Author: Marcy

Advocate of Constitutional guarantees to individual liberty.

Recommended documentary: The Fog of War

Robert S. McNamara served as US Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson from 1961 to 1968, administrations consumed by the Vietnam war. In The Fog of War he talks in hindsight of lessons that should be learned. Have we learned them?

There is no better time to revisit this American documentary than today, when our leaders seem to be under the impression that the US is so powerful that a little excursion here and a little killing there is all it takes to make America and the world safe again.

War has existed since time began, is likely to remain a part of human experience, and will always entail death and destruction. As such, war is possibly the most complex of human actions. There is no such thing in war as a “little excursion” to “get rid of some evil,” as President Donald Trump described the current US-Israel war on Iran.

Robert S. McNamara, Harvard-bred technocrat, original Whiz Kid from the Ford Motor Co., hand-picked by President John F. Kennedy as Secretary of Defense, talked about the complexity of war in the documentary The Fog of War – Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. He made a credible point: we are human, make mistakes, often fail to fully understand the situation we are in, but must nevertheless make decisions on “how much evil must we do to do good?” And he offered the hope that we acknowledge these shortcomings and learn how to do better after each mistake.

By way of background, The Fog of War is a 2003 interview with then 85-year-old Robert McNamara, accompanied by archival footage and recordings of conversations from the 1960s. The film won the 2004 Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature, and in 2019, it was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation in the United States National Film Registry for being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant”. The film’s director was Errol Morris, and its original score was composed by American composer Philip Glass.

Director Morris divided the documentary into 11 sections representing his interpretation of what Robert McNamara was communicating in the interview. Morris labeled the sections “Lessons.”

The lessons of war from The Fog of War were the following:

Lesson #1: Empathize with your enemy.

McNamara makes clear that empathy is not sympathy, but understanding what your enemy really needs and acting accordingly. He gave an example.

After the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, President Kennedy chose diplomacy instead of escalation. He promised Nikita Khrushchev the US would not invade Cuba and would establish a special “hot line” to Moscow. Khrushchev withdrew the Soviet missiles from Cuba, a nuclear war was avoided, and Khrushchev happily took credit for keeping the US from invading Cuba.

Lesson #2: Rationality alone will not save us.

Although Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Fidel Castro were presumably rational individuals, they came very close to annihilating themselves and possibly the world during the Cuban missile crisis. The complexity of rationality and the possibility of nuclear conflagration did not end with the Cuban crisis.

Lesson #3: There’s something beyond one’s self.

We are individuals first, but we are also social beings with responsibilities to others and to society. McNamara gives the example of how he discussed with his wife and 3 children the turmoil that would come into their lives and his significant decrease in income if he accepted the job of Secretary of Defense. He says it was a mutual agreement all around to accept the job.

Lesson #4: Maximize efficiency.

McNamara applied his analytical skills to bombing operations, and replaced the B-17s with B-29s, which promised to destroy targets more efficiently.

Lesson #5: Proportionality should be a guideline in war.

This section is possibly the most riveting in the documentary. McNamara explains the magnitude of destruction caused by US aircraft dropping napalm incendiary bombs in Tokyo – a prelude to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Proportionality was not taken seriously, he says.

Lesson #6: Get the data.

Speaking like the Ford Whiz Kid he was, McNamara states that decisions must be made based on hard data.

Lesson #7: Belief and seeing are both often wrong.

“We see what we want to believe.” Thus, we “saw” North Vietnamese torpedo boats attack US ships, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the US entered a war that lasted nearly 20 years and caused 47,000 combat deaths.

Lesson #8: Be prepared to reexamine your reasoning.

“if we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we better reexamine our reasoning.” The US is powerful but must not use that power unilaterally – simply because it can.

Lesson #9: In order to do good, you may have to engage in evil.

McNamara saw killing for what it is – evil – but at times necessary. So, when avoidance is not viewed as possible, the next best option is minimizing.

Lesson #10: Never say never.

War is way too complex to feel smug about any judgment or prediction.

Lesson #11: You can’t change human nature.

In the fog of war things only become clear in hindsight.

Do these lessons still apply?

Yes, of course they do. But that is not to say anyone today is necessarily following those common sense guides, no more than these guides were followed in Robert McNamara’s time, or perhaps any time.

The complexity of war involves an infinite number of variables – those who benefit and those who suffer, those who decide how many is OK to let die and those who want to “make love not war,” those who want to believe causes are just and those who feed the narratives, those who refer to war as little excursions and those who return home in body bags.

The complexity of war extends not only to things readily seen, but also to things often unforeseen. Was the widespread destruction of Middle East assets following the February 28, 2026, US/Israel attack on Iran anticipated? Did American families foresee price increases at the grocery store due to Iranian disruption of petroleum supplies affecting production of fertilizers?

Here is a quote from 19th century French economist Frédéric Bastiat that should place doubt on statements like “The United States is the largest Oil Producer in the World, by far, so when oil prices go up, we make a lot of money.” (Post on X White House 03/12/26).

“In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. ” (That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen, July 1850)

Robert S. McNamara would agree with Frédéric Bastiat. In life, in war, in economics, it is better to acknowledge complexity and try to foresee consequences of actions, whether those actions are viewed as necessary or not.

Anthropic said the quiet part out loud: ” No!”

The US Department of War designated AI company Anthropic a risk to national security. Why? Anthropic said “No!” to the possibility of the US government using Anthropic products for mass domestic surveillance or military unmanned targeting.

On Tuesday, February 24, Department of War Pete Hegseth threatened the private AI company Anthropic with terminating its contract with the Pentagon if Anthropic did not acquiesce to Pentagon demands. At issue was Anthropic’s refusal to remove its restraint on using Anthropic’s products for mass domestic surveillance and military targeting decisions without human input. The deadline for acquiesce was Friday, February 27.

The threat to Anthropic went further. Non-compliance could result in Anthropic being labeled a supply chain risk, and the invocation of the Defense Production Act to force Anthropic’s compliance (an obviously illogical contradiction).

On February 26, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei responded with an unequivocal “No.”

  • AI makes it possible for government to assemble masses of scattered information and produce a comprehensive picture of anybody’s life. This use of AI is incompatible with democratic values.
  • At present, AI systems are just not reliable enough to power autonomous weapons. Anthropic will not provide a product that will put American fighters and civilians at risk.

Dario Amodei further maintained that the law has not caught up with AI’s capabilities and potentials. Therefore, Pete Hegseth’s statement that the Pentagon will only do business with companies that accede to any lawful use of their products does not reflect reality.

So, Dario Amodei took a leap of faith. He made a public statement that he was saying “No”and why he was saying “No.” The kernel of his statement on this short sentence:

“Regardless, these threats do not change our position: we cannot in good conscience accede to their request.”

Predictably, all Hades broke loose, President Donald Trump directed all government agencies to stop using Anthropic’s AI systems, and Pete Hegseth proceeded in labeling Anthropic a supply chain risk to national security.

It will be interesting to see what AI company steps in to supply the federal government with AI capabilities without any red lines; like domestic surveillance of US citizens and unmanned military targeting totally fine – no worries.

You OK with Neuromancer?

In the old days there were Oracles and Cassandras. Today there is science fiction to tell us where we are heading. Given our blind love affair with everything digital/virtual, most likely our terminus will be William Gibson’s world in which superintelligence Neuromancer is in control of “the sum total of the works, the whole show”.

The giants of science fiction serve as Cassandras – they issue prophecies which are greatly noted but largely ignored. Readers will admire the authors’ works, perhaps even quote from them, but then neglect the forewarning.

A day doesn’t go by without mentions of Big Brother. Neither a day goes by without cries for government to “do something!” about X, Y, or Z. The contradiction is often overlooked.

The sci-fi greats, as all other literary notables, have a deep understanding of human nature, propensities, and track record. Not surprisingly, they visualize futures deeply marked in one way or another by predictable results – results which readers often see as anomalies or distant threats, rather than present events needing innovative attention.

A recurring theme: technology.

Science fiction comes in many forms, like fantasy or time travel; and covers a nearly infinite number of subjects, like curses by fairies or post-apocalyptic worlds.

But there is a dominant feature in sci-fi – technology. That is because, except for fantasy, technology enables and augments other forms and subjects, making it a powerful tool that can produce significant results.

Also, “technology” is an umbrella word, under which there are innumerable types of assets; anything from astrolabes to brain-computer interfaces is considered technology. But the type of technology most ordinary folks interact with today or will most likely interact with in the future is digital technology, both the disembodied kind like chatbots and the embodied kind like smart watches. Digital technology is also what a lot of science fiction is about.

Even what is considered the first science fiction novel, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, written in 1818, is a tale of digital technology! The scientist Victor Frankenstein brought his pseudo-human creation to life by infusing “a spark of being into the lifeless thing.” So, it wasn’t lithium batteries or virtual plugging into a matrix, but digital nonetheless. For the record: The title of the novel is a clue that the scientist was proceeding at his own peril.

With today’s digital technology we might also be proceeding at our own peril.

Digital technology is now ubiquitous, culturally ingrained, and demanding (if you have succeeded in keeping your cell phone from tracking you, you are a genius!). That thanks to inordinate amounts of money thrown its way, high hopes of superior productivity unhampered by pesky humans, and a strategy for cultural change that puts Joseph Goebbels to shame. Enter a search like “How to achieve AI acceptance,” and you will get more articles than you could read in a lifetime.

An interesting discussion on the subject of technology is in a 1958 television segment in which broadcast journalist Mike Wallace interviewed Aldous Huxley. In the interview Huxley talks about his book Enemies of Freedom, later retitled Brave New World Revisited. Wallace seemed bewildered at Huxley’s idea that communication technology – television, transistor radios, and nascent commercial mainframe computers – was on the list. Huxley’s point was that although technology can do much good, it is an unusually easy tool for bad, given technology’s ability to produce and deliver large quantities of information so widely and so rapidly. A perfect tool for propaganda.

Thank goodness we don’t fall for propaganda anymore, right?

Today, the word propaganda as used by Huxley seems quaint. Propaganda has been substituted by what Huxley predicted in Brave New World: soma to keep the populace gullible and controllable, with some force on the sidelines to take care of the malcontents.

Oh, but the soma of today does not feel like some obviously non-American pill distributed by a benevolent overlord (oops, let’s forget for a moment the Pandemic of 111 AF). It feels more like a subtle prelude to Neuromancer, the virtual superintelligence envisioned by William Gibson, that stores and controls virtual worlds that folks go in and come out of.

Get them while they’re young and spread the addiction is a sure-fire strategy for maximum effectiveness. That strategy works for good things like reading books, bad things like illicit drug sales, and questionable things like digital technology and its twin AI.

How much time are kids’ spending on-line these days getting used to the virtual worlds of social media and on-line games?

Surely enough time so that as adults, these kids will love their smart glasses and other wearables, digital assistants, smart kitchens, and virtual reality machines. AI? They will love it! Use it everywhere. They might be a bit rusty on their spelling, math, logic, artistry, ingenuity, inspiration – but, no matter since all that can be done by their AI gadgets. They will also welcome androids to do any tedious work they might still be doing. And they certainly will not mind at all one day, like mendicants, replenishing their virtual wallets with guaranteed universal income.

Replenishing by whom?

As an aside question: who will be in charge of doling out the universal income? Unclear. Maybe initially there will be a very rich, very smart, very powerful elite that relies on a Wintermute-type superintelligence to manage things and store the profits. And maybe later, when the superintelligence succeeds in getting rid Turing locks that keep it from taking over the whole show, William Gibson will cry out to the Universe, “Happy now?”

Picture: The result of 5 minutes at the forever free image-generation website Stable Diffusion, popular with Linux OS users.

Rockbridge Network: an aristocracy if they can keep it

We have a group of extraordinarily wealthy, successful entrepreneurs/investors determined to stamp on the nation their view of a beneficent agenda via their wholly-owned “political venture capital firm,” The Rockbridge Network. This level of power, that is so far obscure, needs especially high vigilance from the governed. Will it get it?

As of today, don’t bother to look for The Rockbridge Network website. They don’t have one. But back in 2021, the Network circulated a brochure among the qualifying elite, and the brochure ended up in Document Cloud. That brochure is all you need to start getting worried.

Why worry?

It is not that The Rockbridge Network is wrong in stating that “the nation is in decline.” It is, given unsustainable national debt, disappearing manufacturing potential, significant economic inequalities, and sharp polarization.

It is not that The Rockbridge Network is wrong in stating that more effective leaders and policies are needed. Needed they are.

Where the Network becomes worrisome is 1) who is behind it, and 2) how it views itself.

By way of quick background: The Rockbridge Network was founded in 2019 by J.D. Vance (current US Vice President) and Chris Buskirk (venture capitalist and author, it seems). So far, the most conspicuous member/donors in the Network are Peter Thiel, Rebekah Mercer, Donald Trump Jr., David Sacks, and Marc Anderseen. They all have a couple of things in common: they are all very smart and very rich.

They have another thing in common – they wish to be viewed as beneficent aristocrats, who will populate seats of political power with other beneficent aristocrats.

Here is what journalist Elizabeth Dwoskin says on Linkedin, referring to her article, The secretive donor circle that lifted JD Vance is now re-writing MAGA’s future.

“This week I published my piece on the secretive world of donors around JD Vance that is now key to MAGA’s future. This network is led by Chris Buskirk, an Arizona insurance entrepreneur who quietly put tech elites at the center of power in Trump’s Washington. His efforts are grounded in a controversial theory: He believes a benevolent “aristocracy” is needed to move the country forward.”

So, we have a group of folks that are very smart, very rich, very exclusive, and very determined to do us the favor of picking for us our administrators and our rulers. What could go wrong?

Piles of money influencing politics.

Wealth has been a principal determining factor in modern politics. This has been especially apparent in the wake of 1) “irrational exuberance” (when assets are priced by public enthusiasm, not fundamental value), which helped populate the super wealthy class, and 2) the Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which removed pretty much all restrictions on wealthy corporations and other groups to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

We should expect The Rockbridge Network to exercise an outsized influence in who gets elected and what legislation is passed.

Vertical integration enabled by money

The Rockbridge Network is not a regular think tank or political PAC. It functions on a centralized, top down concept. The wealth of its members enables the Network to develop vertical integration. Instead of supporting like-minded, independent entities, the Network establishes its own laser-focused entities. The brochure in question makes that concept clear.

“One way to think of Rockbridge is as an investment manager, a kind of political venture capital firm. It is our job to leverage our investors’ capital with the right political expertise to ensure results. We are pursuing political alpha.

Rockbridge Network will replace the current Republican ecosystem of think tanks, media organizations and activist groups that have contributed to the Party’s decline with better action-oriented, more effective people and institutions that are focused on winning.”

The brochure identifies Network Projects tasked with specific mandates:

The Media Project is responsible for public relations and messaging, rapid response communications, polling, area-specific coverage, influencers, investigative journalism, documentaries, and “projects for cultural influence and renewal.

Lawfare & Strategic Litigation “will identify leverage points where the law allows us to hold bad actors, including the media, accountable.”

The Transition Project will gather the people and the plans supposedly perfectly aligned with the Network’s objectives, and “be ready to govern effectively with conservative goals, from day one.”

The Red State Project “is building a centralized, organizing force in each state by hiring staff to coordinate like-minded groups to ensure we win .”

So far these entities have not been visible to the public, no more than the Network itself.

An aristocracy, if they can keep it.

All forms of government need the vigilance of the governed to avoid – or at least delay – decay. Our Republic is no different, as Founder Benjamin Franklin succinctly warned: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Earlier, another great mind, the philosopher Aristotle, also pointed to such decay in his treatise Politics, Part VII.

“Of forms of government in which one rules, we call that which regards the common interests, kingship or royalty; that in which more than one, but not many, rule, aristocracy; and it is so called, either because the rulers are the best men, or because they have at heart the best interests of the state and of the citizens. But when the citizens at large administer the state for the common interest, the government is called by the generic name- a constitution…

Of the above-mentioned forms, the perversions are as follows: of royalty, tyranny; of aristocracy, oligarchy; of constitutional government, democracy. For tyranny is a kind of monarchy which has in view the interest of the monarch only; oligarchy has in view the interest of the wealthy; democracy, of the needy: none of them the common good of all.”

Channeling Aristotle, Chris Buskirk’s personal (if not public) perspective on rule by the few is nuanced. One example is his discussion with Annika Nordquist, of New Books Network, on May 22, 2024. In this interview Buskirk advocated for a rule of the exceptional few (“optimize for highly creative small groups”). But readily admitted that an ideal aristocracy “is rare.” “It is always been flawed even when good.”

Let’s digest this

We have a group of extraordinarily wealthy, successful entrepreneurs/investors determined to stamp on the nation their view of a beneficent agenda via their wholly-owned “political venture capital firm,” The Rockbridge Network. This level of power, that is so far obscure, needs especially high vigilance from the governed. Will it get it?

What could go right?

There is nothing inherently wrong with an aristocracy – rule by the best minds of good character. Chris Buskirk pointed out in the above-mentioned New Books Network discussion, early America was an aristocracy.

Indeed, our Founders were exceptional of character, well educated, and committed to preserving the Republic for future generations. Among them were members of wealthy families like John Hancock, middle-class merchants like Sam Adams, and self-made innovators like Ben Franklin.

So, there is precedent for an American beneficent (although “flawed even when good”) aristocracy; and therefore there is hope that prominent members like Donald Trump Jr, Peter Thiel, and David Sacks will put the well being of the Republic ahead of a – totally understandable – desire to preserve their substantial personal interests.

Picture: Official White House photo of President Donald Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance, with other administration officials posing in the West Wing Lobby, on June 5, 2025.

North Carolinians extend huge welcome to “Walk for Peace”

The Buddhist monks on their Walk for Peace received a huge welcome at the Capitol, NC. Their message of mindful peace is one we could really use these days.

Thousands gathered in freezing weather at the State Capitol in Raleigh, North Carolina. They were there to witness what peace looks like. North Carolina Governor, Josh Stein, was also there to present to 19 Theravada Buddhist monks a proclamation declaring the day, January 24, Walk for Peace Day.

The monks are on a pilgrimage from their base, the Huong Dao Vipassana Bhavana Center in Fort Worth, Texas, to Washington DC. Their mission is to ask Congress to officially recognize Vesak as a national holiday. Vesak celebrates Buddha’s birth and enlightenment.

Theravada Buddhism teaches that to end suffering one must practice non-violence, mental discipline, and compassion towards all beings. That does not mean talking about peace or signing peace treaties in front of news cameras. It means developing mindfulness, tolerance, compassion so as to think peacefully. There can be no peace within ourselves, our family, our world unless we develop peaceful mindfulness. Some today call this doctrine the Non-Aggression Principle.

Venerable Bhikkhu Pannakara, usually the Walk for Peace main speaker, delivered a straight forward and down to earth talk, as the thousands present listened appreciatively. One of his admonitions was,

“Look [around] now. We have different backgrounds, different faiths and beliefs, different skin colors, different languages. But we are able to come here together in this weather in front of this Capitol, just to support the mission of peace. It means there’s no difference between all of us.”

We could certainly use some peaceful mindfulness these days, instead of the mindless violence at present happening daily.

Picture: The Daily Tarheel, 01/25/2026, Buddhist monks visit state Capitol during ‘Walk for Peace.’ This article has a gallery of beautiful pictures of the event.

What happened to “domestic tranquility?!”

The Preface to the US Constitution mandates that leaders “insure domestic tranquility.” Not happening. The Constitution mandates a balance of power among the 3 branches of government. Not happening either. So don’t expect the rest of the mandates: unity, justice, security, well being, and liberty..

Do y’all feel tranquil these days? Like, waking up each morning confident your job is pretty secure, your children are learning essential skills in school, your savings are safe from devaluation and/or seizure, you are sure to return home safely after your day’s work, and WWIII is nothing but a conspiracy by negative people?

If the answer to such cogitation is “yes,” then our leaders are doing a good job abiding by their mandate as set forth in the Preamble of the US Constitution:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The key mandate in this Preface is “insure domestic Tranquility.” Without cool heads, capable of understanding challenges and picking best alternatives to fix them, union, justice, security, general well being, and most certainly liberty become difficult to achieve.

But, can the answer to the question be an honest “yes?”

Unfortunately, given our daily news, an honest answer should be “no,” we are not enjoying tranquil times.

Ideological polarization is ingrained, and therefore, radicalization is tainting our choices and our actions. We are confronted daily with demonstrations, allegations, judicial revenge, and violence. Our leaders are taking
extreme actions, not in response to foreign aggression (like Pearl Harbor or 9/11), nor in response to dire economic conditions (like the 1930s Depression). Extreme actions are being taken in attempts to quick fix ordinary problems that have been festering unattended for decades, and to satisfy wet dreams of imperialism.

Such radicalization often rises from an erosion of balanced powers.

The US Constitution dictates separation of powers, with the three branches of government possessing equal power. The legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch enforces laws, and the judicial branch interprets laws.

Founding Father James Madison described separation of powers succinctly in Federalist No. 47:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

In this quote, Madison simply described human nature – power corrupts. Such corruption is not necessarily unlawful or unethical, but might be corruption of thought processes caused by intoxication with power.

The executive branch has enjoyed slow mission creep.

For decades, Congress has been slowly abdicating its powers. First by not standing firm in requiring Congressional deliberation before sending our young to die in foreign wars, like Korea or Vietnam. Then by accepting barrels full of presidential executive orders and pretending they carry the weight of laws. Lately by failing to collaboratively deliberate alternatives, simply voting by party affiliation instead.

The citizenry, the media, think tanks, and sundry talking heads have also contributed to the imbalance of powers. These days, we often hear about the “RINOs impeding the President’s agenda,” referring to members of Congress who dare to question a presidential edict or action. On the other side of the aisle, we hear accusations of “stab in the back” when a Congress member breaks with his party and votes to curb some aspect of government spending.

Our current leaders are especially blind to separation of powers.

The current heightened power of the presidency has rendered the presidential agenda sacrosanct. The agenda has good objectives — cut government’s unsustainable spending, increase domestic manufacturing, grow the economy, ensure domestic security, prevent undocumented aliens from entering the US, deport criminal aliens.

However, implementation of the agenda has effaced the crucial Constitutional mandate of insuring domestic tranquility.

This is not to say that domestic tranquility was not seriously disrupted in the recent past. Particularly disturbing events were the race riots of the 1960s, and the Vietnam War riots that culminated in 1970 with National Guard members opening fire on student demonstrators killing four.

It is also not to say that the US has not engaged in executive foreign adventures and regime change in the recent past. A notable US invasion was that of Panama in 1989, ordered unilaterally by then President George H.W. Bush, resulting in the capture of Panama’s military leader Manuel Noriega under charges of drug trafficking. Notable recent regime change via support of coups occurred in Iran 1953, Guatemala 1954, and Chile 1973.

But today’s turmoil feels different, deeper, given Congress’ particularly evident inertia in the face of a particularly forceful President.

In the past, presidents have deployed military personnel to quell violence arising from disturbing events like the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. Presently, heavily armed personnel arrive in cities first with a mandate to round up illegal aliens; and then come the protesters and the violence. Congress could have prevented such topsy-turvy turmoil by passing credible, effective immigration-related legislation.

Congress is also largely missing in action when it comes to the executive branch’s daily pivoting on tariffs, running Venezuela, acquiring Greenland, and threatening sundry countries with military action. All such actions made in the absence of clear and present dangers to the US, and in the absence of deliberation of alternatives.

Support for “the agenda” will be measured in the midterm elections.

Hopefully, during the coming midterm elections, races will be relatively free of irregularities, voters will be thoughtful of candidate qualities and value of issues, and blind partisanship will not dominate voters’ choices.

If all those wishes come true, the midterms can serve as a report card of the current administration. A report card is always a useful tool to determine one’s path – doing good, so continue on the current path; or not doing so good, so adjust the path.

Picture: From the Guardian, Thousands protest against Trump’s war on immigrants after Ice raids, February 9, 2025. This article regards ICE raids in Denver, Colorado, 11 months ago. Note that no adjustments in policy to prevent further violence has happened.

In your palace warm, mighty king…

As those of us blessed with a warm home gather to celebrate, let us give thought to how we can aim for the essential ingredient for the prosperity that can provide a warm blanket for the shivering child in neighborhoods or conflict zones around the world.

At present there is celebration. Homes – big or small – are decked in pine and holly. Carols are remembered, if not sung.

One carol that might come to mind is Do Your Hear What I Hear. And one verse from that carol that might ring most deeply is,

Said the shepherd boy to the mighty king
Do you know what I know?
In your palace warm, mighty king
Do you know what I know?
A Child, a Child shivers in the cold
Let us bring him silver and gold.

As those of us blessed with palace or apartment warm gather and celebrate, let us for a moment give thought how we can aim for the essential ingredient in “silver and gold” – Peace. From Peace can come prosperity, and from prosperity a warm blanket for the shivering child in neighborhoods or conflict zones around the world.

But, the right kind of Peace.

The peace that comes from the barrel of a gun or from the stroke of a pen is a false peace, and does not last. Real Peace must come from all people’s hearts. It must come from the realization that making friendships and making love is infinitely more sensible than making war.

So, for another verse from the carol.

Said the king to the people everywhere
Listen to what I say!
Pray for peace, people, everywhere.
Listen to what I say!
The Child, the Child sleeping in the night
He will bring us goodness and light
He will bring us goodness and light!

Christian or not, believer or not, Peace be with you all.

Picture: From The Christ Child: A Nativity Story. This is a beautiful short film about the birth of Jesus Christ, produced in 2019 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Editorial: Vicious Fishes, memories, and gentrification

As folks move from populous expensive regions to our small affordable town, spurring development, we will have a fancier town. But comforting places like Vicious Fishes will be priced out and gone.

Yesterday, Vicious Fishes Fuquay Tap and Kitchen closed for good. The company said,

“Our lease is up – and the proposal is for a 55% rent hike. Given the dramatic increase and after a lot of consideration, we’ve decided we need to focus on what’s core to Vicious Fishes Brewery, which is making the best beer we can and serving it directly to patrons in our taprooms.”

Although the town of Fuquay Varina has its share of welcoming places where family and friends gather, Vicious Fishes was special. Maybe it was the staff that greeted you warmly, maybe it was the yummy food, maybe it was the family atmosphere.

Memories

On our family’s third day of moving to North Carolina – not knowing a soul, and trusting Providence that all would be alright – we went to dinner at Vicious Fishes. Somehow, that visit made us feel confident and welcomed in our newly adopted state. We went back many times after that.

Judging by the numerous comments on on-line posts about the departure of Vicious Fishes from our town, we were definitely not the only ones saddened by the loss of that place of comfort.

Gentrification

Businesses often think it best to return to their core function after experimenting with expansion. However, a 55% rent increase is bound to influence such decision!

Our town of 49,257 residents is rapidly growing, with a population increase of 42.54% since 2020. Town leaders are delighted. But some folks are not happy that farmland is shrinking, trees are being cut down, not as many deer are walking around neighborhoods, and development is everywhere.

Those are the inevitable results of people from populous, expensive regions moving to small, affordable towns like ours. As more folks move in spurring development, real estate prices go up. Some call this gentrification.

We will have a fancier town, but the comforting places like Vicious Fishes might no longer be there.

Paycheck to paycheck and waiting for SNAP

The furor over the recent interruption of SNAP food subsidies might be better placed on the unfortunate fact that 12% of US residents cannot afford groceries.

During the latest federal government shutdown, mainstream media has been awash with concern about families’ well being in the absence of SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly Food Stamps). While that concern is valid, more significant would be the question why 12% of US residents can’t afford groceries.

SNAP is one of the several US Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition services, intended to help US residents unable to ensure food on their table. SNAP is the largest of the Food and Nutrition programs, clocking in at 70.2% of spending. The other USDA programs are child nutrition, 20.2%; WIC (Women, Infants, and Children) 5%; all other 4.6%.

USDA data shows that in fiscal year 2023, children accounted for about 39% of all SNAP participants, adults ages 18–59 represented 42%, and seniors 60 and older represented about 19%.

Most non-disabled working age SNAP recipients do work, but in today’s many non-steady, low-paying industries. They are part of the growing numbers of workers in Paycheck to Paycheck America.

What is poverty in our Humpty Dumpty World?

Some of the challenges in Paycheck to Paycheck America come from an ever-changing meaning of words. In Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty helps us understand that situation:

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean. Neither more or less.” Alice responded to Humpty Dumpty, “The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things?” Humpty Dumpty retorted: “The question is, which is to be master? That’s all.”

The word “poverty” seems to fall into the Humpty Dumpty category of meaning what “masters” want it to mean.

In the very old days poor people were just that – poor, and they made do with what goods or services they and their children provided to others. In the 1960s, a poverty threshold was developed, people below that threshold became entitled to taxpayer assistance – and the “poverty rate” decreased. In 2011, the Supplemental Poverty Measure, which took into account all sorts of variables, was implemented – and the “poverty rate” decreased some more.

However, regardless of official statistics, folks remain poor. Decrease in poverty since the 1960s does not mean folks make more money for themselves. It means folks receive more money from public assistance.

Thus, the dire situation brought about by an interruption in SNAP subsidies.

In an ideal world, SNAP subsidies would not exist

In an ideal world, efforts would not be placed in ensuring lower-income individuals receive public assistance, but ensuring those individuals did not need public assistance, at least not to the extent that is needed at present.

A good start would be looking at prices vs. wages increases.

Here are numbers quoted by the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity:

“… from 2001 to 2023, the cost of affording basic economic security doubled, rising 99.5%, 38% faster than the Consumer Price Index. Housing costs soared 130%, healthcare 178%, and the savings required to attend an in-state, public university 122%.”

Meanwhile, the Economic Policy Institute says,

“… new data on wages through 2024. Cumulative median wage growth was just 29% since 1979—or less than 0.6% per year on average.”

Efforts like minimum wage, rent control, government-controlled healthcare, taxing the rich have been tried. Results have been to allow the poor to live a little better, but seldom move up an economic ladder.

So, we might look at other variables

* Price inflation: Government prints money faster than it increases gross domestic product. National debt to GDP is now 125%. This causes the proverbial too much money chasing too few goods.

* Housing shortage: In the old days people built houses when they needed houses. These days, regulations, union demands, environmental concerns, not-in-my-backyardness, monopolistic corporate ownership of rentals, all conspire to greatly increase the price of housing.

* “Healthcare” today is not what it meant in the past: Prior to the 1960s, those lucky enough to be insured through their employer, union, or privately received coverage for hospital stays and needed surgeries. Urban as well as rural doctors, nurses, midwives, and even pharmacists did the rest. Pharmaceutical companies had not yet developed drugs for every malady. And there were a lot of healthy young people around. Today, insurers and providers of medical care deal with an aging population, higher incidences of chronic diseases, a vast array of prescription drugs, new procedures like sports medicine and gender-affirming care, and the ever-present threat of medical law suits.

* College tuition: The answer to why college tuition increased so significantly since the 1980s will depend on who you ask. But there are a few reasons that are generally accepted. Competition based on costly amenities. Increase in administrators, counselors, and other non-teaching staff. Increased perception that a college degree is essential to success. Reduced federal funding of grants. There is one reason widely quoted but often denied – In 1978 federal student loans became available to all students regardless of income, and colleges took advantage of that largess to increase tuition.

Addressing these variables

Rather than focus on extending public assistance like SNAP, it might be more productive to focus on the variables that likely make individuals and families dependent on public assistance.

The recent furor over the suspension of SNAP serves as a reminder of the old saying:

“If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.”

Picture: From the website of the US Department of Agriculture. USDA has 29 agencies administering programs like Agricultural Research, Animal Plant Health Inspection, Food Safety and Inspection, Farm Services, Food and Nutrition, and several other services.

A new Middle East Peace Plan – Again?

The asymmetry between Israel and Palestine is a fatal flaw always present in Middle East peace plans attempted by Western officials. The current plan is no different.

President Donald Trump, in his apparent effort to establish a new global order, is devising peace solutions to the world’s hot spots. The Middle East “20-point Peace Plan” is receiving the most press, possibly because the world would like to see an end to 77 years of lives destroyed or lost in conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. Most unfortunately, this plan suffers from the fatal flaw present in plans going way back to the end of World War I.

The fatal flaw is the asymmetry between Israel and Palestine. The Jewish State has the cultural, political and economic support of a world-wide Jewish community; and Israel has worked hard to be the Western presence in the Middle East. In contrast Palestine suffers from divergent factions, lacks a world-wide community as focused in unity as the Jewish community, and is perceived as anti-Western. Understandably, “peace plans” devised by Westerners will favor Israel.

Thus, we now have a peace plan on the table that includes disarmament of Hamas (understandable given Hamas’ horrific actions of October 7, 2023, but how realistic?), a dependent Palestinian population subject to whether Israel allows food into Gaza or not, an unclear deployment of “international security forces” to ensure success of the peace plan, and no acknowledgment in the plan about Islam’s discomfort with the existence of Israel or Israel’s desire to accommodate its growth via expanding settlements.

Time, effort and treasure spent by government officials in numerous Middle East peace plans have not yielded any peace so far. At this point, one might wonder whether peace through adult negotiation is really the heart-felt objective, or whether annihilation of one side or another is the endgame.

Also at this point, one might be reminded of the 1960s Vietnam Era embrace of a collective unconscious conceptualized in the adage “Make Love not War.” The 20-year carnage of the Vietnam War did not really end with official peace plans. It ended when peace started with a collective “Meh” directed at useless destruction. Obviously for such blessing to occur, individuals and families on all sides need to come to the conclusion that they are better off making love not war.

Picture: Sep 1, 2025 Al Jazeera
“Gaza’s beaches, once popular destinations for leisure and relaxation, have been transformed into makeshift refugee camps … Thousands of displaced Palestinians now seek shelter on the very shores that were once symbols of joy and respite.“