Tom's Musings

That is Cape Horn in the distance, the southernmost point of land until you reach the Antarctic continent. Having read many books about early explorers, those crazy mariners who would spend two or three years risking their lives on the high seas seeking gold and glory, my curiosity was aroused about this notorious place. So many adventurers died in these same treacherous waters whose unpredictable and even deadly seas ended their lofty aspirations. I oft asked what could motivate so many to risk their lives in such a fashion. The odds of success were not great.

Well, there was Sir Francis Drake of course. He came around the Horn, then surprised the Spanish before plundering a good amount of their gold and silver. He then circumvented the globe, returning to Queen Elizabeth 1st with much booty for her majesty. His personal take amounted to some 20,000 pounds or about $100 million in today’s currency. Most others were not as fortunate. Now, here I am though, alas, my fortune surely will be diminished, not enhanced, by the journey.

We are told the seas are calm today, an unusual condition. That was not the case around the Falkland Islands. On our approach to Stanley (the Capital) and on our exit, the seas were very turbulent. Getting around the ship, even making it to the bathroom, presented a challenge. During the night, the rolling, bumping, and banging was most disconcerting. In fact, I feared rolling off the bed on numerous occasions. I could just see explaining a broken bone or two from a fall off the commode 😞.

Based on comments made by our guest lecturers, it was touch and go whether or not we would land at Stanley. The odds were 50-50 at best. But the captain expertly  negotiated the challenge and all went well. There was an additional concern that the tenders taking us to the pier might be problematic. But that went smoothly as well, nothing like a boat trip I recall on the north shore of Kuai where ocean swells kept pitching our craft totally out of the water. Now, that was a ride.

We learned that such problems were common occurrences when sailing in northern and southern waters. Many other tour vessels have been forced to entirely skip this port of call. On our trip to Iceland last year, two planned stops in Greenland were canceled at the last minute due to ice buildups in their harbors. Instead, they took us to Nuuk, the capital. At least that port was open.

One lecturer on this vessel shared that he was on one of the first Viking ships back in 2015, when the company was just starting their ocean cruises. His voyage began in Bergen Norway before heading out to the North Atlantic. He chuckled as he mentioned the horrific sounds of crashing during one stormy night. The next morning, he learned that some $64,000 worth of wine had been lost due to inadequate storage of this liquid of the gods. It was a steep learning curve for Viking. Now they have ships all over the world and expect to further expand their fleet dramatically over the next five years. They have got the drill down pat.

The straights of Magellan and Drake’s passage remain treacherous even for today’s powerful ships. We were informed that two Chilean pilots are on board. Their experience enables us to get closer to various land masses than many ships would risk. I’m happy they are aboard. Truth is that I would hate to become a news headline … boat filled with old farts sinks off Cape Horn.

Above we have the southernmost home in the world (excepting Antarctica but that’s all ice so doesn’t count). The building you can see is a lighthouse and a home for the keeper. So what, you say! Thing is, a family volunteers to live there (for pay but in total isolation) for one full year. All supplies are periodically brought to them. The recent inhabitants (a couple with three kids and a cat) have liked it so much they just completed a three year tour. Wow, while I’m not a big fan of people, that kind of isolation eventually would wear down even a misanthrope like me.

Above is the southernmost tip of the Americas and (as noted) all other land masses north of the Antarctic. Last year, when we sailed to the north of Iceland, we reached the Arctic circle. Now we are approaching the other end of our planet. Alas, the Antarctic Circle is still a number of miles south. But I’m happy.

I can’t help but think about my parent’s generation. They never traveled much of anywhere. Florida was an exotic land to them. Only WWII got two of my uncles overseas, one as a Marine in the Pacific and the other as a sailor in the Atlantic (I know he was part of D-day). But that was it. That generation saw so little of the world. We, on the other hand, are so fortunate. I have visited every U.S. state as well as 30-plus countries on four continents (five by next year). Just this past year Mary and I have been to the top of the civilized world and (today) to the bottom.

We will soon be winding our way back north through the islands and rocks that proved to be the watery graves of so many in the past. We are headed to Ushuaia, Argentina, the southernmost city in the world. After that, we reach Punta Arena, our first stop in Chile. From there we meander along the Chilean fiords which contain some spectacular glaciers. Well, a former neighbor of mine tells me they are spectacular 😀, and he always struck me as a straight shooter.

The adventure continues.

Power without limits:

I started this when we were at sea, headed to the Falkland Islands … the Malvinas to the Argentinians. But more on that later. During our journey through rather rough seas, we attended a lecture on what is generally called Argentina’s Dirty War. This sad piece of history covers events that happened during the 1970s and 80s, but whose consequences remain with us today. More importantly, that piece of history may have relevant lessons for Trump’s America today.

Argentina, and other South American nations, had always been susceptible to military coups. What led to the coup of interest in this case was the sudden death of Juan Peron in the mid 1970s. His demise took place shortly after he had again been reelected as President after a period of absence from power (he was first elected in 1946).

Peron had appointed his 2nd wife (Isabel) as Vice President but she had little experience or support. The Military leadership (disenchanted with Peronism) saw their opportunity and pounced. They dismissed Parliament, the Supreme Court, and ruled by absolute decree. They also ruled by terror.

During their 8 year reign, they rounded up some 30,000 individuals. Virtually all of these unfortunates were never seen again. Many were tortured and shot. Others were drugged and dropped into the ocean. Imprisoned pregnant women were allowed to have their babies before being eliminated and the child given to a military family to raise.

One aspect of this sad story strikes a contemporary chord. Those deemed enemies of the Junta were picked off the streets, or from their homes and places of work, by men with no identification driving cars with no license plates. No warrants were obtained, no judicial review existed. These people just disappeared. Hmm, seems familiar to how ICE operates in America today.

These atrocities did not take place absent opposition, however. First, the mothers, later the grandmothers, would march each week on the center of government demanding information on their loved ones. This went on for years and years. As the Junta’s popularity decreased, the leaders became desperate. To rekindle support, they attacked the Malvines (the Falkland Islands under British control) in 1982. They thought the Brits wouldn’t care but failed to appreciate Margarate Thatcher’s iron will. It took the Brits about 74 days to oust the Argentinians but at a considerable cost of lives and treasure.

Still, there is an upbeat ending to all this. The Junta collapsed with their failed attack on the Falklands. Argentina, which had suffered from coups periodically in the past, has been a democracy ever since 1983. More importantly, for the first time in history, the military leaders were brought to account. After being tried, many of the Junta leaders were given life sentences. The process of trying those for their crimes stopped for a while, presumably due to fears of another military intervention.

That, fortunately, never happened. Rather, the trials of hundreds more who allegedly were guilty of heinous human rights violations have been carried out. Some were acquitted but over a thousand others eventually were convicted and sentenced. It would be wise for Donald Trump, and his minions, to remember this part of Argentina’s past. Karma does exist. One cannot act with total disregard for basic human rights and not fear some form of ultimate accountability.

It should also be recalled that American policy in that era supported many of these Juntas and military dictatorships not only here but throughout South America … Chile (and Pinochet) being another egregious example. This unforgivable policy (which began under Nixon and was reinforced under Reagan) was known as Operation Condor. Too bad those responsible for our own national sins in that sad era were never made to account for their sins against humanity.

A Land of Immigrants:

I have found one aspect of this journey particularly surprising. I thought of South America as being overwhelmingly Spanish or Portuguese (Brazil). But a wide range of immigrants have added to this continents culture. In Buenos Aires, Italians have profoundly impacted local culture and language. Locals told us that you should not come here to practice your Spanish. The local version has been corrupted, or enhanced if you will, by many Italian words and phrases. It is a dialect based on a fusion of two cultures.

And the food! Well, beef from their ranches remains a favorite of course. And empanadas are ubiquitous. Still, one can hardly go a block without seeing a pizza and pasta joint. Germans and Irish have also exercised considerable input into local customs and culture.

Here is another example. We stopped in the port of Puerto Madryn. This is a growing town that was settled in 1865 by emigres from … Wales. The original settlers amounted to some 150 brave souls from that far off corner of the United Kingdom. Despite the small numbers, their culture continues. You see Welsch street names and other signs that the ethnic origins of what is now a bustling metropolis of 140,000 have not been forgotten.

We were given a tour of the first school in Puerto Madryn. All that was interesting enough. But I noticed that the cakes offered us were based on an old Welsh recipe. When they showed us local cultural dances, we were taken by how British they looked. In fact, at one point I remarked that the moves reminded me of an Irish Jig. No tangos here.

While we found more diversity in Argentina and Uruguay than expected, the record is not without blemish. Back slaves once represented a significant portion of the population. While slavery was abolished here before it was ended in the States, African Americans were never integrated into the society. Many were killed in war or forced to emigrate. Few Blacks remain today.

Who would want to live here?

We visited the Falkland Islands today, which many of us recall only because the Brits and Argentinians fought over the place in the early 1980s. To be honest, disputes among several nations go back to the time that explorers stumbled upon these rocks in the 17th century.

What those explorers found was an archipelago comprised of some 700 islands. The place has a stark beauty, no doubt about that. But it strikes us as a harsh place to live for the 3 to 4,000 souls that call this place home.

To be entirely honest, it is difficult to see the attraction here. Yes, there is that rugged beauty and numerous beaches. But you are isolated in the middle of nowhere. It is 300 miles to Argentina and they don’t like you, so most flights from here go to Chile which is further away. Oh, you could fly to the UK but that’s 7,500 miles away.

Then there is the balmy weather. It is Summer here right now and guess what greeted us on our trip to see the cute penguins… snow squalls. That’s right … snow! Now, they do get a few warm days in December but this would not be the place to work on your tan. The guide also mentioned that most locals work two jobs. They have to. Imported stuff, like fresh foods, are incredibly expensive. One banana would cost about a British pound.

Still, I get a sense that people are happy. They certainly are attached to their British roots. In a referendum a few years ago, 98.8 percent voted to remain attached to the U.K. with a 92 percent voting turnout rate. You never get that kind of consensus on any issue in the States

And yes, the penguins are damn cute. See below:

Off toward Cape Horn tomorrow.

The image above was taken from our stateroom veranda as the sun began its descent to the west. Earlier, we had departed from Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay. Before that, we had a delightful stop in Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina. Until we arrive in Santiago, future stops will be more intimate.

Both centers of government are located at the mouth of the River (or estuary) of Rio Plate. This water system connects the South American coast with the heart of the continent including today’s Paraguay,  Bolivia, Chile, and Western Brazil. Not surprisingly, as colonial powers began sniffing around in the 16th century, they quickly decided that military hegemony over this area was most essential. Control the entrance to the river and you could effectively exploit the riches to be found inland, including hoped for treasures in gold and silver.

The question was who would win the contest? With such promised riches, several nations competed for supremacy  … Spain, Portugal, France, the Dutch, and (of course) England. The Portuguese established a hold to the north in what would become Brazil. Spain to the south in what became Argentina. The north side of the Rio Plate is where these two maritime nations met.

After many skirmishes and battles, the Spanish pushed the pesky Portuguese back to the north. In 1776, Argentina was recognized as a separate and distinct entity by the Spanish crown, separating it from Peru which was the original colonial base on this continent. For a while, the powers in Buenos Aires sought hegemony over much of central and southern portions of South America. But the locals in Montevideo, Asuncian (and other growing jurisdictions) pushed back. They wanted to control their own destinies. The contours of today’s South America began to take shape.

In the early decades of the 19th century, the locals followed a pattern established by their American cousins to the north. The British helped the locals in North America form militia to fight during the French and Indian wars. Such militia forces later helped end British rule in the colonies. Likewise, such local forces were used by Spain to push back Portuguese incursions from the north. Similarly, they were essential when the locals decided that rule from Spain was more trouble than it was worth. It was not long before Spanish control ended in the early decades of the 19th century.

To keep this manageable, I will keep my comments on the two capitals very brief. Both have areas of neo-classical architecture, adjacent to charming (often cobblestone) streets along with modern skyscrapers that contain million dollar residences. You can feel the cultural differences in the foods, music, and even local enthusiasm. In 2022, Argentina won the Word Cup in football (soccer). Four million people crammed the main avenue (broadest in the world) to celebrate.

We were fortunate to be in Montevideo during the annual Carnival Season. It is a 40 day event of rioteous color, imaginations on steroids, and latin music. You would have to be here to appreciate it. Our stay was too short.

Before signing off, a comment about the Viking Ocean experience. Aside from the excellent food and service, it is clear Viking caters to a more mature crowd… old farts that is. No kids, no casinos, no frivolous nonsense. One thing it does offer are excellent guides at each stop. One comes away with a greater appreciation of what they have experienced.

What really impresses me is the educational experiences provided on board during the travel portion of our journey. Perhaps I should not be surprised. After all, Viking is a significant supporter of PBS in the States, more essential after Trump cut its federal funding. But we also discovered that it supports ventures such as Seawatch, an international effort devoted to ecogical causes.

On this trip, we have had wonderful lectures on history, astronomy, and ocean ecology. The resident experts really know their stuff, being members (for example) of the Royal Historical Society and the Royal Astronomical Society.

Of course, we have the usual diversions … music and even an opportunity to keep up with our favorite sporting events like Big Ten basketball 🏀 and the Superbowl.

Excuse all errors. Have to run. The adventure continues.

I am probably the last person in the Western hemisphere to see Hamilton, the eponymous hero of our nation’s founding. While I didn’t like it as much as Les Miz, (rap is not my thing) the production is energetic, ingenious, and remarkably accurate. I cannot imagine the gifts one must possess to turn an 18th century historical figure into musical entertainment, or turn Victor Hugo’s 19th century masterpiece into a stage play. I bow to their artistry and genius.

Yet, the play Hamilton is far more than a pleasing spectacle. It is a political statement for those paying attention. It even speaks to our current existential crisis in some important ways. For one thing, virtually all the major roles are played by black actors (in this touring production at least) except for George III, and he is one of the bad guys. As I watched this exceptional performance, I wondered how the many opponents of DEI now in power enjoyed their evening at the theater.

More importantly, the production managed to convey the deep schisms that have divided America and Americans even from its earliest days. The architects of this masterpiece used the ideological friction between Hamilton (plus G. Washington etc.) and Jefferson (plus J. Madison etc.) to highlight the deep political and cultural conflicts that bedevil America to this very day.

As humans, we tend to be myopic. We think our times are the best or, far more likely, the worst in history. How many times have we heard the refrain … this is the most consequential political race ever or we are now confronting the most existential threat to democracy and our way of life. Such hyperbole typically precedes a plea for more money. I know I’ve heard such assertions on many an occasion.

But the truth is that America has been deeply troubled from its earliest days. The founders were not embattled idealists with a clear and united vision of the future. Far from it. At best, they were confused about what they wanted and deeply suspicious of what democracy might come to mean. Worse, they oft had dark feelings about the motives and ambitions of each other. Passions often flared given the many  uncertainties of the times and the stakes associated with failure.

At times, I can only smile at our ahistorical take on events. I recall the run-up to the 2016 Presidential election. The supporters of Bernie Sanders (whom I personally admired) reacted with outrage when senior Democratic party officials steered the nomination toward Hillary. Those offended accused the king makers (or queen makers in this instance) of disregarding the traditional practice of permitting voters to select a political party’s nominee. Nice sentiment but untrue. Party bosses selected nominees throughout most of our history with primaries only emerging as a decisive factor in the 1970s.

We tend to assume that the flaws we see today are relatively recent phenomena. That simply is not the case. I think Hamilton (the play) does a remarkably good job of exploring the historical roots of the current divide tearing America apart. Our cultural tensions, our house divided, is not new … not by a long shot. It certainly has not been created by the pathological narcissist currently occupying the White House. No, as suggested by this popular musical, it can be found in the very political DNA from which our nation sprung.

The men who created our nation after the original Articles of Confederation collapsed in confusion by 1787 desperately hoped that political factions would not form. Not surprisingly, they did of course. Virtually over night, nascent political groupings created ever- widening divisions across distinct ideological factions. Hamilton, Washington and Adams were considered Federalists. Jefferson, James Madison, and others were termed Democratic-Republicans. This later faction eventually morphed into the early Democratic party during the Jacksonian era.

The Federalists, stronger in the urban north, contrasted sharply with the nascent Democrats who found strength in the agricultural, slave-dominated southern states. Once George Washington retired to Mount Vernon, the venomous cultural and political chasms between the emerging parties broke out with vicious attacks being issued from newspapers clearly representing one side or the other. There was no fairness doctrine to be found in the elections of 1796 and 1800. Partisans on one side believed an election loss would doom the fledgling Republic. The separation was that stark, the passions that raw.

I believe, as do others, that the real birth of America happened in 1800 when John Adams was apprised of the electoral college vote that ultimately would give the Presidency to his political enemy (Jefferson). He simply got in his carriage and went back to Boston. He did not cry rigged election, nor call out the militia. The Constitution prevailed. (Note: Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the electoral college that election. Hamilton’s influence resulted in Jefferson’s victory in 1800 which cemented the growing animosity between Hamilton and the man who would kill him in that infamous 1804 duel).

At the same time, the inherent tensions between these two factions were the seeds from which America’s enduring divide would germinate. Jefferson (who is portrayed as an effete dandy in the Hamilton production) represented a vision of America rooted in an aristocratic, hierarchical world where a white, propertied ruling class would govern by something close to divine right. That feudal form of society assumed that an entitled patrician class would (and should) reign over poor whites and minorities, those groups bereft of basic rights until the 1960s when the Civil rights movement finally challenged the existing semi- feudal power structure in the South with some success.

Hamilton’s Federalists first evolved into the Whig Party and then into the early version of a quite progressive Republican Party. They were for a stronger central government, free labor, public investments in infrastructure, and (gradually) the expansion of democratic suffrage. With the creation of the Republican party in the 1850s, this offshoot of the Federalists would become the anti-slavery party (though its principles as defender of all would be eroded in little more than a generation to support big businesses interests above all). The two parties fully exchanged normative positions (essentially switching perspectives) by the mid 1900s while strengthening the internal integrity of each.

By the late 20th century, that once progressive Republican Party had fully embraced the perspectives around which Jefferson had organized his followers in the late 1790s. A white, propertied, educated class would rule with non-whites and other lower- class persons assigned the menial tasks that supported a rigid social hierarchy. Ideally, a nativist- oriented social order would prevail to be supported by an authoritarian rule that would crush democratic sentiments and stall any broader partication in governance or power- sharing. In many ways, this was a view of society that glorified the antebellum social order in the plantation- based South.

One moment in Hamilton struck me as particularly moving. The French nobleman Lafayette is talking with Hamilton just before the final battle at Yorktown. Like the young Lafayette, Hamilton is also a recent immigrant to the colonies. Their exchange goes like this.

Lafayette: “Immigrants.”

Lafayette & Hamilton: “We get the job done.”

At that moment, the audience in Madision, Wisconsin broke out in a spontaneous cheer, likely in sympathy with those suffering in Minnesota from the oppressive Fascist tactics to massively deport many immigrants (non-white) from our country.

Hamilton: “So, what happens if we win.”

Lafayette: “I go back to France. I bring freedom to my people… if I’m given the chance.”

Hamilton: “We will be with you when you do.”

Hamilton (and his Party) envisioned an America that would embrace all. He had made it to the top after starting out as a poor, illegitimate, and neglected child born in the Carribean. His vision of the good society would enable anyone to make it, as he had, if they were not hindered by social or political barriers.

On the surface, Jefferson (and his followers) seemed pro-democracy. After all, he authored all those noble words about the virtues of a free Republic. He would spend time in France and apparently support the French Revolution. But that support strikes me as shallow. He viscerally disapproved of a monarchy but instinctively was drawn to a form of feudal, patrician governance. Individualism reigned supreme in his world view that, in the end, favored a few at the expense of the many. Slavery, the new nation’s original sin, seemed natural to him. Though extremely well read, he likely succumbed to feelings of inherent superiority. He was a patrician to his core.

That essential tension between a broad democracy supported by universal suffrage and a hierarchical, authoritarian structure catering to an entitled elite has remained with us from our founding days. Today, Trump is pursuing a doctrine of ethnic cleansing, voter suppression, and the establishment of plutocratic rule by an entitled elite of the wealthy. It is a vision first articulated by Jefferson and his ilk at the birth of the Republic, all the noble language about democracy notwithstanding.

A nation so divided at its core is one that often is held together by force. We have a long history of violence (a civil war, eras of labor strife, ethnic cleansing, and periods of extensive civil unrest). Even today we seem on the brink of widespread domestic conflict. But even during our periods of relative quiet, a steady stream of institutional violence has persisted. I ran across the data below recently.

Citizens killed by police: 2010–19. 

Canada ……. 305.                           France  ……. 232.                     Germany … 100.                 Australia …  53.                             The U.K. ….  22.                               The U.S. ….  15,008

This is a shocking testament to our acceptance of sanctioned violence. Today, our attention focuses on two martyrs who were murdered by ICE thugs in Minneapolis. But, in fact, America has been an obvious outlier when it comes to the scourge of sanctioned violence. We also incarcerate more of our citizens than any other country in the world. The U.S. locks-up about 600 per 100,000 citizens while our neighbor to the north imprisons 85 per 100,000, a more typical rate among advanced countries. Why? What is wrong with us?

There are likely many reasons, including an unconscionable surfeit of guns. But I do wonder if the lack of a consensus about what constitutes our basic organizing principles plays an outsized role in all this discord. The sad fact is that we are not a united nation. We have no common vision of who we are. We tend to embrace a Dickensian winner-take-all ethos with a weak social safety net. In fact, we rather distrust and dislike one another as did our founding fathers so long ago. In the end, however, violence cannot keep us together.

Even during the Cold War of my youth, I never believed we would by taken over by a foreign power. Our essential threats were always internal. Consider the following 2000 year old warning about Trump and the MAGA movement: “A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. For the traitor appears not the traitor…he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he appeals to the darkness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation … A murderer is less to be feared.”                   Cicero – Roman Statesman

In my head, I keep going back to Lincoln’s admonition in the late 1850s … a house divided against itself cannot stand. It has not escaped me that 1 in 3 colonists remained loyal to the monarchy during our revolunary war. And today, at least that same proportion (perhaps 40%) seem to prefer an authoritarian (fascist- oriented) form of governance. Nothing, apparently, seems to change with time. I just might need a new house. 

I probably won’t write another blog until I’m in South America. Look forward to a travel story or two and not my usual rant. I can hear the cheers already. 😀

                           

It is mid January and winter has returned. I woke this morning to a fresh mantle of pure snow. It is lovely but a nasty reminder that we are in the very heart of our annual season of cold and dark. Oh well, just about two months til Spring. So, while waiting, a few random thoughts.

……………….

Cognitive and Cultural Ghettos: We are certainly aware of the hyper-segmentation that exists in society. Before neo-conservative thought idolized wealth and consequently dismantled the mechanisms that restrained greed to some extent, the psychic and physical chasms between the uber-rich the rest of us regular folk was less daunting. If nothing else, you might sit in the same stands with the wealthy during a football game.

No longer, the privileged are now sequestered in their private cocoons atop multi-billion dollar stadiums. They fly to the games of their choice in private jets while enjoying the final leg of any journey in a lavishly appointed limousine. After the game, they will be whisked away to private soirees available to the select few. 

Even the players on the field, some at least, exist in rarified, isolated worlds. I noticed an ex Wisconsin football player getting hurt during a recent NFL playoff game. He is an obscure lineman, a player most casual fans would not recognize. I googled him and found he is making $10 million per year.

When I first started following sports, pro football players had to take jobs in the off season to get by. They drank in the same bars as regular folk. Now they are royalty. They reside among the very rich with little association or contact with the rest of us. Increasingly, we are a tribal society, with distinct groups living in very separate worlds.

Then, it struck me. Am I any different? I choose to live in Wisconsin. For many years, my late wife and I wintered in Florida where we had a second home. When she became sick, and we chose a single residence. I could have chosen our place in the Sunshine State as a full time abode. But that would mean living in a red state with people who actually believe that Donald Trump cares about the common man or, worse, that he is some kind of modern day messiah. How could anyone live among such cognitively diminished folk. Really!

Wisconsin, you might protest, did vote for Trump a couple of times. True enough, but I live in Madison … a liberal island of sanity. In recent elections, the county generally has gone Democratic by about an 80 to 20 margin. In my condo association, which is populated by retired, highly educated professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, academics, etc.), it is very difficult to find anyone who does not despise Trump and the MAGA movement. The word despise hardly begins to match their level of disgust.

My point is that I am a most willing participant in our increasingly segregated society, not by race or even wealth but by profession and education and beliefs. I simply don’t want to be around people who cannot think analytically, who are incapable of connecting the simplest dots, and whose definition of ‘evidence’ is the palaver issued on Fox News or similar right-wing podcasts. I can’t  discuss serious matters with those who believed that Q-anon nonsense about Hillary running a pedophile ring out of pizza shops. OMG!

I want to associate with those who believe in diversity, civility, compassion, and science. I want to be surrounded by those who read deeply, think about issues on a profound level, and embrace the notion that life is more than collecting riches and power. Perhaps I am contributing to the tribal isolationism that marks contemporary society. So be it. I am old and probably deserve a bit of piece in my final years. Besides, arguing with idiots who spout the latest conspiracy theory being pushed by Q-Anon would surely hasten my end.

…………………….

Moral licensing: The common definition of moral licensing involves the psychological phenomenon where positive behavior gives one permission to be bad. To me, this is a bit like the way the Catholic Church once operated. You could buy (or earn) indulgences which would offset past and even future sins. What a deal! Not everyone was convinced that this was kosher, though. One priest, Martin Luther, remained skeptical of the practice resulting in the Protestant reformation.

But I think another meaning might apply to the notion of moral licensing. Behaviors, once considered appalling, unethical, and illegal become sanctioned by authority figures. Often, the process is gradual. For example, the Nazis in 1930s Germany did not immediately start with the wholesale extermination of targeted populations. They started more slowly, gradually pulling people into their horrific vision.

They first permitted segregation and institutional discrimination. Then, over time and in the face of scant opposition, they moved to extermination on a limited scale. They started this phase with a population that could not defend themselves … the developmentally disabled or those who were considered  to be non- contributors to society.

As traditional moral constraints weakened, the level of heinous atrocities increased. Eventally, German society as a whole, once known for its sophistication and high culture, embraced genocide on an industrial scale, decimating Jews, Romanis, and many Slavic groups.  Permission to be cruel eventually evolved into mass slaughter. When modest expressions of hate were sanctioned, extreme steps became feasible, if not welcome.

In recent years, America has embarked on a similar path. One might say re-embarked given that Blacks were once lynched with impunity throughout the south. But even these moral transgressions were largely ignored outside the South and not widely encouraged by national authorities. 

Today, something quite similar to the Nazi escalation of moral degeneration is being seen.  Donald Trump is training a federal goons squad to hunt down and persecute people of the wrong color and those who speak the wrong language. He is beginning an ersatz genocide of the country’s Latino population, rounding up non citizens and citizens alike at the discretion of his hired thugs. His call to Make America Great Again is little more than a vision of restoring a white European hegemony over the nation’s culture and politics.

In short, ICE is being trained as the new Gestapo, or SS, or the original brownshirts in Germany and Blackshirts in Mussolini’s Italy. They ignore our 4th Amendment Constitutional protections as they invade homes, schools, and businesses without probable cause nor warrants in many cases. They offer their victims little to no due process while frantically building camps to house the thousands being rounded up. Just how closely do Trump’s actions have to resemble Hitler’s before one admits that history is repeating itself.

Trump is giving a moral license to a group of federal agents to act without regard to the law, to our Constitution, or to any moral constraints. Why would he do such a thing? It seems clear to me, at least. Trump, and the minions around him who are dedicated to completing the 2025 Agenda have no intention of giving up power, no matter the will of the people. They are dedicated to creating an authoritarian state and retaining power by any means at their disposal.

My best guess. Trump’s minions will foment some crises that will be used to suspend our normal rules and Constitutional safeguards when he finally faces consequences for grossly mismanaging the nation. He will let loose his new Fascist thugs, the ICE brigade supported by other loyal followers, to intimidate the opposition in the 2026 mid-term elections if not before. Hitler did after the Reischtag fire in 1933. It was the end of the Weimar Republic and that country’s descent into darkness. Perhaps 2026 will be remembered as America’s final descent into the abyss.

…………………..

Patriotism … a dirty word: Recently, I was reflecting on the concept of patriotism. My interest has been fostered by the many political solicitations from Republican operatives that typically start with the salutation of Dear Patriot. That seems innocent enough but I find myself reacting with distinct disgust. I am not one of those… I am better than that, I say to myself.

But isn’t being a patriot a good thing? Isn’t that the very identity which was drummed into us kids after WWII and during the cold war. I recall saluting our flag during recitation of the pledge of allegiance at the start of each school day. I remember being bombarded with all the myths about our moral position in global affairs even as we sided with various right-wing authoritarians because they were on our side.

Despite the constant propoganda about how enlightened we were, I apparently had reservations … even from an early age. The very concept of national identity seemed backward to me, primitive in a way. Weren’t we all part of a global family. Wasn’t fidelity to the fatherland merely an excuse to treat others poorly? Wasn’t it merely a rationale for egregious self-interest? Wasn’t it merely an excuse to ignore apocalyptic threats to our fragile host planet?

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I joined something called the World Federalist Society, purportedly a bunch of one world idealists. It was more of an emotional response back then, one perhaps rooted in other lessons from my early days. We had just finished a conflict of global proportions. Some 50 to 70 million had perished, depending on how you count things. And why? Because average people thought they had to slaughter others for the sake of national pride. How  stupid is that?

I can never forget the story of what happened on the front lines in France during WWI. It was Christmas in 1914, the first year of the war. Somehow, during a temporary truce, troops from each side met in no-mans land. They sang Christmas songs, exchanged gifts, and even played a brief football (soccer) game. Those charged with killing one another, for a moment at least, treated each other as brothers. That amity ended when high-level officers on both sides forced their troops back into their own trenches. The slaughter would begin anew and 20 million eventually would lose their lives.

So yes, I am revolted by being called a patriot. I would have the same reaction no matter which country I called home. It is a matter of perspective. National pride pales against what really counts … our future as a species attempting to survive and evolve in a vast and mysterious cosmos.

Trump’s intervention into a foreign nation’s domestic affairs (Venezuela) raises serious questions for me. Their President, Nicolas Maduro, may well be the drug trafficker that Trump’s minions insist that he is. I have no inside information on that matter. Experts who focus on such things, however, generally state that Venezuela is more of a conduit for illicit drugs, not a major source for U.S. markets.

If so, why pick on this man, on this country? Might it be that Venezualan oil stood out as easy pickings for a voracious authoritarian hoping to use the American Presidency as a vehicle for self-enrichment? Might this be another transparent misdirection ploy to steer the public away from focusing on the Epstein Files? Or perhaps it is the latest step toward establishing full MAGA control over the military? This move might be critical as the far right contemplates maintaining permanent political hegemony through extra-constitutional means. They will need such control over the police, justice, and military apparati if democratic traditions are to be subverted aggressively in the near future.

Take your pick with respect to Trump’s real motivations. The bottom line is that we have taken yet another step toward becoming an authoritarian regime being run by a small oligarchy, or should I say kakistocracy (government by the incompetent). Trump himself has recently declared that he is under no obligation to follow any precepts of international law. His only constraints as President are to be found in his internal moral code. This is scary since he has no ethical vision other than to use his public office to punish enemies, further enrich his family, and remain in office by any means.

Americans generally want to believe that their country is a moral leader in the wotld. They want our leaders, despite flaws and mistakes, to at least try to do the right thing on the international stage. In a recent survey, some 61 percent of respondents affirmed that the country ought to act based on generally understood moral precepts, but only 39 percent believe it is doing so at present … a figure that has declined by over 20 percentage points in recent years. In general, we are no longer proud of our national behavior on the global arena.

When a country abandons its moral center, how should citizens respond? That question emerged with considerable clarity in the Senator Mark Kelly kerfuffle. The Democratic Senator from Arizona had a distinguished career as a Naval Officer and Astronaut before the attempted assassination of his spouse, a member of Congress at the time, pushed him into politics.

Last year, as Trump and his Secretary of War (Peter Hegseth) expanded civilian control over the nation’s military and police forces, Senator Kelly spoke out. He affirmed that anyone who takes an oath to the Constitution is obligated to ignore, or even resist, obeying unlawful orders. The Trump machine immediately responded, branding him a traitor. More recently, they have attempted to punish him by reducing his former military rank and his pension even though their legal standing to do such is shaky at best. These are the actions of a regime seeking total control, not the behavior of a Republic functioning within Constitutional limits and well established legal principles.

I was reminded of all this when I ran across the story of one Georg Duckwitz, a German diplomat stationed in Copenhagen during WWII. We have all heard of other individuals who acted with courage and integrity during the insanity of the Nazi holocaust.

Some of these names are quite familiar to us. Raoul Wallenberg was a Swedish diplomat assigned to Budapest during the war. He saved many Jews by issuing false passports and then hiding them in locations he deemed to be Swedish territory. Raoul paid for his heroism by disappearing into a Soviet prison after the war.

And there was (Sir) Nicolas Winton, a British businessman who, on vacation, came across the reality of Jewish persecution in Prague in the months before the outbreak of war. He set up a makeshift office and, through his own energy and connections, managed to save the lives of about 700 Jewish children simply because it was the right thing to do. His humanitarian work ended on September 1, 1939, when Germany attacked Poland. Sadly, his most recent train taking endangered children to freedom was intercepted on that very day; all subsequently lost their lives. He never spoke of his work until his wife stumbled across a notebook he had hidden away for almost four decades.

Oscar Schindler is a name we all know from the iconic movie, Schindler’s List. Oscar was not an official part of the Nazi war machine. He was primarily a war profiteer who also responded to suffering with profound human sensitivity. His story is well known through the Steven Spielberg movie documenting his exploits. Like the others, he also took enormous risks to save vulnerable lives in the midst of unreasoned insanity.

Georg Duckwitz was different in one important way. He was an actual government official functioning within the regime. He was a member of the Nazi government that had occupied Denmark during the war. It was his duty to follow orders. Still, when he was ordered to do something that he believed contradicted his moral code, he had an existential decision to make. In this instance, he chose the dictates of his conscience over the dictates of his official office.

As he sat in his Copenhagen office in 1942, he got word from Berlin that he should facilitate the rounding up of all remaining Jewish families in Denmark for transportation to concentration camps. He knew what that meant. He had a decision to make.

Georg immediately negotiated with Swedish officials to accept over 7,000 refugees. It was a request fraught with unknown consequences but they agreed. Then he contacted a Danish politician he thought might be sympathetic. Spread the word, he insisted, all Jewish families must leave immediately.

The word spread quietly and quickly from family to family. The clock was running out. At the same time, he and others rounded up scores of fishermen and others who waited on the coast to ferry these panicked families to safety in Sweden. They did so, not out of obligation or compensation, but also because it was the right thing to do. A day or so later, when the Gestapo and other military forces raided Jewish homes, they were astonished to find them empty. The anticipated victims were gone. Thousands had been saved because one man of conscience refused to follow orders.

This made a mockery of those Nazis who, during the 2046 Nuremberg trials, argued that they were innocent because they were just following orders. Such is the choice many of us may be required to make if America continues to slide into totalitarian rule. What will you do when required to support or facilitate actions you find unacceptable? Where would you draw your line in the sand? Senator Kelly merely confirmed a principle that already had long been enshrined in the Uniform Military Code of Justice. No one should obey an illegal order. Yet, the administration is hell-bent on making him pay a price.

Most of us, of course, are not in the military, or even ex-military. But the question remains. How should we act if we see ICE personnel acting as if they are contemporary versions of Gestapo agents? What do we do if the regime in Washington usurps ever more power while overtly dismantling Constitutional protections? Do we merely turn away? Or do we take a stand for what we believe is right?

I know what I would like to do. On the other hand, whether I possess the courage to do the right thing is unknowable to me. I do know one thing, however. The solicitations I get from right wing sources oft start with the salutation… Dear Patriot.

That makes me cringe. For them, patriotism is obedience. Leadership is something never to be questioned. That line of reasoning did not work in 1946 during the Nuremberg trial of Nazi war criminals. It should not work after the memory of Trump has been erased from our memories.

A new year invites one to think about things … to reflect more deeply on those thoughts that daily crowd into my over taxed consciousness. Then again, musing is not difficult for me. I do it well, and often, usually at the sacrifice of tasks that ought to demand my attention … like cleaning up the toxic waste zone in which I live. Oh well, there is always next year for that. But first, some random musings!

……….

On starting this blog: How many blogs have I now written? 300 perhaps, even more? I have no idea. It all started when the good people at Facebook hit me with a third lifetime ban. The first banishment occurred when I had 30,000 followers, a number growing by about 100 newcomers each and every day at the time. I managed to get back on twice. Each time, though, I had to start over from scratch. I would quickly collect thousands of followers before being kicked off again. It had become a sinister pattern.

The final ban was, like the others, inexplicable. I posted a picture of Jesse Owens collecting one of his four gold medals at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. It so happened that another medal winner was giving a Nazi salute in that pic. The post, and my comment, had nothing to do with this third person. But apparently his presence alone was employed as an excuse to ban me once again. There was no conceivable rationale for their action unless an American hero who embarrased Nazi racial purity on a global stage is now a threat to the powers that be, an explanation not to be summarily dismissed. The other, and very likely explanation, is that their community standards program was an exercise in total incompetence. You pick one. For me, I was done with Facebook.

But I was not done with writing. When my late wife was declining with dementia, I had much time on my hands. I dove into a childhood dream of mine, the fantasy of being an author. I was driven to satisfy a query from a college professor of mine back at Clark University (so long ago I still had hair) after I confessed my interest in a future literary career. He asked: Can you tell a good story? I hesitated: Could I?

Almost six decades later, I erupted with an impressive output of fictional and non-fictional work over several years during my so-called retirement era. Finally, I concluded that I had answered my professor’s challenge … I could craft a good story!

There seemed little need to continue once that conundrum was satisfied. Besides, self- publishing can be an expensive hobby. In addition, seeking traditional literary fame and fortune would consume too much time and effort at my advanced age. That’s a game for the young and foolish. Besides, I no longer needed all that.

But I still needed to write. Some folks need to exercise. Others need nature and the outdoors. Still others focus on music or similar forms of self-expression. The least fortunate among us remain fixated on the continued accumulation of treasure, a shallow and silly pursuit to my mind. My enduring focus remained on self-expression through words. I should note that my university colleagues oft lavished praise on my professional writings … including the hard-ass economists.

For me, there is a beauty and a kind of solace associated with self-reflection, a solitary ritual that gives rise to creating these occasional blogs. This is especially true in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI) where critical and imaginative thinking might well be sacrificed on the alter of AI platforms. Why think when you get immediate answers from your phone.

With age, I must admit that one’s world becomes smaller. The audiences that one can access become fewer and less important. But my mind remains as fecund, eclectic, and active as ever. Even writing for a small audience that hardly extends beyond myself remains a source of pleasure. Hell, I would get pleasure simply writing for myself. Besides, I have never forgotten the wisdom of one of my early professors … you really don’t understand something until you can communicate it to others.

So, it is likely I will continue to write, perhaps less frequently, if only for myself. I consider it essential therapy. And we need all the therapy we can get in these troubled times.

……….

I ran across a piece recently which talked about the Trump administration going after something called the Catholic Charities- Rio Grande Valley organization. This religious – based initiative, managed by an activist group of Catholic nuns, has run afoul of the latest guardians of our national conscience … the MAGA movement. These Catholic sisters (and their volunteer helpers I presume) have the audacity to help migrant families crossing our southern borders … people who risk their lives to flee oppression or seek new opportunities. According to our leaders in Washington, such charitable impulses must be crushed.

That got me thinking. I was attracted to Catholicism as it existed in my youth. I even spent over a year in a seminary while training to be a missionary priest (the Maryknoll Society). I quickly realized that this vocation was prompted by a sense of responsibility to my fellow man (and woman), not by a belief in a divine presence. My motives were sound but my subsequent vocational choice proved personally misdirected.

Still, a spiritual career path made some sense at that time. The Catholic Church in the 1960s was a big tent that embraced a robust arm of leftist activists. A movement grounded in what was known as liberation theology held currency within the church during that period. There were iconic heroes such as Father Groppi (racial justice) and the Berrigan brothers (anti-war activism) among many others. The missionary priests in the Maryknoll order were known for supporting peasants in Central and South America, many of whom suffered in the face of right-wing oppression. Some members of the order lost their freedom (and even their lives) when they opposed oligarchic oppression and authoritarian regimes.

That was a time when parts of the church reflected the core teachings of Christ … take care of those suffering and the most vulnerable. Reach out to the stranger and love your neighbor even if he doesn’t look or believe as you do. At some point, however, much of organized Christianity returned to its insular and provincial instincts by neglecting the best of the church founder’s inspirational teachings. Evangelical White Christian nationalists took command of most Protestant narratives while a conservative male hierarchy assumed control over the prevailing Catholic narrative. The hard right subverted compassionate spiritual missions to turn religion into a transactional political tool.

In a way, this was a mini-version of the old Orwellian nightmare. The world was turned upside down where up became down, black became white, war became peace. Most importantly, religion became a weapon to rationalize greed and racial animus while villifying and even attacking the very victims of institutional oppression. I can find nothing supporting such a perspective in the New Testament.

This is not surprising. Thoughout history, the narratives that govern our essential institutions (religious organizations being important examples) have reflected entrenched paradigms supportive of existing political structures. Religious orthodoxy tends to reflect and justify extent imbalances of both power and treasure. And so, it is not surprising when religious leaders gather around the most depraved piece of human garbage to live in the White House in order to heap egregious praise on our chief pathological narcissist.

Conventional religious leaders, in the main, do well when they reinforce popular prejudices, not oppose them. That is business as usual. Still, I am appalled when those who evoke the name of Christ the most simultaneously reject his core message with such considered ease. Odd, is it not?

……….

Another recent event caught my attention. The new democratic- socialist mayor of New York was sworn in recently. During his inauguration, he revisited an assertion made by former Democratic President Bill Clinton during his 1996 State of the Union address. Bill asserted that ‘the era of big government is over.’ This reflected his preferment for what was known as the third-way approach to politics and to governance. Bill thought there might be areas of compromise with the opposition even as Newt Gingrich was seeking total power for Republicans in an increasingly hyper- partisan political world. He sought to appeal to those purported to reside in the middle of the political spectrum. It was a noble, if futile, gesture.

This got me thinking. One successful aspect of the default narrative governing political thought in recent decades runs like this … bigger government means inefficiency and, more critically, the loss of personal freedom. That assertion seems reasonable but is it axiomatically valid?

I don’t have time for a complete argument here. But I will make one observation. President Reagan reframed our American approach to government by asserting some 45 years ago that government is not the solution to our problems, it is the cause.

Arguably, his argument was questionable. After all, there were many things of which America could be proud at the time. Our public debt was reasonable. Poverty and inequality were at historic lows. Our education and other essential systems were the envy of the globe. Most importantly, upward social mobility was feasible. I am an example of that and, trust me, if I could move up the socio-economic ladder then literally anyone could. However, that would be true only if the public sector offered opportunity-sets conducive to personal mobility, as it did in my youth.

The new paradigm introduced by Reaganomics was a cyclical and devastating pattern of starving public resources, then eroding the quality of the public services supported by these resources. Then, conservatives would blame the victims themselves for what amounted to a systemic rape of our service systems. The dissatisfaction with starved public services inevitably would be blamed on excessive spending and government incompetence.

The solution was always the same … even less government and more spending cuts. At the top of the response list to any crisis was a conservative favorite … cut taxes, especially on the wealthy. Trump’s tax cuts and the DOGE fiasco at the start of his second circus a year ago are examples of the latest rounds of such insanity.

Back to the original question, is less government better? Forget all the global metrics showing America is now lagging far behind its peers in handling poverty and inequality, falling behind in health and education outcomes, and now lagging in our long- touted national claim to fame of upward social mobility. To be even-handed, I might note that all is not negative. Less government, in fact, is very good for some … the uber wealthy.

A quick analysis … the top 400 Americans were subject to an effective tax rate of less than 24 percent by the end of Trump’s first term. At the same time, the typical U.S. tax payer was subject to a 30 percent hit on their income (all taxes). In fact, the richest 400 families paid less taxes than fully half of all their fellow Americans. Warren Buffet was correct when he noted that he pays proportionally less in taxes than does his secretary.

The weirdness of our situation becomes more striking when only federal income taxes are examined. The top 400 get hit with a meager 8 percent tax bill, well below the 13 percent paid by working class stiffs. If the uber-wealthy paid just the rate we impose on working Americans, we would collect well over $500 billion in needed revenues, with some estimates approaching a trillion dollars. Think how we could reduce the national debt if we restored a progressive tax system. Think how much we could invest in science, in education, in health, in our infrastructure, in emerging technologies with these added revenues.

So, does the average Joe enjoy more freedom with less government. Think about that proposition for a moment. Fewer services and public oversight permits an oligarchy to run things. Inequality in the U.S. has never been higher. It would be foolish, if not dangerous, to assume that the new economic titans who command ever more control over the essential institutions (media, justice, education, health, etc.) will function in the interests of the common man. I know of no examples where this fantasy has been a reality. Do you?

……….

I have more random thoughts, quite a few more, but I will stop now. I hope to generate more succinct statements in the future, starting now. That won’t always be easy since I suffer from a well-known affliction … diarrhea of the brain and fingers. But my intentions are good 😌.