I have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to writing topics these days.
Should I tell another story from my life?
Or take on a controversial topic such as abortion, LGBTQ+ issues, the upcoming election, the literal Trials of our ex-president, Gaza,, Ukraine, sexual morality, ethical morality, organized religion or [shudder] whether the Star Wars prequals and sequels were any good?
I have ideas and opinions that seem to be obviously correct to me, but if I explore them fully I fear offending at least some friends and relatives who subscribe.
I suspect my best course would be to shut the hell up. Better to “remain silent and be thought a fool than speak and remove all doubt.”1
Then again, there seem to be a few people who like to hear what I have to say, even if they don’t necessarily agree with me.
From the view and stats for this newsletter the current number appears to be between thirty and fifty.
Speaking if which, thanks to my five paid subscribers:
JimVV: Thanks. Did we work together a long, time ago in a galaxy far away?
WabbitMagic: Thanks. See you in Vegas next month.
Sedona Sam: Also thanks, and I hope to see you as well in Vegas.
Mary Jo: I know we don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, so thanks for the support.
Last, but definitely not least, Greg: Thanks for the more-than-generous-contribution.
Thanks also to the 47 Free subscribers. Some of you I recognize, others appear to be people I don’t know. Thanks for taking the time to read my maunderings, I appreciate it.
Please tell your friends. Or maybe throw me a buck or two:
In keeping with my desperate attempt to create content this week, here’s a survey:
I’m opening comments up to all subscribers for this column. Please be polite.
Since I’m asking your opinion, how about the weekly audio podcasts I’ve been posting:
Finally, I’ll respond to some feedback from one of my paid subscribers. I won't say who. If it’s OK if I name you in a column please let me know if (hopefully when) you send feedback.
This person said they didn’t think we’d had a good presidential candidate in a long time. They assumed I liked Hillary Clinton since they know I voted for her, but it was more that I have considered Donald Trump to be a con-man and a clown for decades, and have never considered him to be qualified to be dog catcher, much less President of the United States, so I voted for Hillary.
I think his totally chaotic administration proved that he is temperamentally, mentally, physically and morally unqualified. It baffles me that there are enough people in this country who can’t see this that he is now the presumptive GOP candidate.
My commenter went on to say they thought Bill Clinton did a good job, but had a bad effect on societal morals, mentioning that she’s talked to young people who don’t consider oral sex to be sex.
Well, I’m a lot more interested in ethical morality than sexual morality. As long as both (or all) partners in a sexual encounter are consenting adults, it’s none of my business. We can get into teen sex another time. That’s a column in itself.
They go on to wish that more qualified people would run for office, mentioning Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. I agree.
I wish Michelle Obama would run for president, but she originally didn’t want Barack to run, so I doubt we’ll see that ever happen.
They think Trump “is getting away with too much.” We’re on the same page there. But then they use Hunter Biden as evidence of political corruption.
From what I can tell it’s true that Hunter played on his relation to his dad to get access to high-paying jobs he almost certainly would not have been offered if Dad wasn’t a Senator/Vice President/President, but there does not appear to be any evidence that his dad actively participated in Hunter’s schemes.
If there was it would certainly have been brought to light by now.
Hunter appears to be trying to get his life back together. After a tragic childhood he appears to have lost his way, making questionable life decisions, but his dad never gave up on him, even when it would have been politically expedient to do so.
I wish him well in his recovery.
There is a mention of House members and Senators using their positions to enrich themselves. I agree that this is something that needs to be addressed.
I am all in favor of banning members of the legislative branch from trading in individual stocks. They may invest in the stock market through index funds, but allowing them to buy stock in individual companies [or even some mutual funds] creates too much temptation to use insider knowledge.
I also think that there should be full and transparent disclosure of who is contributing to political campaigns. Many large donors are hiding behind super-PACs and other organizations to mask their contributions.
Back in the ‘80s I heard someone suggest that all legislators should wear NASCAR style jumpsuits with patches for every contributor. The more they paid the larger and more prominent the patch. It’ll never happen, I think we need an equivalent website where anyone can go to find out who’s funding who.
The final point made by my interlocutor was that they didn’t like that President Biden signed multiple executive orders when he took office, 25 of them in January 2021 by my count.
Me neither. But a large number of them revoked, amended, or suspended executive orders from the previous administration, possibly reducing the total number of active executive orders. If someone has a source showing the net number of active executive orders in place on specific dates please let me know.
I don’t think this country should be run by executive orders, but at the moment the extremes of both parties (mostly the GOP) are causing gridlock in Congress. Sometimes if Congress won’t act, the Chief Executive must.
So yes, our system is currently broken. But I think it’s fixable.
There is a contingent on both sides of the aisle (more on the right than the left at the moment) that views “compromise” as a dirty word. They’re unwilling to take a half or a quarter of a loaf to move forward, it’s all or nothing.
In general the Progressives on the left can often be persuaded to compromise. However currently the majority of the Freedom Caucus on the right appear to be immovable.
Even Chip Roy, when complaining that he couldn’t campaign for re-election on any accomplishments in the House, was mostly complaining that the House had not forced a government shutdown so the extreme right could get their way.
Government by temper tantrum.
There is even one very recent incident where one side agreed to a bill that they mostly hated to help resolve a major issue, but the other side spiked it because their presidential candidate 1) didn’t want his opponent to get credit and 2) doesn’t want the issue fixed because he wants to run on it.
This has to stop.
See, I did have something to write about. It just took me a while to get in the groove.
If you like this at all please:
If you want to support my efforts and be able to comment you can start a paid subscription 60% off the regular price, $2 a month or one year or $20 per year.
Or send me a one-time donation of a dollar (or more) to SeniorGeek49 on Venmo.
You can find me at any one of these places: