The last time I wrote about this, 2016, we had just elected Trump to his first term. Somehow we survived, chose not to re-elect him to a second term, had four years of relative stability, then exhibited the most common symptom of insanity by repeating an action and expecting a different result.
I will give him this, we are not engaged in any active combat at the moment, but it would seem he desperately wants to try out the effectiveness of his renamed Secretary of War department by starting his own. (A bigly, better war. They say it’ll be the best war we ever had.)
We now find ourselves acting in the manner of enemies we long despised, where someone in the military chain of command orders a second strike to kill wounded combatants (I’ll grant the assumption for now, absent evidence to the contrary) in clear violation of the rules of engagement.
We have a President who supports the Secretary of War’s assertion that the decision for the second strike did not come from him, but from a field commander instead. This raises important questions about accountability and the chain of command in our military actions. There is no denial of the order. No announcement that this field commander has been relieved of duty pending an investigation. Nothing.
And keep in mind, while the designation of these alleged drug runners may be lawful, it does not mitigate the rules of engagement. Even if we assume the initial strike is lawful, no one has ever claimed these vessels posed a danger to the military assets engaged with them.
No one was shooting back at the Navy and one would be hard pressed to claim that two likely wounded men floating in the ocean posed any hazard to a 100,000 ton displacement aircraft carrier. They wouldn’t have even left a spot of the hull had they been run over by the ship (which would have been a less messy explanation of their demise.)
“Come to heading 250,” “Aye aye sir,” Bump! “What was that?” “I didn’t hear anything” “Sir, there’s a small red stain on the hull.” “No worries, we’ll paint it later”
2028 is on the horizon. Let’s hope we regain our senses before then. A new President, not a recycled one, will (hopefully) take office. We have frightened the world enough for this cycle.
I write quite a bit about religion and the objections to it that I’ve developed over the years. My objections are not about religion itself, but the insistence on the dominance of one over any other.
When religion is defined “as an interest, cause, belief, or activity that is intensely or passionately held to,” or, “to turn to or adopt an enlightened course of action or point of view,” I have no quarrel.
Under this definition, embracing science as an enlightened course of action is a form of religion. There are distinct differences: science revises its texts when new evidence is uncovered, whereas most religions insist their holy texts are not to be refined or updated.
My main issue with what most people would consider religion—Christianity or Judaism in this country, Islam in others—is the insistence that theirs is the only true religion and that there is a being who is the eternal overseer, has us under constant surveillance, and can intercede on our behalf if one engages in an appropriate level of worship, recites prayers seeking this intercession, and accepts the results, no matter what happens, as a “mystery.”
And in particular, when they insist on defining this country as a “Judeo-Christian” nation as if that is somehow both necessary and beneficial.
Now, to engage in one of my favorite practices, the Devil’s Advocate (which, under the title of Advocatus Diaboli, was once a position within the Catholic Church), I’d like to talk about some of the known benefits of embracing religion and misconceptions as well.
Study of the Benefit of a Religious Upbringing
In 2018, Harvard University published a study in the American Journal of Epidemiology that demonstrated that being raised with religious practices had a positive effect on early adulthood. (“Associations of Religious Upbringing With Subsequent Health and Well-Being From Adolescence to Young Adulthood: An Outcome-Wide Analysis,” Ying Chen and Tyler J. VanderWeele, American Journal of Epidemiology, online September 13, 2018, doi: 10.1093/aje/kwy142)
“Participating in spiritual practices during childhood and adolescence may be a protective factor for a range of health and well-being outcomes in early adulthood, according to a new study from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Researchers found that people who attended weekly religious services or practiced daily prayer or meditation in their youth reported greater life satisfaction and positivity in their 20s—and were less likely to subsequently have depressive symptoms, smoke, use illicit drugs, or have a sexually transmitted infection—than people raised with less regular spiritual habits.” https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/religious-upbringing-adult-health/
I would argue that these religious prohibitions on certain activities are a temporary measure, effective until one matures into a rational being. Religion then serves a diminished, or perhaps even an unnecessary, purpose.
Study of the Efficacy of Prayer
1998. Herb Benson, a cardiologist at Harvard, led what became known as the “Great Prayer Experiment,” or technically the “Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP). (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/)
The study consisted of three control groups. A control group (no prayer) and two groups that received intercessory prayer from various Christian denominations. The two groups receiving prayer differed: one knew they were being prayed for, while the other did not.
“Complications did not vary as a function of prayer. But 59% of those who knew they were being prayed for experienced at least one complication compared with 52% who received no prayer, a statistically significant result. This might reflect the creation of unrealistic expectations from knowing one is the recipient of prayer and experiencing stress when those expectations are not met.” (https://www.templeton.org/news/what-can-science-say-about-the-study-of-prayer)
What does this mean? I suppose that would depend on one’s perspective. At a minimum, it challenges the belief that inexplicable things must be the work of an interested or faithfully petitioned god.
Perhaps it is the pageantry of religious ceremony in our formative years that provides a benefit. As I am writing this, I am listening to a mix of Gregorian Chant and Handel’s Messiah, works inspired by faith. No one can resist being inspired by the sounds of Plain Chant or the Alleluia Chorus from the Messiah echoing in a magnificent cathedral.
And I can still recite the Mass in Latin and remember the cue to ring the bell.
I think believing in something beyond one’s understanding isn’t necessarily bad, unless one insists, by persuasion or force, that others adhere to the same concept.
I have a good friend I’ve known since the 8th grade. Kent Harrop is a retired minister who fully embraces his faith. He and I once collaborated on a blog called the Heretic and the Holy Man, where we discussed our different perspectives on faith in a civil manner. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I’ll leave it to you to figure out which of us is the heretic.
I would encourage you to read Kent’s writing. He often turns me back from the brink of total dismissal of organized religion through his well-crafted words. Now that I am back in New England, I plan on attending one of these events. I hope Ken won’t mind if I go with the Fish and Paddle version.
Embrace your religion however you see fit, be fervent in whatever faith you embrace. But remember, no one path, not religion or science, has all the answers, and we are all seeking them in our own way.
We live in a time of chaos with a President whose behavior mirrors that of a petulant child rather than a statesman. The Oval Office, once a symbol of dignity and deliberation, becomes a stage for tantrums, impulsive decisions, and self-serving theatrics. The “childish miscreant” is not merely immature; they are dangerous in their recklessness, wielding power without restraint or reflection.
Want to make America great again? Then recognize that the single greatest threat to the success of that goal is sitting in the White House like Jabba the Hut.
If you agree with his policies (why and how do you even articulate his T.A.C.O. gyrations), then find someone with a modicum of civility and put them in the position. This poisoned tongue, inarticulate, uncouth, uncivil, unkempt, unkind, uncaring, unrefined, unsophisticated, unintelligent, unworldly, inept shell of a human is an embarrassment to this country, to the world, and to humanity.
The terms idiot, imbecile, moron, and their derivatives were formerly used as technical descriptors in medical, educational, and regulatory contexts. They have fallen out of favor, but I think we need to resurrect them to accurately describe the individual currently occupying the Oval Office.
There is something seriously deranged with that man, and more consequently, with any individual who can, with a straight face, ignore, tolerate, or justify the unmitigated idiocy of the verbal projectile vomit expelled from his mouth.
This poisoned tongue, inarticulate, uncouth, uncivil, unkempt, unkind, uncaring, unrefined, unsophisticated, unintelligent, unworldly, inept shell of a human is an embarrassment to this country, to the world, and to humanity.
Joe Broadmeadow
That anyone, A N Y O N E, in this country can stand silent in the face of him calling their fellow human beings retarded, piggy, stupid, or any other epithets is abhorrent. There is no justification, no rationalizing, no mitigating the damage this causes.
That anyone voted for this man after he openly and publicly mocked a handicapped individual is disgusting. And for those evangelicals out there who find it convenient to embrace this man because he echoes (but doesn’t practice) what you want to hear, I hope, should your belief turn out to be true, that you’re working on your defense for when your God asks you to explain your tolerance of this most unchristian behavior.
Those who either laugh it off as Trump being Trump or think it harmless are enablers. Those who are shocked by it but remain silent are cowards. Those who embrace it are the lowest form of life in the universe.
Suppose a high school freshman were to call someone retarded, or piggy, or stupid in front of the entire school, or mock a handicapped person. In that case, they’d be suspended in a heartbeat. But if you’re the President of the United States, using these terms against those who disagree or challenge him is somehow acceptable.
Until everyone in this country recognizes this boorish and uncivilized behavior for what it is and challenges it, this country will never be great again.
One of the most striking differences between the United States and Britain is the level of religiosity paraded in the public square.
In England, which has an official church and a monarchy in which the King is the titular head of the church, religion is almost a sidenote in public discourse.
In the United States, which, by our Constitution, is a secular nation ostensibly devoid of any official religion, the faithful seem determined to infect and infiltrate every aspect of our public and private lives.
We are a Christian nation, they shout, apparently never having actually read the writings of the men who crafted the Constitution or noticed that, not once, is the word god in this founding document.
One would think that, if we are a “Christian” nation, god would at least merit an honorable mention. This fallacy of our founding causes unrelenting difficulties in our lives.
Government functionaries demand the right to refuse to perform their duties based on a faith-based objection to other lifestyles.
Companies demand to refuse health care coverage for their employees that provides contraception.
A significant majority of Republicans insist on the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal money to fund abortions, being included in any revision of the Affordable Care Act. An objection substantially based on religious grounds.
I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government.
Joe Broadmeadow
School boards seek to post the Decalogue, a fundamentally Judeo/Christian set of proscriptions by their god, as a sound basis for improving the educational environment.
Those who support these actions see it as their moral duty and an exercise of their First Amendment right to free speech. When the Free Speech argument fails because their speech is tantamount to hate speech and bigotry (God Hates Fags is one example), they rely on the religious freedom argument.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I believe the government has no business in religion. I would also argue that religion has no place in government.
But what about morality, justice, fairness, the religious might argue? We need religion as a moral guide. I would argue the opposite.
Herein lies the problem.
Every act by the government in enacting laws, defining criminal acts, and ensuring the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should be based on open and frank discussions, empirical evidence, and a sound consideration of the benefits and costs of such legislation.
Yet when it comes to religious practices, we defer to the faithful simply because it is a religion. We offer a presumption of respect for the practice absent any offering of a basis in fact.
Suppose someone believes, as part of their doctrine, that offering a prayer is necessary before engaging in a sports competition or beginning their school day, or that they cannot engage in some aspect of their job because their religion tells them they cannot. In that case, we just accept that without restriction.
Why?
Why is it that we cannot question the validity of a religious doctrine or practice simply because it is part of a religion?
Why is it that we must accept practices or behavior that impact secular existence simply because some religious doctrine demands it from its adherents?
Why is religion never subjected to the same rigorous analysis or dissection of its foundations or presumptions in the same manner as we would question a proposal for a change in the law, or medical treatment, or the tax code when it directly impacts the public?
Why is religion entitled to any respect simply because it is a religion?
Why is it that we cannot ask this question? Can you prove your religious doctrine is the inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent immortal being?
It may well be impossible to offer such proof, which in and of itself should be enough to discount it, but I think this is still a valid question.
By this point, I know the Christians are up in arms, screaming about this as another example of the discrimination heaped upon them. They are joined by the Jews and Muslims in this outrage, although each group believes the others are worshipping a false version of god.
If someone came to a school board meeting and said their son or daughter needed to sacrifice a lamb before they could take to the football field or basketball court, no one would consider denying such a request as prohibiting the practice of religion.
We would consider it a prevention of animal cruelty and curbing insanity.
Or, even more dramatically, if an individual were seen brandishing a knife over their bound child on an altar, preparing to slit their throat because they were instructed to by an unseen voice, would we stand idly by and just say, it is a command from god?
I think not.
Why is praying to an invisible being, variously defined by myriads of sects and faiths in distinct and conflicting ways, any different?
Having traveled quite a bit, I’ve been exposed to a variety of religious practices. In Morocco and Turkey, whenever I saw someone laying out their prayer rug in response to the call for prayer, it seemed strange to me.
When I encountered Buddhist Monks in Thailand and Vietnam, their incantations and manner of dress seemed exotic.
Yet, if I were to encounter a nun or priest wearing the habit or the Roman collar, it would hardly raise a notice. This is just a matter of familiarity and the fortunes of geography, which is more determinative of religious upbringing than any special validity of the particular faith.
Since the Enlightenment, we have made steady, if inconsistent, progress toward a more rational existence. Science has become the sound basis for almost all human progress.
Most religions recognize this, even if a bit reluctantly. They stopped burning heretics for stating the Earth revolves around the Sun, for example. They also update their interpretations of their “holy” texts to accommodate the new information.
The scientific method works because it is based on skepticism, the ability to recreate or refute the contentions of a hypothesis, and the constant verification and validation of any developed theory.
The three primary religious texts in our world, the Torah (or Pentateuch), the Bible, and the Quran (interestingly enough, all essentially plagiarized from earlier texts), are often used as the basis for arguments about the free exercise of religion and its applicability to secular matters.
Yet these works are rarely, if ever, subjected to thoughtful, thorough analysis of their origins or basis before acceptance. Instead, they are offered, with various levels of interpretation, as proof of the religious tenets.
Why?
If a school board wants to post the Ten Commandments in classrooms, shouldn’t we expect a demonstration that these were the word of god?
If a person wants to wear a T-shirt that says “There are Only Two Genders” because their faith demands it, shouldn’t they have to demonstrate the source of such commands?
The case above, L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, is an excellent example of how religion is a form of child abuse. While I admire the stand taken by the fourteen-year-old boy who wore the t-shirt to school, his indoctrination into the Christian faith began long before he was able to make any rational judgment or choice. This practice, taking innocent children and subjecting them to religious indoctrination before they reach the age of reason, is, in my view, an act of abuse.
What would happen to most religions if we let children grow to the age where they can intellectually choose to accept or reject their parents’ religious faith? I think everyone knows the answer to that.
The call to prayer sounds strange yet I often listen to Gregorian Chants, an artifact from my own indoctrination.
I think much of the fervor for these religious positions is the result of this early involuntary indoctrination. We should demand more than fervent belief before we accept something as a valid position.
Suppose a company wants to refuse health care coverage to employees because their faith opposes contraception. Shouldn’t there be something offered as proof for the origin and validity of the contention?
Where is the line in the sand where religious beliefs and practices cross from embracing a harmless philosophy into a dangerous practice capable of causing significant harm?
While sacrificing goats and one’s own child because you believe your god compels you to may be extreme examples, they are all well-detailed, and accepted as fact, in the very texts the religious would have us use as the basis for morality and practices in the public square.
Embrace your religion in any way you see fit. Argue, based on that faith, for the morality or immorality of laws and practices in public life. But if you choose to submit that faith or religious texts as the very foundation of the argument, you should be prepared to offer evidence of their validity, origin, and rational basis.
You may sincerely believe your god is well pleased by the aroma of burnt offerings. I think we need more than your faith before we accept, unchallenged, these practices in our secular world.
I am fascinated by the various versions of AI currently flooding the market as the solution to everything.
It can write a Best-selling novel, a promotion guaranteed report for work, manage your finances to make you a billionaire, and, perhaps, someday, kill us all and replace us.
So I decided to give one system a little test and ask it a simple question.
Who is Joe Broadmeadow?
I found out things about myself I never knew. Here are some of the highlights.
“· Career: He served for over 20 years with the Warwick Police Department in Rhode Island, rising to the rank of Captain. His career provided him with a deep well of real-world experience that heavily influences his writing. · Expertise: His roles included commander of the department’s Bureau of Criminal Identification, commander of the Detective Division, and he was involved in numerous major criminal investigations. This gives his crime novels a strong sense of authenticity. Career as an Author After retiring from police work, Broadmeadow channeled his experiences into writing. He is known for: 1. Crime Fiction Series: · The Harrison “Harry” Starbird Mystery Series: This is his primary fiction series. The protagonist, Harrison Starbird, is a retired Rhode Island State Police detective who keeps getting pulled back into complex cases. The series is praised for its realistic portrayal of police work and its Rhode Island setting. · Titles include Slight of Hand, Collision Course, A Flicker of Light, and Echoes of Silence. 2. Non-Fiction True Crime: · He has co-authored several well-received non-fiction books with his wife, fellow author and retired police sergeant Carolyn Broadmeadow. · Their most famous work is Killing Johnny Fry: The End of a Notorious Career Criminal. This book details the dramatic 1994 shootout and killing of a violent, long-sought criminal, an event that was a major case in Rhode Island law enforcement history. · Another notable non-fiction book is The Phantom of the River: The True Story of the Murder of State Police Sergeant James Leyden. 3. Other Writing · He has also written standalone thrillers, like Silenced Partner and Illusion of Power. · He frequently contributes to blogs and writes articles on topics related to writing and law enforcement.
As you can see, I apparently did not serve on the East Providence Police as I have long believed, nor is my wife’s name Susan.
It got one title of my nine books correct. But, on the positive side, I have several new titles to consider.
So instead of scrolling through Facebook or Snapchat, put your name into a AI system and find out what you’ve been doing in a parallel universe.
Under the guidelines of our new gunboat diplomacy in the war on drugs, a bit of a contradiction rises to the forefront. I am hoping some of the stalwart supporters of the President can explain the situation.
If you are SUSPECTED of being a drug dealer in a boat in international waters we will terminate you with extreme prejudice.
If, however, you are a CONVICTED DRUG DEALER like LARRY HOOVER, who once headed one of the most violent street gangs in Chicago (the Gangster Disciples, a gang that caused a significant amount of the murders and violence endemic to the drug trade which Mr. Trump would like to address with military force) you get a pardon.
Here’s the language from the petition by the Justice Department opposing the petition for a Supreme Court review of Hoover’s trial and conviction.
After a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, each petitioner was convicted of drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846. Hoover, Shell, Howard, Strawhorn, and Wilson were also convicted of engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 848(a); two counts of using minors to further a drug conspiracy, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 861(a); 15 counts of drug possession and distribution, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1); 20 counts of using a telephone to facilitate a drug offense, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 843(b); and one count of using a firearm during and in relation to a drug offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 924(c). In addition to the conspiracy count, Edwards was convicted on three possession and distribution counts, 19 telephone counts, and one firearm count; and Branch was convicted on two counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Each of the CCE defendants and Edwards was sentenced to life imprisonment; Bradd was sentenced to 292 months’ imprisonment; and Branch was sentenced to 324 months’ imprisonment. Apart from vacating Branch’s sentence and remanding for resentencing, the court of appeals affirmed. Pet. App. 1-17. 1. Beginning in the early 1970s and for many years thereafter, the Gangster Disciples sold cocaine in Chicago, Illinois, and the surrounding area. The gang used violence when necessary to protect its territory from incursions by rival gangs. The gang also employed minors armed with guns to provide security for gang members. Hoover was “chairman of the board” of the gang; Shell was Hoover’s second in command; and Howard was the third of the gang’s “directors.” Below them were several “Governors,” including Wilson and Strawhorn, each of whom was responsible for supervising the distribution of drugs in a specific geographic area. Governors supervised “Assistant Governors” and several “Regents,” and each Regent oversaw the work of several “coordinators” and “soldiers.” Edwards, Bradd, and Branch were “deeply involved” in the activities of the gang. The gang had approximately 6000 members and grossed approximately $100 million annually. Pet. App. 2; Gov’t C.A. Br. (Hoover) 2.
And then there’s this guy, Jonathan Braun. Another convicted drug dealer whose sentence was commuted by Trump in 2021, before Mr. Trump had to be dragged from the White House. Braun had been a high-ranking member of an international group that smuggled more than 100,000 kilograms (220,460 pounds) of marijuana from Canada into the United States, federal prosecutors said at the time.
Braun was sentenced to 27 months behind bars. The Long Island man had been accused of swinging an IV pole at a hospital nurse and threatening to kill her, screaming at a member of his synagogue, groping his family’s nanny and evading bridge tolls.
I bet, once Mr. Trump finds out this new charge involved groping the family nanny (is that even a crime?) a new pardon will be on the way.
Can someone explain the logic, or lack thereof, for these striking contradictions?
Never mind, such idiocy and disingenuous actions are simply par for the course (which is another thing he never actually achieves through honest actions.)
In one of the better examples of how failing to understand history can lead to repeating the same mistakes, we have this.
1960 The Catholics are Coming; The Catholics are Coming.
2025: The Muslims are Coming; the Muslims are Coming
This latest baseless hysteria arises from the election of Zohran Kwame Mamdani as Mayor of the City of New York.
In 1960, many saw John F. Kennedy as a threat to America because he was Catholic and would be subservient to the Pope. I’d love to hear Marilyn Monroe’s take on how strict a Catholic Mr. Kennedy was, but she is unavailable.
Before Kennedy there were other examples of hysterical fear based on race, national origin, or other unchangeable aspects of individuals.
No Irish Need Apply
Whites Only
And here we are amid an administration, set on widening the gaps between those who agree with their policies and those who are horrified by them, doing everything it can to fuel this raging inferno of ignorance and intolerance.
And the good ole’ evangelical Christians are right there leading the ‘moral’ charge. The “all men are created equal” line in the founding documents be damned,
I would venture to say much of this fear and loathing arises from those Christians who—having never actually read the Bible, or even a Cliff Notes version—fail to embrace the nuanced allegory of religious doctrines and went right to the inerrant word of God version. They are driven by the same religious hysteria that caused the Crusades, witch hunts, and the stoning of heretics.
And they add the finishing touch of wrapping themselves in the flag of patriotism.
That they cannot see the contradiction in their proclamations is astounding.
“Mamdani is a democratic socialist!” they scream, making the same mistake as those who embraced McCarthyism, lumping the propaganda-driven definitions of communism and socialism and bundling them into one. Given the challenge to define either term, they’d fail. Most would point to countries like Russia, China, or North Korea as examples of communist or socialist states.
They are not. In the history of the world, no true communist or socialist state has ever existed.
Communism is defined as,
“a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned, and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.”
Socialism is defined as,
“a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”
Some aspects of these systems sound attractive; the problem is that every form of government involves people, and they are not naturally inclined to live in such systems.
Democratic Socialism is defined as,
“Democratic socialism is a socialist economic and political philosophy that supports political democracy and some form of a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis on economic democracy, workplace democracy, and workers’ self-management within a market socialist, decentralised planned, or democratic centrally planned socialist economy.”
Not if you can set aside your fear-based revulsion of socialism, and take a step back, you would see we have a blended version of a socialist democracy. We have a free-market economy with many restrictions and controls in place. Just a brief look back in history at the abuse of labor by big businesses, the monopolies created in some industries, and the environmental damage done absent legislated controls will demonstrate the reality.
Whether Mr. Mandami is a Muslim, a Christian, or a non-believer does not, by our laws and practices, matter. All that matters is he follows the laws and rules of government in setting policies.
Whenever I hear the nonsense claims that “sharia” law is coming to New York, I find it hard to believe there are people who believe such idiocy. Then again, many of these are the same people who would welcome a Christian-based government imposing Christian-based rules and morality on the nation.
They are blind to their own hypocrisy. But, just in case, they are investing some money in a Pakastani company that exports hijabs.
Some want to cast all SNAP beneficiaries as a drain on the economy by lazy grifters. Reality paints a different picture.
On average 28-48% of SNAP recipients report earnings in the prior month, 80% in the prior 12 months.
Wait, they’re working AND getting benefits? Yes, because they earn under the maximum income to qualify. For a family of 4 that is $2680/month take home pay. The poverty level in 2025 is,
Single: $15650
Married: $21150
Family of 4: $32150
Thus, the MAXIMUM amount they can earn to qualify is only $10.00 higher than the poverty level.
To put the minimum social security benefit in perspective (based on years of coverage rather than average earnings), a family would receive a monthly payment of $1642 if one worked thirty years.
This all relates to the decades’ long decline in lower wage earnings (with a corresponding rise in corporate and executive compensation) and, most recently, a decline in college-educated wage earnings, a first in history.
To put this in perspective, the current Federal minimum wage is $7.50. Working full time would earn $15,600 (lower than the Federally designated poverty level.)
But wait! Minimum wage was never intended for adults, right, they argue. It’s for kids working part-time jobs. Okay, let’s double the minimum wage to $15.00 per hour. Full-time employment generates $31.200 in income, still below the minimum poverty level for a family of four.
Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage should be $26.00 an hour, putting these things in perspective. I’m not arguing it should be raised to that, but it should be considered when discussing why we have such a need for programs like SNAP to aid people who work. A need equal across all the states, red and blue, in a country with a Thirty Trillion-dollar GDP. The largest economy in history.
SNAP funding is not the problem. The fact that such need exists in this country with a government unwilling to face and address the real cause is the problem.
Whenever the weather permits, which around here is quite infrequent, I try to take advantage and get some photos of Deep Space Objects (DSO) or the planets. One of the aspects I miss from Arizona was in the three years we were there, we might have had three nights where the weather prohibited being outside. But it is what it is.
As the weather now cools, one of the bonuses of our new location is a large gas fire pit. This offers two benefits. First, it keeps me warm while the cameras gather the light from millions of light-years away, and second, it offers a view of something humans have gazed at for eons, the plasma flame, to consider things.
Hidden within the flame is the essence of the universe.
Thus, I can be relatively comfortable while I wait to gather the images that produce these finished pictures.
It struck me that the fuel burning to produce the flame likely derived from the remains of dinosaurs that were alive when the light from some of these stars and objects first began their journey to end up captured by my camera.
I was literally enjoying both the beginning moment and end times of this light.
NGC 4631
This image of NGC 4631, taken over 50 minutes of 10-second exposures, shows the light from that galaxy that left around 50 million years ago during the Eocene epoch. This was when many of the predecessors of modern mammals thrived.
It was likely that I was converting the atoms of carbon and hydrogen, formed in the nuclear furnace of the first stars, that once were inside the cells of living creatures, alive when the light from this galaxy first left the system, and sending it back out into the universe as heat.
Or at least sending it out after it kept me warm.
Quite frankly, sitting under the stars renews my faith in the future. When one considers all the cataclysmic events that had to come together for the atoms within all of us to travel the immense distances they did and evolve into the beings we have all become, it would seem nature has better things in store for us than just some of the nonsense we seem to focus on daily.
We should all take a moment, on a dark, cloudless night, to look up at the stars and remember that is where we all came from and where we will all return.
Remember, man, that thou art dust and unto dust thou shalt return. Momento mori.
A lightly sarcastic post on Facebook about the ineptness of certain members of the Trump administration, illustrated with an image of the Three Stooges, brought an unusually virulent torrent of criticism from those who blindly and enthusiastically support this administration.
Now I enjoy these moments, but I thought I should explain the facts and reasons behind the sarcasm and criticism of the administration.
These individuals rising to the defense of the President seem to be thrilled by the specter of the American military being tasked with blowing up boats, ostensibly trafficking in narcotics, with little evidence other than a few war whoops from the Secretary of War and similar chest pounding by Mr. Trump.
So, let’s play devil’s advocate here.
Assuming these boats are transporting drugs—and in all likelihood they are, but that is beside the point—how effective will this policy be in interdicting the flow of narcotics into the United States?
Here are some interesting facts from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
According to ICE, 95% of Fentanyl is seized at Points of Entry (P.O.E.). The overwhelming majority of which are land-based border crossings or airports.
Of the Sea-based routes, 75% are Pacific Marine Routes.
China plays an integral part in providing precursor chemicals to Mexico, where the majority of Fentanyl is produced and then smuggled into the US through P.O.E.
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year were caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points, and that trend has continued.
While other means are certainly used, including boats offloading offshore and coming in under cover of darkness, the statistics are a good indication of the preferred methods of smuggling.
Because most fentanyl seizures occur at ports of entry, the majority of fentanyl is smuggled by people who can enter the United States legally. These individuals can evade detection by posing as normal travelers entering or re-entering the United States. As a result, transnational criminal organizations tend to recruit U.S. citizens, who receive the least scrutiny on entry.
From FY 2018 through FY 2024, over 92 percent of all fentanyl was seized either at a port of entry or at a Border Patrol vehicle checkpoint.
Importantly, fentanyl seizures peaked in spring 2023 and have been declining since. CBP fentanyl seizures hit record levels in April 2023 at 3,220 pounds. Although the exact reason is not yet clear, seizures fell nearly every month after that, and by March 2025, had dropped to just 760 pounds. This drop in seizures occurred almost entirely at ports of entry, with nationwide Border Patrol fentanyl seizures in April 2025 (133 pounds) remaining at roughly the same levels as April 2024 (140 pounds) and April 2023 (137 pounds), despite dramatically fewer migrant crossings.
Evidence suggests that less fentanyl may be coming into the country because there is less demand for it in the U.S. as opioid overdoses fell dramatically in 2024, with official CDC data through November 2024 showing that overdose deaths dropped in all but two states (Arizona and Hawaii). Should these trends continue, it suggests the worst of the fentanyl crisis may be behind us.https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/fentanyl-smuggling/
This policy of targeting drug boats in international waters focuses on the least common method of smuggling drugs into the country. Perhaps, if one can believe the information from DEA and ICE, by not stripping resources away from P.O.E. and redirecting them to capturing Walmart shelf stockers and McDonald’s hamburger flippers, we could focus on the routes delivering the overwhelming majority of drugs to the US and, perhaps, catch more Americans who are active and willing participants.
Mr. Trump’s administration may lack many things, but creativity is not one of them. They crafted a convenient end run around domestic law and inconvenient principles like Posse Comitatus and designated organizations like Tren de Aqua as terrorist organizations and declared them as enemies engaged in attacks on US sovereignty.
In this particular instance, I agree with them. When Nixon declared drugs to be “public enemy number one” and started the War on Drugs campaign, it was anything but a war. Like other failed policies with good intentions, it lacked a clear purpose, a clear method of application, and a clear goal.
It was never a war.
Mr. Trump’s designating the issue as one of armed aggression against the United States is a wise one, but it shouldn’t be the basis for derailing our system of justice and, at the very least, should operate under the rules of war.
The United States, unlike many other nations, always weighs the value and purpose of a military action against the risk to innocent civilians. The history of the world reflects very few countries that do so. Yet even the United States resists some limits imposed by well-articulated international law.
One of those is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This defines the principle of self-defense in international waters. UNCLOS+ANNEXES+RES.+AGREEMENT
The principle of self-defense under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter only allows the use of force against an imminent threat. It is hard to see how a drug-laden speedboat in international waters hundreds of miles from U.S. territory posed an imminent threat to the United States. (Interestingly enough, the US Congress, despite decades of lobbying by other Presidents and supporters, refuses to ratify this treaty.)
With the level of surveillance sophistication available to the military, tracking these boats to our territorial waters, then interdicting them by whatever means necessary, including destruction, would not only be lawful but also offer the kind of proof needed to justify the actions.
And maybe, in our on-again off-again relationship with China, our on-again agreement on trade can be expanded to get the Chinese to cooperate in stopping the flow of precursor chemicals.
Thus, my criticism and sarcasm are based not on the method or goal of this policy, but that they are focusing on the least effective methods and areas at risk. And the process and willingness to ignore accepted military and civilian law enforcement protocols is clearly un-American.
Why, you might ask, should we care about some smugglers getting blasted out of the water when it is clear they are trafficking? Because if we are willing to accept that blurring of the lines, where does it end?
The Founding Fathers were wise in devising our form of government. Power is not concentrated in any one branch. If we allow one branch to ignore that balance, and subvert the equal parts of government, we face a reduction in our rights and an inexorable march toward totalitarianism.
In simplest terms, you can blow up all the boats you like, twelve miles off the coast, as long as you follow our laws.
“Fortunately, I keep my feather numbered for just such an occasion.”
The Writing of Joe Broadmeadow 