Tag Archives: Donald Trump

Social Living

“Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time.”

Elon Musk, February 28, 2025

For elected officials here in the U.S., Social Security is much like a live power line: touch it and they’re done.  Social security, along with Medicare and Medicaid, is one of those sacred vessels of American life.  It’s not just beloved; it is sacrosanct.

Thus, for a foreign-born oligarch like Elon Musk to disparage it as a “scheme” has become anathemic.  As something of a pseudo-president, Musk is head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has taken a hacksaw to a number of departments within the federal government.  The declared goal is to reduce bureaucratic weight by slashing jobs and merging together certain divisions within the system.  Nowhere in this morass of right-wing blather is a dedication to make people like Musk and their corporations to pay their share of taxes.  But that’s a different issue.

To place things in proper perspective – and put elected officials like Trump in their place – social security has too many safeguards to be considered a Ponzi scheme.  Before the Social Security Act of 1935, a large number of older Americans lived in abject poverty.  At the time it was common for families to take in older relatives.  But some people simply didn’t have that support and they were left to fend for themselves.  The concept of providing for those who simply couldn’t work or take care of themselves is nothing new.  Various societies throughout history have considered the fragilities of the human condition and sought to alleviate those difficulties.  It is simply immoral to abandon those who can’t care for themselves.  It’s also rather easy to look at those who won’t take care of their own lives and group them with the others.

The Social Security Act has been amended several times since 1935, but it differs from a Ponzi scheme in many ways.

1. Social Security is not fraudulent

A Ponzi scheme is a deliberate a fraud intent to mislead investors.

2. Social Security’s operators do not take a cut

Unlike with Ponzi schemes, Social Security is not a profit-generating gamble, and the officials who run it do not take a portion of it for themselves.

3. Social Security is operated in the open

Social Security is a transparent, government-run program with clear funding mechanisms. 

4. Social Security has built-in oversight

Unlike a Ponzi scheme, Social Security has many layers of oversight, auditing, regulation and legal and financial systems in place to ensure accuracy and transparency. 

5. Social Security offers realistic returns

The goal of Social Security is to provide basic income replacement, not to generate get-rich-quick returns.  Ponzi schemes often promise unrealistically high gains.

6. If financially stressed, Social Security can adjust funding and/or benefits

A fiscal imbalance in Social Security can be corrected, but a Ponzi scheme can’t.  Social Security beneficiaries can’t demand to be paid a balance in their account if they suspect something is wrong.  There can’t be a “bank run” on Social Security, and problems ultimately can be resolved.

It doesn’t surprise me that Trump and the Republican Party are targeting Social Security, or rather that conservative Republicans in general haven’t struck back at the president.  Social and political conservatives have always been leery about government programs designed to help people.  Before Franklin R. Roosevelt’s “New Deal” policies (designed and implemented to address the brutal impact of the Great Depression), government’s primary purpose was to enact laws and collect taxes.  The collapse of the U.S. stock market in 1929 and the subsequent financial calamities that ensued changed that mindset – at least among the more open-minded.  Social Security was just one project resulting from such forward thinking.

In 1944, Congress passed the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (later known as the GI Bill) to assist those returning from military service during World War II.  It provided a myriad of aid and services to these individuals, such as education and housing.  Again, many conservatives denounced it as welfare.

Similar criticisms befell Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” some two decades later.  From this massive undertaking, we got Medicare and Medicaid.  But, as Johnson declared, the government should ensure both “liberty and abundance” for all citizens – not just those who can afford it.  And as before, critics deemed it socialized medicine.

While it’s surprising that the U.S. federal government can operate with such alleged overspending – a bloated bureaucracy – it does provide substantial safety and security to most everyone here.  The attack on Social Security is monstrous.  Trump has sworn to leave it alone, but I personally don’t trust him.

I’m fast approaching the official retirement age of 62, yet I know I won’t be able to sit back in my quiet suburban home and embark on my dream life of being a full-fledged writer.  The Social Security system is supposedly insolvent.  Raising the official retirement age (as many, including Musk, have suggested) or reducing benefits won’t repair that problem.  Funding for the Iraq War alone could have made Social Security fiscally viable for generations.  Still, the program must be handled with care.  Touching it irresponsibly is, indeed, akin to touching that live power line.

3 Comments

Filed under Essays

When Ann Said to Hell with It

Recently Ann Telnaes resigned her position as a political cartoonist for The Washington Post – a role she’d held for 16 years – in protest over the newspaper’s refusal to publish this cartoon.  It apparently offended the oligarchs who have taken seats at Donald Trump’s table, including Amazon found Jeff Bezos who owns The Washington Post.

Good for her!  In an environment increasingly hostile to free speech and free press, with right-wing extremists banning books instead of childhood hunger, it’s great that someone has the backbone to stand up to the madness.  Here is Telnaes’ editorial explaining her decision.

4 Comments

Filed under Art Working

Gallery of Nitwits

Well, just like the Earth didn’t self-obstruct when Barack Obama won his two elections, it hasn’t 75 7jpj56exploded now that Donald Trump has returned to the White House.  But at least there was never any (real) question that Obama actually won.  And I’m still feeling dismal.

It’s tough to remain faithful to the democratic process and the American vision of equality and happiness when someone like Trump keeps succeeding.  But this is life on planet Earth and it’s imperfect.  In fact, it’s downright screwy!

I don’t care what anyone says.  In my adult life, I’ve never seen anyone as incompetent or unqualified to claim the title of U.S. President than Donald Trump.  As I’ve stated before, I was embarrassed with George W. Bush in the White House.  But I’m incredibly disgusted with this former real estate magnate / pathetic reality TV star / tax cheat / draft dodger / womanizer in the same role.  U.S. politics has truly descended into madness.

Trump’s cabinet appointments have proven equally unfit for such prestigious and high-profile positions.   Former Congressman Matt Gaetz was the first of Trump’s appointments to come under intense scrutiny – and the first to withdraw his nomination.  Trump had wanted Gaetz to be his Attorney General, the nation’s top law enforcement official, despite not having any experience in the legal field – except as a litigant.

Trump’s second choice for the role, Pam Bondi, is Florida’s former attorney general and a corporate lobbyist.  Like the rest of Trump’s nominees, she’s a devout Trump supporter and apologist, but she actually made it through her confirmation hearing in one piece and is now overseeing the U.S. Justice Department.

For Defense Secretary, Trump picked Pete Hegseth, a former military veteran and FOX New TV host.  He also made it through his confirmation hearing – despite tales of his excessive alcohol consumption and sexual harassment allegations.  In this latter respect, he’s Trump “Light”.

Three other Trump nominees – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for Health and Human Services Secretary, Kash Patel for FBI Director, and Tulsi Gabbard for Director of National Intelligence – are facing tougher paths.  Kennedy, son of the late and legendary former U.S. Attorney General, ran as an independent candidate in last year’s presidential race.  But his past comments questioning the efficacy of vaccines, including COVID-19, have come back to haunt worse than one of Trump’s ex-wives.  He’d once declared that AIDS in Africa “is an entirely different disease from Western AIDS” and claimed that work done by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is akin to that of Nazi death camps.  He also propagated a popular conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism in children.

Patel said recently that, if chosen as FBI Director, he’d terminate as many of the agency’s employees as possible and shut down its headquarters building, before reopening it as a museum to the “deep state”.  That “deep state” reference is common among right-wing conspiracy theorists, especially after FBI investigations into Trump’s antics during his first term in office.

Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii and a military veteran, may have the toughest road of all of them.  She has insinuated that Russia had some justification for invading Ukraine three years ago; denouncing the administration of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky as a “corrupt autocracy”.  She backed Russia’s unfounded claims that the U.S. and Ukraine have collaborated to engage in clandestine biological warfare.

One of my closest friends, Preston*, is a Trump voter who had told me last year that he was concerned – if Vice-President Kamala Harris won the presidency – she’d send U.S. troops into Ukraine.  He has two young adult sons who could face military conscription, if a military draft was enacted – which hasn’t occurred since the early 1970s.  I can identify with that sentiment.  In 1991, I feared something similar would happen with the Persian Gulf War, when I was in my mid-20s.  Preston believes wholeheartedly in Trump (which I don’t hold against him), but I’m worried now that Trump could send U.S. troops into the Middle East to help Israel fight against Iran.  Both those countries have nuclear weapons.

Another disquieting possibility is that Trump will enact the classic Republican tax cuts – that bullshit “trickle-down” economics regimen every GOP official has pushed onto the American people for over a century; the kind that has always shoved the U.S. into financial despair.  It happened with the Great Depression of the 1930s, the savings and loan crisis of the early 1990s, and the Great Recession less than two decades ago.  Trump’s round of tax cuts and deregulation measures during his first term only exacerbated the trauma of the COVID-19 pandemic.  I fear it’s going to happen again, and the U.S. will find itself in more economic distress.

But don’t blame people like me.  I didn’t vote for either Trump or Harris, but – as with Hillary Clinton in 2016 – I have to concede Harris would have been the lesser of two evils.  That’s never a pleasant position in which voters should find themselves, but it’s how I view politics in the U.S.

Now we’ll just have to see what shenanigans occur with Trump 2.0.  Fasten your seatbelts.

*Name changed

3 Comments

Filed under Essays

Self-Inflicted

“When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Sinclair Lewis, 1935

I had a certain sensation deep inside of me; the same kind of feeling when I know something dramatic – either good or bad – is about to happen.  This time it was bad, and I almost felt sick.  Donald Trump has been reelected to the U.S. presidency.  He becomes only the second president in U.S. history to win a second term that didn’t immediately follow the first.  He also has the dubious distinction of being the first indicted criminal to be elected.  Little could be stranger or sadder for the American people.  I suppose, though, that too many people drank that proverbial Kool-Aid offered by the Republican despot; a man who openly admires the likes of Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-Un; who has advocated violence against others; who has threatened to imprison anyone who disagrees with him; who incited a riot nearly four years ago; and who has demonstrated no true respect for average, working Americans.

I am embarrassed by and disgusted with many of my fellow Americans who helped put Trump into office.  The Democratic Party, however, really has no one but themselves to blame for this chaos.  Their leadership stood by as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders ran for president in 2020.  With all due respect to those two gentlemen, their time had come and gone.  The window to run for and win the U.S. presidency is small.  I felt Biden and Sanders would have better served the country by giving speeches and writing books about the value and importance of democracy and how people like Trump pose the worst threat to our constitutional freedoms.

For the Democrats, the 2020 presidential race began with the most diverse slate of candidates – and ended with the same tired old figures that traditionally represented both parties: old White men.  Now understand I’m a mostly White male and have no qualms about it.  But this nation boasts too varied a population to rely upon the same types of people to lead us.

And it’s not that the U.S. isn’t ready for a female president.  We’re way past ready.  It’s just that the Democrats (and the Republicans for that matter) have never chosen the right women to lead them.  I’ve always said Hillary Clinton was too divisive a figure.  While I loved Bill “Who’s Your Daddy” Clinton, I personally never cared for Hillary.  And, although Kamala Harris made history by becoming the first female vice-president in U.S. history, she didn’t do enough to separate herself from Biden.

In 1993 Canada elected its first female prime minister, Kim Campbell, and highly patriarchal and staunchly Roman Catholic México just elected its first female (and Jewish) president, Claudia Scheinbaum.  Thus far, eighteen other women either have been elected or ascended to the highest office in their respective countries in the Western Hemisphere:

Jeanine Áñez, Bolivia, 2019-20

Rosalía Arteaga, Ecuador, 1997

Michelle Bachelet, Chile, 2006-10 and 2014-18

Dina Boluarte, Peru, since 2022

Sylvanie Burton, Dominica, since 2023

Xiomara Castro, Honduras, since 2022

Violeta Chamorro, Nicaragua, 1990-97

Eugenia Charles, Dominican Republic, 1980-95

Laura Chinchilla, Costa Rica, 2010-14

Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Argentina, 2007-15

Lidia Gueiler Tejadam, Bolivia, 1979-80

Mireya Moscoso, Panama, 1999-2004

Mia Mottley, Barbados, since 2018

Ertha Pascal-Trouillot, Haiti, 1990-91 (acting president)

Michèle Pierre-Louis, Haiti, 2008-09

Dilma Rousseff, Brazil, 2014-16

Portia Simpson-Miller, Jamaica, 2006-07 and 2012-16

Claudette Werleigh, Haiti, 1995-96

Trump does not represent me – never has and never will.  He has proclaimed total disrespect for people who aren’t exactly like him.  And I’m certainly not like him.  I’m not a wealthy, full-blooded Caucasian womanizer who cheated on his taxes and has disdain for the American military.  I feel that he’s a genuine threat to free speech and the right to vote, but – like most conservatives – has the full support of gun rights advocates.  This latter band of extremists has always placed the value of firearms above free speech and the right to vote – and certainly above the lives of human beings.

One of my concerns with Trump’s return to the White House is that he will implement the so-called Project 2025 – a federal policy agenda created by the Heritage Foundation, a far-right conservative outfit that is a borderline hate group.  Many officials in Trump’s first administration took part in the project’s creation, which demands a complete overhaul of the government based on staunchly conservative ideology.  That philosophy features opposition to the usual causes: abortion and reproductive freedom and queer rights, but also immigration and racial equity.  Moreover, Project 2025 calls for unwarranted surveillance on specific individuals; using force to quell protestors; and targeting journalists who they deem enemies of the state.  This might sound familiar to those schooled in global political history.  They’re the same kind of tactics the Nazis and the former Soviet Union used on its own civilians.  Argentina pursued the same agenda during its “Dirty War”, and North Korea is doing it now.

I don’t know what’s next for America, but I see nothing good on the horizon.  I’m certain my conservative friends and relatives will assume I’m being paranoid, even hysterical.  Yet I felt similar sensations of foreboding when George W. Bush became president in 2000.  And I was right.  The U.S. ended up both in war and a recession.

I’m almost certain it will happen again.

2 Comments

Filed under Essays

Elon Musk Can Kiss My Hairy Ass and Then Go Home

Elon Musk, the South African-born multi-billionaire who has founded several companies, including Tesla and Space X, has jumped into the 2024 presidential race with a curious stunt in support of Donald Trump.  He’s offering USD 1 million to anyone who signs his pledge to support free speech and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Pennsylvania State Attorney General Michelle Henry filed suit against Musk; stating the giveaway is technically a lottery not sanctioned by state officials.  But Pennsylvania State Judge Angelo Foglietta stopped the litigation by refusing to block the Musk’s antics.  Instead, he deferred the matter to a federal court and noted that Henry’s suit probably won’t be resolved before Election Day, next Tuesday.

I could care less whether this foreign-born tax cheat wants to engage in such capers.  One million dollars to any average person is attractive, including myself.  But my vote is more important than that.  So is everyone else’s.

It seems every major election in the U.S. since 2000 has gotten more and more weird.  I remain cynical, as my displeasure with government at all levels in this country grows.  Both major political parties have become increasingly dominated by extremists.  Regardless of the office they’re seeking, candidates have always played initially to their base; those unmovable die-hards who will vote for one side no matter what.  Then, once the candidate has secured the nomination, they expand their outreach to persuade as many others as possible.

Over the past decade, however, Donald Trump has preached to one group and only one group: his faithful (and fanatical) acolytes.  He mocks them, in a way, behind their collective backs; the same way false prophets ridicule their blind minions.

From a political standpoint, I consider myself left of center, but I’ve voted consistently Democrat since 1992.  Then came 2016 and I went rogue by voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party.  I didn’t care for Trump and I never liked Hillary Clinton.  Now I absolutely despise Trump and don’t care for Vice-President Kamala Harris.  Recently various European chapters of the Green Party have begged Stein to withdraw from the presidential race and support Harris.  At this point, though, it may be too late.

I’m not – and never have been – persuaded by editorial or celebrity endorsements of a particular candidate.  Musk can keep his money – and settle in comfortably at one of Trump’s estates.  I’ll vote my conscious, for whatever that’s worth in these chaotic days.  Besides, official Election Day, November 5, will be my 61st birthday.  I won’t spend it thinking about politicians.

Image: Gary McCoy

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Glassed

Around the turn of the century, I saw news that a women’s college here in the U.S. had contemplated admitting men within a year or two.  The shock and outrage from the female student body was as palpable as it was vociferous.  Ironically the institution had a male chancellor at the time.  He tried explaining to the crowd that the college was trying to maintain its viability, but his voice was suffocated by the intense hysteria.  You would have thought the incoming male students would be selected from a sex offender registry.  I’m sure those young women had long since bought into the feminist myth that all men are naturally prone to violence, especially sexual assault.  Almost immediately, however, the college rescinded its decision, much to the delight of the students.  That same male chancellor made the announcement by unfurling a banner that bore the term “For Women Again”.  The crowd erupted into cheers of relief; some even popping open bottles of champagne.

At the bank where I worked at the time, the subject arose during a lunch conversation.  I was the only man in the small group, and my female colleagues collectively agreed that they understood the reticence of that college’s students to admit men.  But, of course, I had to opine by highlighting the obvious anger those young women expressed at the initial announcement.  “I wonder what those little girls will do when they enter the adult world and have real problems.  And there’ll be men all over the place, and there’s not a goddamn thing they can do about it.”

I suppose my constituents weren’t surprised by the statement, but to some extent, they had to concur.  There was a time when the genders were explicitly separated, and everyone seemed fine with it.  Men did this, and women did that.  And things functioned relatively well.

But I pointed out that, if women want true equality, they have to accept that men are part of that equation.  In many ways, for centuries, men have excluded women from the decision-making process; claiming there was a “place” for them.  Women have fought back and demanded a place at that proverbial decision-making table.

Oddly one of the women sitting with me in that lunch room didn’t believe women should be in positions of power, such as the U.S. presidency.  “We have too many emotional and hormonal problems!” she said, much to the shock and chagrin of the other women.  She wasn’t the first woman from whom I’d heard that.  But this was 2000, and I was certain such beliefs had been relegated to ancient times – like dial phones.

A few years before that particular conversation a similar debate arose among me and some female colleagues at the bank; another one about gender parity.  I noted that, if women wanted true equality with men, they needed to start registering for Selective Service – like the men have to do.  In the U.S., Selective Service is the most blatant form of sexism.  The current system was reinstated in 1980 by then-President Jimmy Carter.  Every male in the U.S. born since January 1, 1960 has to register for it within 30 days of their 18th birthday.  In the face of a never-ending Cold War and the sudden Iranian hostage crisis, it was a call-back to an older time in America.  There’s no penalty for late registration, but there are plenty of punishments for failure to register – including jail time and a six-figure fine; no admittance to college; and no financial aid.  The issue was a big one when I was in high school and it became a concern during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

In the aforementioned workplace conversation, one of my female colleagues – the mother of a single college-aged son – responded, “When men get pregnant,” before storming off.  Another woman concurred with a laugh.  But I pointed out that men have to register for Selective Service; otherwise, face some serious legal repercussions.  Women, on the other hand, don’t have to have children if they don’t want.  There is no law that compels women to get pregnant.  My female cohorts couldn’t offer a logical reply.

All of that came back to me last week, when Vice-President Kamala Harris accepted the Democratic Party’s nomination as presidential candidate.  She’s only the second woman and the first non-White woman to be so honored.  This year’s presidential campaign has literally turned out to be the oddest in decades; certainly the most unusual in my lifetime.  And at the age of 60, I don’t have too many first time experiences left.

I started coming of age in the 1970s, just as the contemporary feminist movement was making more concerted inroads into a patriarchal American society.  I recall how just being male seemed to become anathemic.  Many women demanded full and complete equality with men in every aspect of civilization.  Yet, by the 1990s, I noticed some women (and men) expected a double standard.

Women can’t reasonably demand to be treated as equals to men in business and politics, yet still expect to be placed in the same category as infants and children when it comes to their health and welfare.  In other words, don’t insist on being given the chance to be the CEO of a major corporation, a governor, a Supreme Court justice, or president of the United States and still want to be the first ones in the lifeboat when the ship hits the ice berg.

If you want equality, I’ll give you equality.  But, remember the old saying: be careful what you wish for; you might just get it.  When it comes to progressive attitudes, I sometimes think of the 1967 film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”.  Spencer Tracy and Katherine Hepburn portray a liberal San Francisco couple whose all-inclusive ideology is tested when their daughter (Katherine Houghton) introduces her fiancé (Sidney Poitier) to them.  While the movie is rife with stereotypes, the general message is essential: how sincerely should people value and hold onto their beliefs.  The presidency of the United States has often been deemed the ultimate “glass ceiling” for women.  As we march further into the 21st century, members of every previously-marginalized group need to consider how much shattered glass they want on the floor of progress.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Maelstrom

Donald Trump gets shot at an outdoor rally; Joe Biden ends his presidential campaign; and the 2024 Summer Olympics launch in Paris with opening ceremonies conducted down the Seine and Lady Gaga greeting crowds in French (when has an American ever visited a foreign country and spoken the local language?).

Oh and this summer in the Northern Hemisphere is already smashing temperature records, plus we’re experiencing a COVID resurgence.  I thought 2020 was chaotic (and it truly was), but 2024 has proven even more unusual.  When I saw news that Trump had been shot by a would-be assassin, I simply responded the same way conservatives have reacted to school shootings: I offered my thoughts and prayers.  At least Trump survived.

Vice-President Kamala Harris has scooped up the embers of the Democratic torch and hurtled forwards towards November 5, Election Day here in the U.S. (and my 61st birthday).  A good birthday present for me would be a completely different candidate to win the race, but I’m smart enough to realize that just won’t happen.  I may go rogue and vote Green Party, as I did in 2016.  If enough people followed suit, it could probably cost Harris the election, but it could also cost Trump.  Die-hard Hillary Clinton supporters blamed folks like me for siphoning votes from her and essentially handing them to Trump.  No, I told them!  I didn’t cost Clinton the election.  She cost herself the election!

But that was almost an entire decade ago, and – unlike many social conservatives – time marches onward.  Harris made history when she became the first female and first non-White Vice-President.  For many women, the U.S. presidency is the ultimate glass ceiling.  But I have to note that, in this country, only men have to register for Selective Service and we have no law that bans male circumcision.  So what constitutes gender equity?  Many liberals and some moderates have already invested a lot of hope in Harris to save democracy from the hands of the despotic Trump.

Right-wing extremists have already painted Trump as a martyr for surviving the assassination attempt.  Tears fell from the eyes of some at the Republican National Convention last week, as their beloved self-anointed prophet recounted the sting of what might have been a fragment of glass that struck his right ear instead of an actual bullet.  Meanwhile, congressional hearings are still trying to determine how a geeky 20-year-old managed to climb atop the roof of a building within firing range of the former president – and why.  The latter question may speak to the sensitive issue of mental instability, but also attests to the pernicious gun culture in the United States.  But at least Democrats in Congress are expressing their collective shock at the assassination attempt, unlike their Republican counterparts who dismissed the riots of January 6, 2021 as “trespassing” and, of course, extend those ubiquitous “thoughts and prayers” after each mass shooting.

Thus, the political pandemonium that is American democracy continues.  I only hope none of it contains any firearms.

Image: Gary Larson, © 1988

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

Slow Motion Debacle

Anyone who watched the debate last Thursday between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump surely has a variety of words to describe it.  Mine are sad, pathetic, hopeless and frightening.  And those are the highlight adjectives!

I didn’t see it.  I had to do some writing and other work on my personal computer.  Plus, my genitals needed some extra attention, and I just couldn’t ignore them to watch two cantankerous old men exchange pithy barbs.  One good feature about the debate is that the microphone for whichever of the two candidates not speaking was muted.  I know that was incorporated strictly after the fiasco of the first Trump-Biden debate in 2020 – the one where a frustrated Biden blurted to Trump, “Would you shut up, man!”

If only both men could be muted now, I think we’d all be better off.  Americans – and people across the globe – pretty much know where they stand on particular issues.  Or where they don’t stand.

I recall the questions surrounding the health of Ronald Reagan when he ran for president in 1980; he was 69 at the time, and the voting populace (along with the media) verbalized their concerns about his welfare.  For the most part, seniority is respected and appreciated in certain fields.  Politics isn’t necessarily one of them, but experience does hold a certain value.  Reagan made the most of his age, even joking about it on occasion.  He held the distinction of being the oldest president until Trump.  In November of 2022, Biden crossed a new threshold when he became the nation’s first octogenarian Chief Executive.  And here we are.

I’ve always said the Democratic Party’s biggest mistake in the 2020 election cycle was to let Biden and Bernie Sanders run for president.  After leaving the White House as vice-president in 2017, I feel that Biden should have retired into the realm of a senior statesman; giving speeches, writing books and propagating democracy every reasonable chance he had.  The Democrats began the 2020 campaign with the most diverse collection of candidates, including more women than had ever attempted to run for president at one time and an openly queer man in their ranks.  Then they ended up just like the Republican Party – with two old White men at the top, Biden and Sanders.  Of course, one of those Democratic candidates, Kamala Harris, has become the nation’s first female and non-White vice-president, and another, Pete Buttigieg, has become the first openly queer cabinet official.

Like many people, I’d often mock older individuals in my youth.  Now I’m 60 and I know how that feels.  I don’t consider myself “old” in the traditional sense; my body has definitely aged, but I won’t let my mind collapse into senility.  But even I know this nation is in trouble with the likes of Biden and Trump as the primary presidential candidates.  And yes, it is because of their age.

The U.S. is rapidly approaching the 250th anniversary of its official birth as a nation.  Right now the future just doesn’t look too bright for us.

1 Comment

Filed under Essays

No Good

Late last month a jury in New York City convicted former President Donald Trump of financial fraud.  It’s an ignominious verdict.  For the first time in U.S. history, a former president has been found guilty of a criminal offense.  Many liberals are happy, since they view it as vindication for Trump’s disastrous one term in the White House.  Conservatives are outraged, as they consider the entire affair nothing but political shenanigans at the hands of hateful Democrats.

And, just when everyone thought it couldn’t get any worse (or weirder), a jury in Delaware has found Hunter Biden, President Biden’s youngest son, guilty of purchasing a gun while hooked on illegal narcotics.  He apparently lied about it, when completing the form – a felony.  The younger Biden has long admitted his battle with drug addiction.  His ex-wife and former girlfriend testified about his drug use.  I’m not surprised that gun-rights advocates aren’t running to his defense.  They oppose any limits to gun rights, even remaining silent when people with a clear case of lunacy obtains firearms, and dismiss the severity of every mass shooting with their usual “thoughts and prayers” bullshit.  Regardless, it is the first time that a child of a sitting U.S. president has been convicted of a crime – another dubious moment in the annals of American politics.

Now that Trump and Hunter Biden have been successfully convicted, each awaits their respective sentencing.  They could face jail time, but I doubt either man will be incarcerated.  A former president and the son of a current president qualify as scions of the political elite – and they always seem to get away with even the most egregious of antics.  Remember, Richard Nixon didn’t go to jail.

I view this mess with absolute disdain and even sadness.  This is not a good thing for the United States – the self-appointed beacon of global democracy.  In many ways the Trump fiasco resembles the sham impeachment of Bill Clinton a quarter century ago.  Back then Republicans tried everything possible to undermine Clinton’s presidency – only to land on a rather minor issue: lying about a sexual tryst with a White House intern; in other words, sex!

With Trump, Democrats tried two impeachments, amid a bevy of other tactics; ultimately arriving at one thing: paying off a former adult film star to keep quiet about an alleged sexual tryst; in other words, sex!

I’m old enough to remember Watergate and Iran-Contra, as well as many contentious Supreme Court confirmation hearings.  But Clinton’s impeachment fiasco was a new low for the U.S.

Until now.

In the morass that is the American political diaspora, many things have changed.  But so much else has remained immobile.  Conservatives keep pushing the myth that more guns make society safe, and liberals keep pushing the myth that merely throwing wads of cash at a problem will solve it or just make it go away.  Both groups are wrong.

We have so many problems in the U.S., the wealthiest country in the world.  A recent study by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey showed something extremely disturbing: food and clean water security for American children has dropped significantly since the turn of the century.  I’d heard of food insecurity, but clean water insecurity is a new dilemma for me.  As with many other things, such as education and health care, racial disparities are particularly acute.

Throughout the previous century, food and water security had improved, as the nation’s overall health infrastructure advanced.  But in 2005, 4.6% of all children in the United States experienced both water and food insecurity.  By 2020, researchers found that the percentage of children nationwide who faced both problems rose to 10.3%.

That should make everyone with any sort of conscience understand the nation’s true priorities.  But in the halls of our elected representatives, the primary concern seems to be the next campaign and what they can do for themselves.  I don’t really care that Donald Trump fucked a porn star or that Hunter Biden bought a gun while high on crack.  Their problems aren’t mine and neither are their visions of reality.  Whether it’s food insecurity or jobs, Americans need to focus on the issues that affect them directly and personally.  So do politicians.  But I don’t hold out hope for the latter.

Leave a comment

Filed under Essays

I Miss You, My Friend

As my 60th birthday approached last weekend, I thought of an old friend who had a birthday at the end of October.  We haven’t actually spoken in years and last communicated via Facebook.  But I don’t have any contact with him now.

Because of Donald Trump.

Max* was an interesting character.  Born into a large familiar from Eastern Europe, he lived in a number of different places because of his father’s career.  All of that afforded him not just an extraordinary education but an incredible life experience.  He became well-versed in the arts and humanities; a polyglot who could communicate with most anyone.

I admired him on many levels; even envied him.  Just listening to him made me feel smarter.  We discussed a number of issues; seeming to solve all the world’s most vexing problems.

Then Donald Trump entered the fray of politics, and I watched almost helplessly as Max descended into the madness of right-wing extremism.  I tried to remain reasonable; thinking it was something of a phase.  Max couldn’t be this delusional, I told myself; he’s too much of an intellect to be persuaded by this charlatan of a man.

But my thoughts – nearly prayer-like after a while – had no effect.  Max remained a devout Trumpist.  I realized he’d been seduced when he posted a portrait of Francisco Franco, the long-serving Spanish dictator, to his Facebook page.  I’ve often referred to Franco as Western Europe’s last totalitarian ruler; an autocrat who suppressed political dissent and an open media.  Trump reminded me of him – someone who despised his critics and launched vocal tirades against them to state his point.  His contemporaries included Brazil’s Jair Bolsarano and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán.  When Max posted that photo of Franco, I was appalled.  I guess I shouldn’t have been so upset, but it genuinely shocked me.  I quickly pointed out Franco’s dismal record on basic democratic principles and human rights, but a written response on a social media site is almost pointless.  Max had already fallen for the Trump rhetoric and seemed to concur with some of it.  When Trump referred to some African nations as “shithole countries”, for example, Max noted he’d lived in Africa briefly during his youth and could identify with Trump’s description of the region.

“Really, bro?” I replied at one point.

But again – pointless.

How do you persuade someone who’s consumed that proverbial Kool-Aid?  Long answer: education and persuasion.  Short answer: you don’t.  As smart as Max is, I honestly didn’t know what overture would be appropriate.  So…I just let it all go.

I genuinely hate that sensation – ending a friendship because of political opinions.  I’d never had that experience before.  Friends have died or simply faded into their lives, but I’ve never had one dissipate because of politics.

This past Saturday, November 4, another close friend, Preston*, treated me to lunch for my birthday.  As with Max, he and I often engaged in cerebral conversations, which I absolutely love.  I’ve known Preston much longer than I knew Max.  Our exchange migrated to politics and the 2020 election.  Preston is a Trump voter, but he doesn’t appear to be a devout loyalist.  Still, he feels fraud prevailed in the last presidential election.  I feel it prevailed in the 2016 election and highlighted that Trump didn’t win the popular vote.

“I have to respectfully disagree,” he said.

I looked at him and mentioned by former friend Max and what happened with us.  “Dude!” I said.  “I’ve already lost one friend because of political differences!  I’ll be damned if lose another!  Especially you!”

I told Preston I love and respect him too much to let politics drive a wedge between us.  So, we dropped the matter and moved on to other things.

I miss you, my friend Max.  I genuinely miss you and your views on the world and hearing you talk about your life experiences.  But you made the choice to become blinded by the rantings of a pathological madman; you caused this division between us.  I’m certain you’re not exactly upset or mortified – and quite frankly neither am I.

I just hate to see a good friend fade away in the morass of politics.

*Name changed

4 Comments

Filed under Essays