize…
If you don’t know how to fight fire with fire…
what the hell are we giving you money for?

Some of us have two or three advanced degrees.
Some of us have military training.
Some of us know what coordinated resistance looks like — and this ain’t it.

Yes, the tours around the country? Nice.
The speeches? Nice.
The clever congressional clapbacks? Nice.
That was great for giving hope.
Now we need action.

You have to stop acting like this is a normal presidency that will just time out in four years.
We’re not even at Day 90, and look at the chaos.  Look at the disappearances.  Look at the erosion of the judiciary, the press, and our rights.

If you do not stop this, we will not make it 1,460 days.

So here’s what I need from you — right now:
⸻

1.      Form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition.  I’m talking experts. Veterans. Whistleblowers. Journalists. Watchdog orgs.  Deputize the resistance. Build a real-time archive of corruption, overreach, and executive abuse.  Make it public. Make it unshakable.  Let the people drag the rot into the light.  If you can’t hold formal hearings, hold public ones.
If Congress won’t act, let the country act.
This isn’t about optics — it’s about receipts.
Because at some point, these people will be held accountable.
And when that day comes, we’ll need every name, every signature, every illegal order, every act of silence—documented.
You’re not just preserving truth — you’re preparing evidence for prosecution.
The more they vanish people and weaponize data, the more we need truth in the sunlight.
⸻
2. Join the International Criminal Court.
Yes, I said it. Call their bluff.
You cannot control what the other side does.
But you can control your own integrity.
So prove it. Prove that your party is still grounded in law, human rights, and ethical leadership.
Join.
If you’ve got nothing to hide — join.
Show the world who’s hiding bodies, bribes, and buried bank accounts.
Force the GOP to explain why they’d rather protect a war criminal than sign a treaty.
And while you’re at it, publicly invite ICC observers into U.S. borders.
Make this administration explain — on camera — why they’re terrified of international oversight.
⸻
3. Fund state-level resistance infrastructure.
Don’t just send postcards. Send resources.
Channel DNC funds into rapid-response teams, legal defense coalitions, sanctuary networks, and digital security training.
If the federal government is hijacked, build power underneath it.
If the laws become tools of oppression, help people resist them legally, locally, and boldly.
This is not campaign season — this is an authoritarian purge.
Stop campaigning.
Act like this is the end of democracy, because it is.
We WILL REMEMBER the warriors come primaries.
Fighting this regime should be your marketing strategy.
And let’s be clear:
The reason the other side always seems three steps ahead is because they ARE.
They prepared for this.
They infiltrated school boards, courts, local legislatures, and police unions.
They built a machine while you wrote press releases.
We’re reacting — they’ve been executing a plan for years.
It’s time to shift from panic to blueprint.
You should already be working with strategists and military minds on PROJECT 2029 —
a coordinated, long-term plan to rebuild this country when the smoke clears.
You should be publicly laying out:
• The laws and amendments you’ll pass to ensure this never happens again
• The systems you’ll tear down and the safeguards you’ll enshrine
• The plan to hold perpetrators of human atrocities accountable
• The urgent commitment to immediately bring home those sold into slavery in El Salvador
You say you’re the party of the people?
Then show the people the plan.
⸻
4. Use your platform to educate the public on rights and resistance tactics.
If they’re going to strip us of rights and lie about it — arm the people with truth.
Text campaigns. Mass trainings. Downloadable “Know Your Rights” kits. Multilingual legal guides. Encrypted phone trees.
Give people tools, not soundbites.
We don’t need more slogans.
We need survival manuals.
⸻
5. Leverage international media and watchdogs.
Stop hoping U.S. cable news will wake up.
They’re too busy playing both sides of fascism.
Feed the real stories to BBC, Al Jazeera, The Guardian, Reuters, Der Spiegel — hell, leak them to anonymous dropboxes if you have to.
Make what’s happening in America a global scandal.
And stop relying on platforms that are actively suppressing truth.
Start leveraging Substack. Use Bluesky.
That’s where the resistance is migrating. That’s where censorship hasn’t caught up.
If the mainstream won’t carry the truth — outflank them.
Get creative. Go underground. Go global.
If our democracy is being dismantled in broad daylight, make sure the whole world sees it — and make sure we’re still able to say it.
⸻
6. Create a digital safe haven for whistleblowers and defectors.
Not everyone inside this regime is loyal.
Some are scared. Some want out.
Build the channels.
Encrypted. Anonymous. Protected.
Make it easy for the cracks in the system to become gaping holes.
And while you’re at it?
Stop ostracizing MAGA defectors.
Everyone makes mistakes — even glaring, critical ones.
We are not the bullies.
We are not the ones filled with hate.
And it is not your job to shame people who finally saw the fire and chose to step out of it.
They will have to deal with that internal struggle — the guilt of putting a very dangerous and callous regime in power.
But they’re already outnumbered. Don’t push them back into the crowd.
We don’t need purity.
We need numbers.
We need people willing to burn their red hats and testify against the machine they helped build.
⸻
7. Study the collapse—and the comeback.
You should be learning from South Korea and how they managed their brief rule under dictatorship.
They didn’t waste time chasing the one man with absolute immunity.
They went after the structure.
The aides. The enforcers. The loyalists. The architects.
They knocked out the foundation one pillar at a time —
until the “strongman” had no one left to stand on.
And his power crumbled beneath him.
You should be independently investigating every author of Project 2025,
every aide who defies court orders,
every communications director repeating lies,
every policy writer enabling cruelty,
every water boy who keeps this engine running.
You can’t stop a regime by asking the king to sit down.
You dismantle the throne he’s standing on — one coward at a time.
⸻

Stop being scared to fight dirty when the other side is fighting to erase the damn Constitution.
They are threatening to disappear AMERICANS.
A M E R I C A N S.
And your biggest move can’t be another strongly worded email.
We don’t want your urgently fundraising subject lines.
We want backbone.
We want action.
We want to know you’ll stand up before we’re all ordered to sit down — permanently.
We are watching.
And I don’t just mean your base.
I mean millions of us who see exactly what’s happening.
I’ve only got 6,000 followers — but the groups I’m in? The networks I touch? Over a quarter million.
Often when I speak, it echoes.
But when we ALL
speak, it ROARS with pressure that will cause change.
We need to be deafening.
You still have a chance to do something historic.
To be remembered for courage, not caution.
To go down as the party that didn’t just watch the fall — but fought the hell back with everything they had.
But the clock is ticking.
And the deportation buses are idling.

 

The above was on a FaceBook page and was attributed to Liz Chaney.  However, she was not the original source of this.  It was a FaceBook person “Pru Pru”. 

Moral Responsibilities

 Moral Responsibilities

They say we should not talk about politics or religion.  That shows us that rather, we NEED TO LEARN HOW to talk about politics and religions.  One of the principles about talking about politics is to recognize the principle that there is a difference between talking about LEGAL responsibilities and MORAL responsibilities. 

 

It is evident that talking about legal responsibilities with Trump is not going to go anywhere.  Why aren't we talking about the moral responsibilities?  It is obvious in this case what our moral responsibilities are (in terms of what our government should do).

 

We need a prophet for our times to cry out of the wilderness what our secular rights dand responsibilities are.  By secular, I mean those rights and responsibilities that are common to multiple religions, and also included by the non-religious.  

 

This secular list should be headed by the concept of Compassion. 

 

So our discussions on Armando Abrego Garcia (the man sent to El Salvador prison “by accident”) should be "What should our compassionate actions be?"  Then we should judge Trump's actions not by a lawyer's document that he can discard, but judged according to his compassionate (or lack thereof) actions. 

What Kind of Christian Are You?

 What kind of Christian are you?

 

Are you an Old Testament Christian living under the law?  Are you convinced that you cannot do anything that isn’t decreed by “the Bible” through the interpretation of some Priest or Minister?  Are your actions based on the teachings of others and not your own sense of Compassion and Empathy? 

 

Are you a Jesus Christian living a life of Compassion and Empathy towards others?  Are your actions based on your Principles, Values, and Virtues (PVVs) focused on Love (Sympathy, Empathy, and Compassion)? 

 

Or are you a Saint Paul Christian where you are convinced that What You Believe is the most important aspect of your Christian life?  Even more important than living a life of Compassion and Empathy?

 

 

Secular Values 01

 

Secular Values 01

Stand For Something

A leadership vacuum

By 

Elliot Kirschner Apr 12

Too many of our elected officials are too steeped in focus groups and political calculus—they measure their actions based on fear of reaction, and are trapped by the battlelines of the past, unable to reimagine the decisions we’ll need to shape a better future.

I sense a public eager for clarity and conviction—for leaders who are bold but responsive, unafraid to take risks, and uncompromising in their pursuit of what they believe is right.

I suspect that many of the stances that now feel like prudent caution will be seen by future voters as acts of political cowardice—maybe even as soon as the next election cycle. This will extend to those in leadership at places like universities, law firms, and industry.

I’m reminded of lessons from the past: how voting to go along with the war in Iraq because it seemed overwhelmingly popular ultimately helped cost Hillary Clinton the Democratic nomination in 2008. Or how a failure to take the financial industry to task for the Great Recession helped fuel a wave of disillusionment that hollowed out trust in government and left space for dangerous populisms to rise.

I worry that in trying to piece together a majority, too many Democratic officials see only a patchwork of voting blocs, each needing a different message. But the whole point of a big tent is that it isn’t a collection of little tents. It’s an audacious structure—broad and open enough to shelter difference, held up by the tentpoles of shared purpose, strong enough to withstand the winds of division that hope to tear it down.

We should not fear policy differences. Debate and compromise have been essential for the stability that has allowed America to thrive. But this approach to governance only works if it builds on a foundation of core democratic values. 

We don’t have to agree on everything to agree that:

A functioning democracy depends on truth—even when it’s inconvenient,
Corruption erodes both our moral credibility and our economic resilience,
And strength isn’t measured in bluster but responsible restraint.

Public health decisions should be grounded in evidence, not ideology,
Peaceful protest isn’t a threat to law and order,
And the separation of powers protects judgment from impulse.

No one should be seized off the streets without explanation or recourse,
Scientific progress should be a public priority—not a political target,
And scapegoating “others” doesn’t solve our problems—it multiplies them.

Voting should be easy, accessible, and protected from manipulation,
Workers deserve a fair share of the prosperity they help create,
And children should feel safe in their schools and communities.

Climate change demands action rooted in science and justice,
We have a responsibility to the wider world,
And journalism, free from intimidation, is essential to accountability.

When we stand for these ideals—when we stand for something—we find the strength to stand for and with each other. There’s power in knowing we’re part of something bigger than ourselves. Purpose-driven action draws others in. It’s how mass movements have changed the course of history—more often than not, for the better.

This is both our challenge and our opportunity. But the past teaches us that we cannot wait to seize the moment. We must act with uncompromising urgency. And we need to find and empower the leaders who will rise to join us.

 

Lacking in Critical Analysis

 

Lacking in Critical Analysis

Producing Something This Stupid Is the Achievement of a Lifetime

By David Brooks, New York Times, April 10, 2025

You might have seen the various data points suggesting that Americans are losing their ability to reason.

The trend starts with the young. The percentage of fourth graders who score below basic in reading skills on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests is the highest it has been in 20 years. The percentage of eighth graders below basic was the highest in the exam’s three-decade history. A fourth grader who is below basic cannot grasp the sequence of events in a story. An eighth grader can’t grasp the main idea of an essay or identify the different sides of a debate.

Tests by the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies tell a similar story, only for older folks. Adult numeracy and literacy skills across the globe have been declining since 2017. Tests from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development show that test scores in adult literacy have been declining over the past decade.

Andreas Schleicher, the head of education and skills at the O.E.C.D., told The Financial Times, “Thirty percent of Americans read at a level that you would expect from a 10-year-old child.” He continued, “It is actually hard to imagine — that every third person you meet on the street has difficulties reading even simple things.”

This kind of literacy is the backbone of reasoning ability, the source of the background knowledge you need to make good decisions in a complicated world. As the retired general Jim Mattis and Bing West once wrote, “If you haven’t read hundreds of books, you are functionally illiterate, and you will be incompetent, because your personal experiences alone aren’t broad enough to sustain you.”

Nat Malkus of the American Enterprise Institute emphasizes that among children in the fourth and eighth grades, the declines are not the same across the board. Scores for children at the top of the distribution are not falling. It’s the scores of children toward the bottom that are collapsing. The achievement gap between the top and bottom scorers is bigger in America than in any other nation with similar data.

There are some obvious contributing factors for this general decline. Covid hurt test scores. America abandoned No Child Left Behind, which put a lot of emphasis on testing and reducing the achievement gap. But these declines started earlier, around 2012, so the main cause is probably screen time. And not just any screen time. Actively initiating a search for information on the web may not weaken your reasoning skills. But passively scrolling TikTok or X weakens everything from your ability to process verbal information to your working memory to your ability to focus. You might as well take a sledgehammer to your skull.

My biggest worry is that behavioral change is leading to cultural change. As we spend time on our screens, we’re abandoning a value that used to be pretty central to our culture — the idea that you should work hard to improve your capacity for wisdom and judgment all the days of your life. That education, including lifelong out-of-school learning, is really valuable.

This value is based on the idea that life is filled with hard choices: whom to marry, whom to vote for, whether to borrow money. Your best friend comes up to you and says, “My husband has been cheating on me. Should I divorce him?” To make these calls, you have to be able to discern what is central to the situation, envision possible outcomes, understand other minds, calculate probabilities.

To do this, you have to train your own mind, especially by reading and writing. As Johann Hari wrote in his book “Stolen Focus,” “The world is complex and requires steady focus to be understood; it needs to be thought about and comprehended slowly.” Reading a book puts you inside another person’s mind in a way that a Facebook post just doesn’t. Writing is the discipline that teaches you to take a jumble of thoughts and cohere them into a compelling point of view.

Americans had less schooling in decades past, but out of this urge for intellectual self-improvement, they bought encyclopedias for their homes, subscribed to the Book of the Month Club and sat, with much longer attention spans, through long lectures or three-hour Lincoln-Douglas debates. Once you start using your mind, you find that learning isn’t merely calisthenics for your ability to render judgment; it’s intrinsically fun.

But today one gets the sense that a lot of people are disengaging from the whole idea of mental effort and mental training. Absenteeism rates soared during the pandemic and have remained high since. If American parents truly valued education would 26 percent of students have been chronically absent during the 2022-23 school year?

In 1984, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, 35 percent of 13-year-olds read for fun almost every day. By 2023, that number was down to 14 percent. The media is now rife with essays by college professors lamenting the decline in their students’ abilities. The Chronicle of Higher Education told the story of Anya Galli Robertson, who teaches sociology at the University of Dayton. She gives similar lectures, assigns the same books and gives the same tests that she always has. Years ago, students could handle it; now they are floundering.

Last year The Atlantic published an essay by Rose Horowitch titled “The Elite College Students Who Can’t Read Books.” One professor recalled the lively classroom discussions of books like “Crime and Punishment.” Now the students say they can’t handle that kind of reading load.

The philosophy professor Troy Jollimore wrote in The Walrus: “I once believed my students and I were in this together, engaged in a shared intellectual pursuit. That faith has been obliterated over the past few semesters. It’s not just the sheer volume of assignments that appear to be entirely generated by A.I. — papers that show no sign the student has listened to a lecture, done any of the assigned reading or even briefly entertained a single concept from the course.”

Older people have always complained about “kids these days,” but this time we have empirical data to show that the observations are true.

What happens when people lose the ability to reason or render good judgments? Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Donald Trump’s tariff policy. I’ve covered a lot of policies over the decades, some of which I supported and some of which I opposed. But I have never seen a policy as stupid as this one. It is based on false assumptions. It rests on no coherent argument in its favor. It relies on no empirical evidence. It has almost no experts on its side — from left, right or center. It is jumble-headedness exemplified. Trump himself personifies stupidity’s essential feature — self-satisfaction, an inability to recognize the flaws in your thinking. And of course when the approach led to absolutely predictable mayhem, Trump, lacking any coherent plan, backtracked, flip-flopped, responding impulsively to the pressures of the moment as his team struggled to keep up.

Producing something this stupid is not the work of a day; it is the achievement of a lifetime — relying on decades of incuriosity, decades of not cracking a book, decades of being impervious to evidence.

Back in Homer’s day, people lived within an oral culture, then humans slowly developed a literate culture. Now we seem to be moving to a screen culture. Civilization was fun while it lasted.

 

There is No Other

 

There is No Other

When one says “There is no ‘them’” they do not mean that they agree on and identify with everything and with everyone.  It should mean that there are no Groups with a label that I consider “other”.  I cannot say  that the “Russians are my enemy” as there is no one who fits the label of “Russian”.  People are unique and not subject to being objectified by a label.  There may be certain Russians that I don’t agree with, but they would be individuals who happen to be Russian – not the whole group with the label of “Russian”. 

 

I don’t want to be identified as “American” as that word means so many different things to everyone that it means nothing to anyone.  I grew up during the Viet Nam War where the motto for many were “My country – right or wrong”.  I do not subscribe to that.  I don’t want to identify (or be identified with) the “wrong” of my country.  I don’t want to label a person a “Frenchman” and think that that will define him sufficiently.  It isn’t enough to identify anyone with a  label – even identifying a person as a “child molester” is putting a label  on someone else that is a false, or insufficient label.  Labels do not identify or describe anyone. 

 

When we label a person, we de-humanize them and consider them as “other”.  We form this in-group and out-group (others) and form this barrier between us and “them”.  By identifying an “other” with a label, we deliberately draw assumptions that are not warranted.  That is why, in this essay, he mentions that governments try to de-humanize other people under other governments as being “other” as a beginning of the journey from “murder with language” to “murder by bullets or bombs”. 

Craziness in Old Testament

Craziness in Old Testament 

In her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. 

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. 

A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. 

The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord - Lev.1:9. 

The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. 

Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus, Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education University of Virginia

(It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a Canadian)

 

The following is an essay/sermon from the Executive Director of the American Humanists Association.

 

A Message from Executive Director Fish Stark

EMPATHY IS WHAT SAVES US (March 21, 20250

We’ve got a new big lie to fight.

People are being thrown into economic chaos – they don’t know what’s happening to their student loan repayment programs, their retirement savings are being tanked and it seems increasingly likely that Social Security is on the chopping block. Israeli theocrats are once again raining down missiles on civilians in Gaza, other theocrats have responded with rocket attacks in kind. People are being thrown in prison with no criminal charges.

The radical right – the unholy alliance of bishops and billionaires – has turned on the firehose of cruelty.

And they’re telling us that the real problem is that we care too much.

“The fundamental weakness of Western Civilization is empathy,” Elon Musk said on Joe Rogan’s podcast. The right-wing intelligentsia has been talking louder and louder about suicidal empathy recently. Their allies on the religious right are piling on further: empathy is a sin, we’re told, because its focus on human suffering distracts us from heavenly commands.

It’s horseshit.

I don’t just mean it’s morally bankrupt – although that’s true.

But it’s completely counterfactual. It is an intentional lie, obscuring or misrepresenting facts of neurobiology, psychology, and history.

They want us to believe that empathy is killing us. The truth is that empathy is what saves us.

There’s no way for the billionaires and the bishops to get what they want – a society where they’ve consolidated economic and cultural power, where the Musks of the world can amass unlimited profit from our increasing productivity and the Timothy Dolans of the world can force us to structure our personal lives according to their parochial dictates – without doing things that are offensive to human consciousness.

They cannot enforce the economic order they want without cruelty towards the poor, sick, and old. They cannot enforce the social order they want without punishing people who have done nothing wrong but defy their made-up commandments.

And they cannot get away with it unless we let them. So they tell us to turn off the part of ourselves that is naturally wired to be attuned to injustice, to care about the pain and safety of others, to be repulsed by cruelty.

Cognitive empathy – being able to understand and relate to the feelings of others – is proven to improve emotional regulation. We feel better – we are better – when we feel connected to others, when we care about them.

Dr. Kristin Neff at UT-Austin does work on the theory of common humanity – the idea that by realizing the ties we have to other people, our common failings and frailties, we are more forgiving of them and ourselves. Seeing ourselves as more connected to others, rather than isolated within smaller and smaller circles, improves mental health.

There’s also a clear, science-based link between empathy and prosocial behavior. People with empathetic instincts help other people. And prosocial behavior is a positive feedback loop – kindness engenders kindness, generosity sparks generosity.

We have built civilizations not because we followed the dictates of the most self-interested among us but because we created social contracts – systems of laws and rules and ethics that allowed us to keep competing human needs in balance, driven by the recognition that we cannot survive if we don’t trust our neighbors.

Sure, there is such a thing as getting too wrapped up in the concerns of others, of sacrificing one’s own needs too readily. But this is a problem with reasoning and judgment, not empathy. The presence of empathy informs reasoned decision-making, but doesn’t guarantee it. But that’s not what this is about.

The truth is that the billionaires and the bishops don’t want us to be mentally healthy. They want us crying out in desperation, lacking purpose and meaning, so they can tell us to fill the hole with God. And they don’t want prosocial behavior. They want us to be dependent on them, not each other, so they can work us for lower wages and longer hours.

And so they wage a war on empathy.

It seems to me that in doing so, they sow their own downfall. Caring about people is an evolutionary instinct. We are wired to have concern for others in our species, and balance that with their own self-interest.

When you turn one of the most natural human impulses into an act of revolution – well, good luck with that, Elon.

As for me and my house – we will serve humanity. We will not turn inward and ignore the missiles aimed at civilians and the social security checks ripped away from the elderly and indigent.

We won’t look at our empathy as a sin or a weakness, but a tool. A tool that helps deepen our own humanity and ensure the humanity of others is respected and uplifted. A tool that keeps us close to our neighbors when those in power would rather pit us all against each other.

They talk about “suicidal empathy” because they want us to fall into suicidal apathy. But we’re smart enough not to take the bait.

For humanity,

Fish

 

Criticism of Democrats

 Why I still criticize Democrats more than Trump

They can still disappoint me.

Washington Post February 17, 2025 by Shadi Hamid

Here’s a counterintuitive answer.

The comment sections of my recent columns have been awash with a familiar refrain: How dare you criticize Democrats when President Donald Trump poses an existential threat to democracy? The anger is palpable, particularly on left-leaning platforms such as Bluesky, where my attempts to understand — rather than simply condemn — certain Trump-adjacent ideas have sparked accusations of legitimizing fascism. But this reaction reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of both Trump’s presidency and the role of political commentary in our deeply polarized era.

Make sense of the latest news and debates with our daily newsletter

Here’s the counterintuitive truth: I’m more critical of Democrats precisely because I expect more from them. When Trump disregards human rights abroad or undermines democratic norms at home, he’s not being hypocritical — he’s being exactly who he has always claimed to be. The man who called for a “Muslim ban” in 2015 and praised strongmen throughout his first term hasn’t suddenly changed his stripes in 2025.

In his Feb. 4 news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump advocated for the ethnic cleansing of Gaza. That seemed clear enough. But because it was so clear, it seemed redundant to just condemn him. Instead, I interviewed Oubai Shahbandar, an Arab American defender of Trump who saw the president’s Gaza comments in a more positive light. I found this mystifying, but that seemed all the more reason to ask him why he thought what he thought. And then I could leave it to readers to come to their own conclusions.

This gets at a larger question. As much as moral condemnation might make us feel good, what does it accomplish? More than enough journalists and commentators are already documenting Trump’s abuses of power and holding him to account.

 

As his comments on Gaza as well as his flurry of aggressive and legally suspect executive orders make clear, Trump is a threat, including to some of the values I hold most dear. The question isn’t who is worse — that answer is obvious — but, rather, who is better. Who can still be held accountable to their own stated ideals? And the answer there is also clear: Democrats. They claim to be the party of values — of fair competition, freedom, tolerance and pluralism.

Yet Democrats consistently fall short of the very ideals they profess to champion. Under the Biden administration, party leaders — including President Joe Biden himself — spoke of the “indiscriminate” bombing of Gaza while refusing to do anything to stop it. Instead Biden said, chillingly, that “we’re not going to do a damn thing other than protect Israel.” But it’s not just Gaza. The Democratic Party has long preached tolerance and inclusion while marginalizing pro-life Democrats, talking down to Black and brown voters, ignoring religious conservatives and dismissing the growing ranks of Americans who felt the party had become too radical on issues such as gender identity. On policy, what was once the working-class party chose to prioritize things such as college debt relief, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

This is hypocrisy. But hypocrisy has its silver lining. The hypocrite, in claiming to uphold certain values but falling short, is providing, perhaps unintentionally, a service. The hypocrite, unlike the purely cynical actor, at least acknowledges the existence of moral standards — and in failing to meet them illustrates the gap between the ideal and the reality. Political theorist David Runciman extends this insight in his book “Political Hypocrisy,” arguing that “hypocrites who pretend to be better than they really are could also be said to be better than they might be, because they are at least pretending to be good.”

This gap — between what the Democratic Party is and what it might still become — presents an opportunity for the millions of Democrats, like myself, who have grown disaffected with the party’s choices. We should demand more and expect better. It isn’t enough — and it surely wasn’t enough on Election Day — for Democrats to merely be the anti-Trump party and hope for the best.

None of this is to downplay the dangers Trump represents. But we’ve reached a point where reflexive Trump criticism has become a form of virtue signaling — a way to demonstrate one’s allegiance to the “right side” of history without engaging the harder question of why Trump grows more popular rather than less, including with Americans younger than 30.

Put simply, the argument that writers shouldn’t provide a platform for bad or otherwise morally objectionable ideas misunderstands the current political reality. These ideas are already in the air. They’re shaping policy decisions every day. Creating a cordon sanitaire around Trump-adjacent voices such as Shahbandar or Michael Brendan Dougherty, whom I also interviewed, doesn’t make their ideas disappear — it merely ensures that we never truly understand them.

And understanding is crucial. With four years still of Trump, we must wrestle with the fact that millions of our fellow Americans apparently disliked the status quo so much that they now seem indifferent to its dismantling. This isn’t about legitimizing the GOP’s burn-it-down approach to governance but rather trying to grasp why it came to this. Because it did come to this. Only in confronting these realities can Democrats rebuild and reposition themselves in the coming years to win back voters they alienated.

I’m steeling myself for four years (if not longer) of a conservative party that no longer seems interested in conserving. For Republicans, now under the full sway of a man they once detested, the chaos — it seems — is the point. Because I’ve calibrated my expectations accordingly, Trump has lost the ability to disappoint or really even shock me.

We’ve become too quick to label every Trump statement or action as unprecedented or democracy-ending. This rhetorical inflation not only diminishes our ability to respond to genuine crises but also alienates those who might otherwise be receptive to legitimate criticism of Trump’s policies.

In an era in which preaching to the converted seems more important than thoughtful debates, perhaps making my own “side” uncomfortable is exactly what’s needed. After all, if we’re not challenging Americans to think differently about this odd, unsettling political moment, then what’s the point?

 

Disappointment in Democrats

 [But the Democratic Party has disappointed me.  Like the Trumpsters, I’m looking for change and action – however I’m looking for measured change and acts of compassion by the Democratic Party.]

 The following are quotes from an editorial in the Washington Post with my additional comments in brackets.

 WHY I STILL CRITICIZE DEMOCRATS MORE THAN TRUMP

Washington Post February 17, 2025 by Shadi Hamid

 I’m more critical of Democrats precisely because I expect more from them. When Trump disregards human rights abroad or undermines democratic norms at home, he’s not being hypocritical — he’s being exactly who he has always claimed to be. The man who called for a “Muslim ban” in 2015 and praised strongmen throughout his first term hasn’t suddenly changed his stripes in 2025.

 As much as moral condemnation might make us feel good, what does it accomplish? More than enough journalists and commentators are already documenting Trump’s abuses of power and holding him to account.

 Democrats. They claim to be the party of values — of fair competition, freedom, tolerance and pluralism.

 Yet Democrats consistently fall short of the very ideals they profess to champion. Under the Biden administration, party leaders — including President Joe Biden himself — spoke of the “indiscriminate” bombing of Gaza while refusing to do anything to stop it. Instead Biden said, chillingly, that “we’re not going to do a damn thing other than protect Israel.” But it’s not just Gaza. The Democratic Party has long preached tolerance and inclusion while marginalizing pro-life Democrats, talking down to Black and brown voters, ignoring religious conservatives and dismissing the growing ranks of Americans who felt the party had become too radical on issues such as gender identity. On policy, what was once the working-class party chose to prioritize things such as college debt relief, which disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

 [What has the Democratic Party done to help the educational system in the poor black South?  What has the Democratic Party done to help the people in Puerto Rico?  The Government has agreed to build a network of 500,000 electrical charging stations, yet has only built 37 stations with a total capacity of 226 charging ports.  The reason for this low number is “it takes time”.  What has the Democratic Party done to make it take less time?  What has the Democratic Party done to make sure that nothing happens to Medicare and Medicare?  What has the Democratic Party done to assure the operations of Head Start?]

 The hypocrite, unlike the purely cynical actor, at least acknowledges the existence of moral standards — and in failing to meet them illustrates the gap between the ideal and the reality.

 It isn’t enough — and it surely wasn’t enough on Election Day — for Democrats to merely be the anti-Trump party and hope for the best.

 None of this is to downplay the dangers Trump represents. But we’ve reached a point where reflexive Trump criticism has become a form of virtue signaling — a way to demonstrate one’s allegiance to the “right side” of history without engaging the harder question of why Trump grows more popular rather than less, including with Americans younger than 30.

 And understanding is crucial. With four years still of Trump, we must wrestle with the fact that millions of our fellow Americans apparently disliked the status quo so much that they now seem indifferent to its dismantling. This isn’t about legitimizing the GOP’s burn-it-down approach to governance but rather trying to grasp why it came to this. Because it did come to this. Only in confronting these realities can Democrats rebuild and reposition themselves in the coming years to win back voters they alienated.

 [What has the Democratic Party done effect “change in government” in accordance to the wishes of the people?] 

 Because I’ve calibrated my expectations accordingly, Trump has lost the ability to disappoint or really even shock me.