Lift Up Your Hearts!

(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3)

Rescue the Republic—Join the Resistance

My heart is full.

I still wish I could have been at the event in person. I was not even able to be glued to the livestream, as we were for most of Viva Frei's live coverage of Canada's Freedom Convoy; life was just too busy here on Sunday. Nonetheless, I managed to listen to quite a bit of it as I went about my business, once we got home from church. And I've been slowly catching up on what I missed, now that DarkHorse has most of it available in convenient, bite-sized pieces. In a subsequent post, I intend to publish some of my favorites, so you can easily watch them for yourselves, but if you want to see any or all of them now, you can find them at the DarkHorse link, in more-or-less reverse chronological order.  You could even see the whole event, from the pre-beginning to the closing song, all seven hours of it, here.

Rescue the Republic was a good mix of serious speakers, comedians, and musical groups; I even enjoyed the music, which may surprise some of you, given that it is not what I'd call "my kind of music." And whoever could have dreamed up the idea of putting Jordan Peterson and Russell Brand on stage together? It was magic.

The whole admixture was magic. It wasn't a Trump rally, although there were plenty of Trump supporters among both the presenters and the crowd. There was a large contingent of Kennedy supporters, and those who cheered loudly at any mention of Tulsi Gabbard, and plenty of folks who came not to support a particular candidate but because they are deeply concerned about the situation our country finds itself in. It wasn't a rally about individuals, but about issues.

Nor was it only Americans, because what happens in America affects the whole world. When Brand opened with "My fellow Americans," the line didn't get as much of a laugh as it deserved; not everyone realized at first that Brand is from the United Kingdom. And Peterson of course is Canadian.

Kennedy's slogan, "Make America Healthy Again" was more prominent than "Make America Great Again," though MAGA was well represented. I suspect that most of those at the rally will indeed be voting for Donald Trump (and the foreigners wish they could), because they see him as our best chance in what is probably the most critical election in my lifetime—but that was not what the event was about.

The rally, to the best of my ability to tell from this distance, was a huge success. It was nothing of what I feared, and everything I had hoped for—and more. It was just the right sized crowd, too.

As I watched the livestream, I was at first disappointed that I didn't see the Mall overflowing with a huge, supportive mass of people. But it didn't take me long to realize that this was a human-scale crowd, and it was perfect. A place for encounters with people one might otherwise never have rubbed shoulders with, a crowd as diverse at the speakers themselves, united because they all care so deeply and know they have very important work ahead of them.

Do you know what else I saw?

Joy.

Real, deep joy, in both the crowd and the speakers. I refuse to let the Democrats take over that word, or that concept. I'm sorry, but when I see them talking about "joy," they don't look joyful; they don't sound joyful. It appears forced, as if they're trying to generate a feeling they know is important but with which they are actually unfamiliar. Similar to the difference between the scripted "Joe Biden, we love you" and the love I see demonstrated at Trump rallies.

For all that the Rescue the Republic Rally was about a profound, life-and-death emergency, there was no feeling of doom-and-gloom. It makes me think of Henry V and Agincourt:

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accursed they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

I fear that those unfamiliar with Shakespeare may misconstrue some of the language, but he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother perfectly describes the unity-in-diversity, joy-in-adversity feeling of the rally. These are my kind of people.

My heart is full.

I saw it most dramatically in the Democratic Party's response to President Biden's debate performance, this total disconnect with reality, followed by an abrupt and dizzying volte face. How could they not have known about his cognitive decline, which had been obvious for years, and why was it so suddenly a matter of national panic? (I've already written about that.)

When it comes to our country's economic situation, the same phenomenon has occurred. We go for years and years of ever-increasing prices, obvious to anyone who does his own grocery shopping, or fills up his own gas tank, or has to find his own place to live, and the government officials tasked with keeping us informed insisted there was no inflation, could be no inflation, inflation was a thing of the past.

Jobs? They insisted that unemployment was down, and job creation up. The people knew better—we knew that high-paying jobs were still going away; it was low-paying service jobs that made up the bulk of the deceptive numbers. We knew that what looked like good employment numbers was actually people taking on second or third low-paying jobs in order to make ends meet.

We were told again and again that the job market is good, there's no inflation, and the economy is robust. But with a reversal as sudden as the evaluation of the state of President Biden's mental faculties, inflation is now a critical problem, the unemployment numbers are frightening, and the economy needs to be saved. (By the same people who have been managing it for almost four years now?)

How is it that there is now panic over something that so many of us have been worried about for years? Where have these people been?

(As an aside, how is it that Vice President Harris thinks we should trust her to "fix" the housing problem, when she bears responsibility for adding nearly 10 million people to the population pressure of those who need housing?)

That's a long introduction to this video interview, from August, with Jeremy Tucker. He has a good grasp of economic theory and reality, and is worth listening to. However, it is long (over an hour), as too many interviews are. There is a full transcript below the video, for those who prefer text.  Here's an introduction:

Just one set of numbers, released on Friday morning, showing a small increase in the unemployment rate, completely shifted the attitude in Washington, Wall Street, and the mainstream media. We went from celebrating a booming economy and the absence of inflation to suddenly believing that a recession is probably already here. The world seems to be falling apart, and panic selling begins. It’s an overreaction, to say the least. First, the data is already a month old, so the recession didn’t just happen on Friday. It was from the previous month. Secondly, the numbers weren’t particularly bad compared to the past. It has been obvious to me and many others for at least two years, if not longer, that we never fully recovered from the lockdown period. Worker participation ratios and labor participation rates are still below 2019 levels.

When we analyze the jobs data, we see a growing gap between the household survey and business payrolls, indicating potential double counting in the establishment survey. This gap never existed before, but now it’s widening. It’s becoming more extreme, with one set of data dropping and the other rising. This has been happening for several months over the past year.

Additionally, there have been revisions to the jobs data every month. For example, they would initially report 220,000 jobs, but then revise last month’s 190,000 jobs down to only 90,000 jobs. Where did those jobs go? It seemed like all the jobs were being pushed forward a month and taken out of the previous month’s count. There have been illusions in the data all along. I lost interest in the headline unemployment numbers because they don’t include discouraged workers or account for people who have dropped out of the workforce. The unemployment data only counts those who are actively looking for jobs and can’t find one. While that number may be relatively low, it doesn’t mean a healthy job market.

In other words, the job market has not been healthy for a very long time. There was something that shattered the psychology of denial on Friday morning. It had something to do with Wall Street and the attachment of Main Street Media to the headline unemployment number. Once that news broke, everything else crumbled, and suddenly someone shouted, “There’s an elephant in the room!” and chaos ensued.

That's only a taste. Even the transcript is long, and technical in places, but is a good introduction to the sleight-of-hand that our government has been using to play with the economic numbers on which so much depends. And not just the current administration, either, though it's increasingly egregious.

(Part 1) (Part 2)

Rescue the Republic—Join the Resistance

It's almost here!

Rescue the Republic: Join the Resistance will run from 12pm-7pm on Sunday, September 29th. 

The stage will be located northeast of the WWII Memorial (east of 17th Street) and open viewing will extend all the way to the Washington Monument. The program will consist of a mix of musical artists, comedians and thought leaders who alternate in a fast-paced program.

I have too much going on to sit glued to the livestream tomorrow, but I hope to check in now and then, and then listen later when I can.

Why am I a bit nervous? Because this is so important to me, and I know that (1) large events, especially ones about which people may have strong feelings, attract bad actors and false flag operations; (2) petty thugs without any political feelings whatsoever are tempted by crowds of any sort to engage in unpleasant activities; and (3) even the best of audiences can sometimes be swept along by irrational action. (I believe that when President Trump stood up after the Pennsylvania assassination attempt, showing himself alive and well to the crowd, that action was a major factor in keeping both fear and anger—and likely more injury—to a minimum in the crowd.)

Why am I so excited about this? Excited enough that despite my intense dislike of crowds, I wish I could be a part of it? Because for the first time in many years I am feeling the unity in diversity I experienced so many times in my younger days, when I was a part of several minority movements that attracted people of a wide variety of political, social, religious, and demographic backgrounds. People who enjoyed and learned from each other as we worked together for a good cause that was more important to us than our differences. I miss that, a lot. And among the people who are participating in this rally—many of whom I would never have thought I would have rubbed shoulders with, even metaphorically—I'm finding the same joy.

In the following clip, if you listen from 1:09:10 to 1:24:25 (15 minutes) you will hear Bret Weinstein, one of the organizers, acknowledging the risks of holding such a rally, and expounding on the critical importance of the potential benefits. Please listen, especially if you are feeling fed up with the whole political process and are tempted to sit this election out.

I've discovered that very often when I am impressed by an Epoch Times article, the author turns out to be Jeffrey Tucker. Here's another one: "The Undying Necessity of Moral Courage." Please be sure to read as well my comment at the end of this post.

Tucker is a realist, and the article starts out depressing, with a reiteration of insights from Joseph Schumpeter's book, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (1942). But it ends with a bit of hope.

I keep going back to this treatise for guidance in our strange times, mainly to better understand the interaction of economics, politics, history, and culture. His outlook is probably best described as transideological; a partisan of capitalist systems, he was not optimistic about human nature itself.

You can see the entire work as an elaboration on the following principle sometimes attributed to the Stoics: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And weak men create hard times.”

Yes, capitalism works. Manna falls as if from heaven, and people are no longer taught its source through any lived experience. Better lives, richer lives, more opportunities rain down on the population as if by magic.... What does this do to human character? It trains people to believe that the ancient virtues are no longer operational. We don’t need fortitude, resilience, courage, and determination. A credit-soaked world no longer needs thrift, prudence, or sobriety. Instead, rising wealth of the sort we’ve experienced since the late 19th century trains people just to go along for the ride. Careerism replaces courage. Credentials replace talent. Erudition replaces wisdom. Indulgence displaces prudence.

States come to believe that they can promise their populations anything and that normal accounting has been superseded. They create giant cradle-to-grave welfare states. They intervene in every conflict, domestic and foreign, as if there are no limits to resources. The culture celebrates recklessness, sloth, and opportunism instead of discipline and fortitude.

Schumpeter was even more correct than he knew. In 2020, the wealth seemed so automatic, so inevitable, so indestructible, that most nations in the world actually set out to shut down their whole economies in a new science experiment in disease mitigation, all while they waited for labs to roll out some magic cure that turned out to not work. ... And how did most people respond? They went along.

People’s lives absolutely fell apart. Arts, culture, mainline religion, and so much more fell apart. Major media lined up to push official messaging. So did Big Tech. The upheaval utterly changed the functioning of life itself. It was a fiasco for the ages, and guess what? Weak men did indeed create hard times, and those have hit everyone very hard today. 

All of this is backdrop to the real crisis of right now, and you know the substance of it: It is a political crisis now illustrated by an attempt on Donald Trump’s life. He was spared by the grace of God: a sudden turn of his head toward the screen caused the bullet to slice off the top of his ear but miss his head. ... But the story does not stop there. Having been shot at and bleeding from his head, he rose to his feet and rallied the gathered crowd while promising to fight on and urging others to do the same. As security forces got him away from the violence, he fist-pumped the air one more time and then left.

(I took the photo from the article; the attribution is AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

In our times, we’ve rarely if ever seen anything like that. Those who said he was a mere actor, influencer, opportunistic politician, or businessman on the make saw a different man when faced with mortality itself. He exercised resilience, fortitude, and moral courage, all those ancient virtues that are so ill-practiced in our times but which ultimately drive history. Most people I know, even those who completely oppose his politics, are still in awe of that scene. It rocked the world and made history.

We ... are so accustomed to a culture of inauthenticity ... that it is startling to witness an authentic display of genuine fearlessness in the face of death. If I may say so: We needed this. Desperately. We all needed to remember and know that it matters.

All politics aside, our times have deprecated and driven out the old virtues and toughness along with it. I’m convinced that an authentic display of exactly that is precisely what the world craves right now. We need it more than ever in our lives. Otherwise, we will continue to go the way that Schumpeter predicted, straight to the doom he foresaw for Western culture.

From what I have observed over the last 70+ years, I can affirm that these points are accurate and important. However, I want to add this: Good times do, indeed, breed weak people; for one thing, they allow us to survive and procreate. But they also provide the stability and means through which art, culture, and creativity can flourish.

I must study Politicks and War that my sons may have liberty to study Mathematicks and Philosophy. My sons ought to study Mathematicks and Philosophy, Geography, natural History, Naval Architecture, navigation, Commerce and Agriculture, in order to give their Children a right to study Painting, Poetry, Musick, Architecture, Statuary, Tapestry and Porcelaine. — John Adams

It is also true that there is no inevitability about the idea that individuals are determined by their times. Bad times bring forth heroes, flawed and broken as they may be, in greater number—but they also provide unusual opportunities for villains. And there's no reason why the good, the strong, and the virtuous can't flourish during times of ease and plenty, albeit that it takes firm intention, deliberate practice, and self-discipline. I look at our family, friends, and neighbors, and see much to give me hope.

There is a lot about the Ukraine, and Ukrainian history, that we don't know. I remember that shortly after we became involved in the current war, a wise, knowledgeable, and well-travelled Swiss friend remarked that he couldn't understand why the United States would get involved; he saw little difference between Russia and the Ukraine, and did not think it any of our business—to get mired in such a dispute would be plain foolishness on our part.

Well, when has that ever stopped us? All the wars in my own experience, beginning with Vietnam, have been characterized by (1) Pre-war meddling, on our part, in the internal politics of one or more of the countries involved; (2) Ignorance, at the highest levels, of the history and culture and customs of the peoples and places we were fighting; and (3) An unaccountable tendency to avoid at all costs either losing or winning, but to drag the conflict on and on, at great expense and loss of life. Our involvement in the Ukraine—which goes back much further than the most recent conflict—is just another in a long line of inexplicable American policies.

I recently came upon an e-mail written by my father in May of 1994. I doubt it sheds any light on our present predicament, but provides a quick snapshot of the Ukrainian situation thirty years ago. My father had not, to my knowledge, been in the Ukraine himself, but he had visited not only Poland, but also Yakutsk in Siberia, through the Elderhostel program (now called Road Scholar).

I want to quote from a letter I got from one of the couples who was in Poland with me. After their Elderhostel, they did some more traveling in Poland and then went to the Ukraine to try to find some of the roots of their daughter-in-law. They went to Kiev and Ternopil and they wrote their observations of both Poland and Ukraine. As far as Poland is concerned, they concluded that in spite of lots of problems, Poland will make it. This is a conclusion that I would not argue with. But as far as Ukraine is concerned, they wrote:

Ukraine is a much different situation. They used to have jobs and some stability in their lives. Now their government is gone and nothing has replaced it. The infrastructure is crumbling. They don't know who is in charge. There are no experienced emerging leaders. They have a temporary currency, and they don't know what it will be worth tomorrow. Factories are shutting down; unemployment is rising. The people are very despondent. They are losing hope.

That is the sort of situation that can lead to all sorts of problems. As I recall, Ukraine declared its independence when the Soviet Union collapsed, as did Yakutia. But I saw no such problems in Yakutia when I was there. On the other hand I am not sure that Yakutia tried to be as independent as Ukraine.

The Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) was recognized as such in 1992. It is the largest republic in Russia. Whatever Yakutia may have tried for in the way of complete independence, Dad was probably right. Despite high levels of poverty, a miserable war draining Russia's economy, and an awful climate, I suspect they are still in considerably better shape than the Ukraine.

The following is from CNN. If you want the information from a news outlet with a different political perspective, you can easily find it. It is essentially the same wherever I look, with varying degrees of concern being expressed but the same story.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told CNN that Ukraine’s request to use long-range missiles on targets inside Russia is part of his “victory plan,” that he is due to present to US officials next week.

Zelensky has been pushing Ukraine’s allies to ease restrictions on weapons and although there have been signs of the US shifting its stance he said they are yet to be given the go-ahead.

“We do have long-range weapons. But let’s just say not the amount we need.” Zelensky said Friday, adding that “neither the US nor the United Kingdom gave us permission to use these weapons on the territory of Russia.”

Speaking to journalists, Zelensky blamed the allies’ hesitation to authorize such use on escalations fears.

Escalation fears? And rightly so! Zelensky wants us to authorize the use of American missiles to strike deep into the sovereign nation of Russia, and he thinks we shouldn't be concerned about how Putin would react?

How would we react if Putin should supply Cubans with missiles and authorize them to use those missiles on the United States? Oh, wait—haven't we seen this already? And avoided World War III by the skin of our teeth and the courage of a Russian Naval officer?

We have been overtly and dramatically poking the Russian bear over the Ukraine for more than two years, including crossing Russia's "red line" by encouraging NATO membership for Ukraine. Actually, we've been messing with Ukraine's politics for a lot longer than that, though most Americans (including me) only became aware of it in early 2022.

Are we so divorced from the natural world that we have forgotten how unwise it is to tease a bear? Let not the one who encourages another to repeatedly provoke a bear think that he himself will escape when the bear turns wrathful.

It is the height of hubris to believe that America can flirt with World War III and remain unscathed. I acknowledge that sometimes a wise, bold, and decisive move made in the right way at the right time can bring about a strategic victory, but that opportunity has passed. It's only my opinion, but for what it's worth, I believe Russia and the Ukraine could have worked out a settlement early on if we had not been encouraging Zelensky and the Ukrainians to believe they could actually win all they want from this war. It's true that a much larger power can sometimes be defeated by persistence on the part of the smaller party and indecisiveness on the part of the more powerful one (e.g. Vietnam and Afghanistan), but the cost—in lives, land, infrastructure, and resources—is unspeakably great. A prolonged war only enriches the wrong pockets.

Consider:

• The United States military is not in a position to win a direct war with Russia, without resorting to terrible—and illegal—weaponry. I'm sorry to say that, and I mean no disrespect to our military personel—at least at the lower levels; I think less of the top brass and the politicians who are making our biggest decisions. But we are insufficient in hardware, personnel, and morale. Our only hope is that Russia is worse off, which it likely is at this point, but that makes it all the more likely that Putin will step out of the bounds of conventional warfare.
• That part about being insufficient in personnel? Perhaps only one who has lived through years of military conscription, as I have, can truly understand the horrors of a draft, the internal damage it causes a nation, and the blessings of an all-volunteer military. I don't see an out-and-out war being fought, let alone won, without a march larger military than we have, and that means conscription. Are we prepared to sacrifice our sons (and likely, this time, our daughters) in a fight that never should have been ours in the first place, if there is any reasonable way it can be avoided?
• We are pouring untold billions of dollars into Ukraine aid, of which over 100 billion directly aids the Ukrainian government. (See this article from the Council on Foreign Relations for details.) Leaving aside all issues of how much is lining corrupt pockets, and how much is sleight of hand in which the U.S. is getting rid of outdated equipment in hopes of being able to replace it with newer technology, that's still an incredible amount of money that we don't actually have. We are saddling our children and grandchildren with an enormous debt burden that makes their impossible college debts look like pocket change. (Side question: Does anyone even have pocket change anymore?)
• Ignoring the critical point that we are spending money that's not ours, and the fact that a massive influx of governmental money often does more harm than good—still, what progress might we have made if we had spend even a small fraction of that (albeit nonexistent) money on (for example) clearing our air and water of dangerous chemicals; supporting childhood cancer research (woefully underfunded compared with other cancers); strengthening our national security by encouraging small farms and businesses, protecting our farmlands and natural resources, building up and protecting our infrastructure, and bringing critical manufacturing back to the United States? (I'm all for international trade, but not at the expense of our independence.)
• By our actions, we have forced Russia to strengthen their ties significantly with countries that view us as a common adversary, China and Iran in particular. That's not good. I'll take a trade war over a war with bombs any day.
• By our heavy involvement in the Ukraine, we have set our relations with the Russian people back decades. They may be upset with Putin for continuing this war, but for certain they are upset with America for what our sanctions have done to them. And rightly so. We had been booked for a visit to Russia in the fall of 2020, and I expected to experience the warm welcome that our friends had enjoyed on their own visits to the country. Thanks to the worldwide, ill-advised panic over the covid virus, that trip was postponed—and later cancelled because of the war. Even if we avoid WWIII, I don't foresee living long enough for relations between Russia and the United States to heal sufficiently for tourist traffic to resume. My father enjoyed his trip to Russia in 1993, when he was my age, and perhaps my grandchildren will have a chance in their later years; I hold no such hope for myself.
• How is it that we care so much about the border between Russia and the Ukraine and so little about the borders of our own country? Our fentanyl and organized crime crises alone are orders of magnitude more important to the American people than which country rules the Donbas.
• I'm starting to believe that the events that mean so much to me, brought home forcefully during our recent trips to Berlin (the Fall of the Berlin Wall) and Gdansk, Poland (the Solidarity Movement), did not please everyone in our country. There appear to be those who very much miss the excitement (and profit) of the Cold War days.

This coming Thursday, President Zelensky will meet with President Biden to push for a green light to send our long-range missiles into Russia.

Regardless of whatever your political opinions may be, if you are a praying person, please pray for this meeting, and for his additional meetings with Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. I am more concerned about the possibility of unthinkable war than I have ever been—and I lived through the duck-and-cover days.

One of my favorite Substack people (Heather Heying, Natural Selections) wrote this in her article entitled, "It’s an Upside Down World, and You’re Living In It."

I used to be a Democrat. Two of the things that I did that felt democraty include:

I bought as much of my food as possible at farmer’s markets, and got to know the farmers who grew my food. I bought organic, and avoided GMOs. When given a choice, I bought food that was grown closer to how it had been before humans got involved—cows that had spent their lives grazing outside, coffee grown in the shade on farms with canopy trees, tomatoes and strawberries picked at perfect ripeness, transported as little as possible, eaten fresh and raw.

And I refused pharmaceuticals except when absolutely necessary—the notable exception being vaccines, which I barely questioned until Covid raised my awareness. Over the counter drugs were no better. The rule of thumb in our house was: the longer it’s been on the market, the more likely it is to be safe. Aspirin seemed like a pretty safe bet, as did some antibiotics, in moderation. Everything else? Buyer beware.

I still do these things. My behavior was always informed by an evolutionary understanding of the world, a fundamental preference for solutions that have stood the test of time (e.g. beef over lab-grown meat), and wanting as little corporate product and involvement in my life as possible. Such behavior just doesn’t seem democraty anymore. It seems like the opposite.

In response, I wrote the following.

For decades, I have been saying that the Republicans need to reinvent themselves as the party of human-scale life. Seeing Trump and Kennedy together call to Make America Healthy Again gives me more hope in that direction than I've had in a long time.

Your beautiful, healthy approach to living felt Democrat-y to you, but in my life it has always been embraced by a mixture of folks, from hippies to conservative Christians, who shared a love of what we saw rejected by mainstream society: children and family life; non-medicalized childbirth and homebirth; the critical importance of breastfeeding; independent and home education; the belief that children can be far more competent and responsible than we give them credit for; small businesses; small farms and natural foods; the superior flavor and health benefits of raw milk and juice, pasture-raised animals, and organically-grown fruits and vegetables; homesteading and preserving/restoring the land; reclaiming heritage breeds and seeds; and a deep concern for the environment that was called conservation before it was taken over and ruined by the environmentalist movement. 

If the Republican Party will truly embrace and fight for these values, I will in turn be thrilled to have finally become a Republican after 56 years a Democrat. The beginning of the end of my complacency with the Democratic Party was discovering the party's intense opposition to homeschooling—despite the fact that so many of the home education pioneers were radical liberals in their day.

Home education may have been the beginning of my disaffection, but the disconnect between the Democratic Party and the values I thought were their priorities became more and more obvious, accelerating at a most alarming rate, to the point where I agree with Dr. Heying again:

The democrats are claiming that they’re on the side of the little people. The only proper response to such claims is this: No. No you are not. Stop lying. And: No.

Republicans, this is your chance. Don't blow it by infighting, nor by sabotage from within. Reach out to the Independents and disaffected Democrats—like Dr. Heying, and RFK Jr., and Sasha Stone...and me—who are reaching out to you, willing—eager—to put aside our differences long enough to do the really hard work of seeking and saving that which is rapidly being lost.

Rescue the Republic—Join the Resistance

As promised, here is more about the Rescue the Republic rally. A graphic of their foundational ideals,

and the line-up of their speakers/entertainers. The link takes you to the whole list, of which I recognize and respect almost half. The bigger names include: Bret Weinstein, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Russell Brand, Jordan Peterson, Tulsi Gabbard, Charlie Kirk, Matt Taibbi, Robert Malone, Pierre Kory, and Heather Heying.

I'd love to hear them all, even the people I don't recognize. I'm expecting that their talks will be recorded and made available to those of us who can't be there. I confess to this weakness: I love live events if they're small and I can sit down while I'm listening; standing up in large crowds and listening over loudspeakers, less so.

Of course, the purpose of being there wouldn't be so much for the entertainment as to support the cause. But as I said, at least I bought the t-shirt. Unfortunately, it's not expected to be delivered till mid-October, so I'll have to show my support post-facto.

I'm not the kind of person who attends demonstrations, or pretty much any large-crowd events. I went to exactly one major rock concert in my life—Jefferson Airplane, at the Rochester War Memorial, when I was in college. I took it all in stride, but it certainly was not an experience I wished to repeat. When I lived in Philadelphia, I attended one Phillies game (in Connie Mack Stadium!), and one Sixers game, but if and when I attend sporting events, I much prefer smaller venues. Preferably with family members on the field.

In 1968, I stood in front of a movie theater with other Democrats and waved a sign and handed out flyers for Hubert Humphrey; about a decade later I joined other prolife demonstrators lining the streets of Rochester, holding signs and cheering the drivers as they expressed their solidarity. I'm pretty sure that was the extent of my activism; I mean, I was a college student in the early 70's, and never protested the Vietnam War, nor burned my bra, nor participated in a single sit-in! I was in college to learn, and hopefully not waste my parents' money and my time.

Large-group events, especially protests, can be dangerous places. You can find yourself unintentionally in the middle of a counter-demonstration with bad blood between participants. You could be caught up in a false-flag operation designed to cause trouble. If you were merely an open-mouthed spectator in Washington, DC on Epiphany, 2021, you could find yourself in jail, and if you were in Tiananmen Square at the wrong time in 1989, you could find yourself dead.

No thank you. Not my thing.

However, there have been two recent events that I really wished to attend in person. One, the Canadian truckers' Freedom Convoy and celebration/protest in the middle of a frigid Ottawa winter.

The other is yet to come: The Rescue the Republic - Join the Resistance event in Washington, DC on Sunday, September 29, 2024. That's only 10 days away!

No matter what you may think you know from mainstream media about the Freedom Convoy and subsequent events in Ottawa, I can pretty much assure you it is wrong. We watched hours and hours of Viva Frei's live, man-on-the-street coverage of every day of the Ottawa part of the event, and it was the most beautiful, most diverse, and most peaceful event I've ever seen or heard of. It was awe-inspiring, and I've given it a whole category to itself here.

The Rescue the Republic—Join the Resistance rally has the potential to be just as remarkable.

I have much to say about this event, such as the philosophy, the goals, the lineup, and what other people have had to say about it, but I'll space it out over several posts, hoping to avoid the TL;DR effect. If you're too curious to wait, there's a lot more at https://jointheresistance.org/.

Why is our Republic worth preserving? What is the West?

At its heart, it is an agreement to distribute opportunity as widely as possible. Today, the foundation that makes up the West is under attack. This moment demands radical change and requires liberals, conservatives, and independents of every color and creed to unify to rescue the West.

Let’s come together to celebrate the essence of what makes America and the West so special. A message of peace, love and unity is at the heart of this celebration.

Rescue the Republic: Join the Resistance will kick off at 12pm on Sunday, September 29th.

The stage will be located northeast of the WWII Memorial (east of 17th Street) and open viewing will extend all the way to the Washington Monument. The program will consist of a mix of musical artists, comedians and thought leaders who alternate in a fast-paced program.

Barring some extraordinary, unexpected event, we won't be able to be there in person, even though I'm pretty sure that if we lived in the DC area I'd conquer my aversion to crowds to be part of what I hope to be a great moment in history. At least I've done the really important part already:

I bought the t-shirt.

This is a partial post that I began in December 2016, and have neglected ever since. Whatever other commentary I was going to add is lost, but this much I believe worth preserving, particularly because we were visiting a major Northeastern city (the major Northeastern city) less than two weeks after Donald Trump was elected president of the United States.

Porter extended our usual family Thanksgiving get-together in Pennsylvania by arranging a five-day visit beforehand to New York City. It was an awesome visit. First of all, for the people. Coming so soon after the election, it was delightful to find everyone so polite, considerate, and going out of their way to be helpful. Yes, this was New York City! Having had our stereotypes of Venice shattered, I shouldn’t have been surprised. Even a multi-racial discussion about the election itself, which we overheard in a local restaurant was calm, reasoned, and willing to give others the benefit of the doubt. Willing to give Donald Trump a chance.

We stayed in three different hotels during our stay. This was for financial reasons, but also gave us the opportunity to experience different parts of the city. Our first hotel was the most interesting, being located in the middle of an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood, where almost all signs were in Hebrew, and we stood out as much as we had among the Gambians during our visit to that country earlier this year. I think we were the only non-Jewish guests in the wonderful little hotel. From that Jewish neighborhood we easily walked to our dinner at a Muslim restaurant: Senegalese, where the food is similar to Gambian food. When we arrived, it was just closing for a private party, but the owner kept a section open for us when he learned why we wanted to eat there.

No one understands genealogists. People get all excited when I say we saw Hamilton, but their faces fall when I pull out my photos of his grave. A visit to NYC would be incomplete without a spot of research at the NY Public Library, and if the time was too short (as always), it was productive.

Except for that, strolling through Central Park, and a moving walk around the 9/11 Memorial, our visit was focused on museums—and on eating our way around the world. In addition to Senegal, our culinary travels included Indonesia, Japan, Thailand, and India. Sadly, our favorite Korean restaurant had closed. In Chinatown we ate French pastries—and visited a Jewish museum and active synagogue. New York is amazing. Our only disappointment came from the Metropolitan Museum of Art, where the artwork is stunning, but the docent was ignorant and some of the curatorial decisions appalling. Our experience with the Museum’s branch at the Cloisters, however, was outstanding. Two other gems that aren’t on every tourist’s list are the Morgan Library and Museum, and the Frick Collection. I was reminded of the importance of the very wealthy to the world of culture. Not only do they commission art, they preserve it.

Even though incomplete, I think I've covered most of our New York City adventures for that trip. As when Porter was working at NYU back in 2010—and unlike my memories from the 1970's—I felt safe, even on the subway. I'm happy to have visited the city during the few, anomalous years when efforts to keep public spaces safe were largely successful. My friend who lives there paints a different picture now—though as one of New York City's Finest, and a top-notch detective, he might have a somewhat jaded view.

My own view of very wealthy people has also become jaded since 2016. I still think they have done immeasurable good in preserving culture that would otherwise have been lost, and arranging for it to be made available to the common people. But I'm not so sure about the super-rich today; it's one thing to create a museum, and quite another to fund bioweapons labs. But that's another story. I'm okay with building electric cars, developing a space program, and fighting for freedom of speech. I guess it all depends on the person—wealthy or not.

C. S. Lewis said it best:

We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place where you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.

There is nothing progressive about being pig-headed and refusing to admit a mistake. And I think if you look at the present state of the world, it is pretty plain that humanity has been making some big mistake. We are on the wrong road. And if that is so, we must go back. Going back is the quickest way on.

Don't be manipulated. Good advice, but very broad, and hard to follow. This post was inspired by what I have read about "bad actors"—AI bots or paid humans—attempting to sow discontent, anger, and hatred online. The Chinese and the Russians have both been accused of this, with what seems to be pretty convincing evidence, and I fear some of it is also homegrown.

My greatest concern is that Artificial Intelligence is rapidly advancing to the point where we can no longer trust our own eyes and ears, at least where online videos are concerned. It is possible to manipulate images and audio to make it appear that someone is saying something he or she never said. Think what political enemies could do with that! Everything from rigging elections to starting World War III. And you know those crazy spam blackmail threats that claim they recorded you doing "nasty things" in front of your computer? The ones you face with a grim smile and quickly delete because you know you never did whatever it is they claim? Imagine them including a video of you "actually" doing or saying what you did not? What if they show you a candidate for public office in that compromising position? Or your spouse, or your children. What about fake kidnappings? I could go on and on—my imagination is fertile and paranoid.

But that's not where I'm going in this post. AI's not quite there yet, and we have a clear and present danger in the here and now: Angry, profane, and hateful comments posted to articles, videos, and podcasts. Nasty online videos (especially the short form commonly seen on Tik-Tok and Facebook Reels) whose purpose (obvious or subtle) appears to be to stir up negative emotions. And that's just what I see every day; I know there's a lot more out there. It's hard not to have a visceral reaction that does no one any good, least of all ourselves.

And that, I'm afraid, is exactly the purpose of what is being posted. To make us angry; to make us suspicious of each other; to influence our reactions, our actions, our purchases, and our votes.

The best solution I've been able to come up with (and I have no idea how effective it might be, except with me) is this:

• Know your sources. Is this negativity coming from someone you actually know, in person, so that you are aware of the context? Is it from someone you know online only, but have had enough experience with over time to assess his general attitude, reliability, and track record? If not, keep your salt shaker near.
• When in doubt, if the content tempts you to react badly, assume the best: It's a bot or troll whose purpose is to make you angry; or a human tool too desperate for a job to consider its moral implications; or an ordinary human being who has been having a bad day/week/year (doesn't that happen to all of us?). In any case, make an effort not to fall into the trap.
• Avoid sources that usually make you react badly. Unfortunately, I don't think we can afford to avoid seeking information about what is happening in the world. One of the first rules of self-defense is to be aware of your surroundings. But we can be cautious. Even the sources I find most reliable can have nasty trolls in the comment section, so I mostly avoid reading the comments. I'm also trying to wean myself off of the Facebook Reels (mostly ported over from Tik-Tok or Instagram it seems). They can be fun, and funny, and sometimes usefully informative. But they are definitely addictive, and I've noticed that far too many of them are negative, even if humorous, leaving an aftertaste of fear, anger, disgust, and/or suspicion. Not good for the human psyche!
• Consider slowing down? I'm struggling with this one, because of the reality that so much of our information comes in video form these days. Unlike print, in which it is easy to skim for information, to skip over irrelevant sections, and to slow down and reread what is important, and which provides a much better information-to-time-spent ratio, the best one can do with video is to speed it up. I find that almost everything can be gleaned from a video just as well if it's taken in at 1.5x speed, sometimes even 2x. Porter's ears and brain can manage 2x almost all the time. This is a blessing when there is so much worth watching and so little time! However, here's what I'm struggling with: videos watched at high speeds tend to sound over-excited, even angry, when at normal speed they are not. And the human nervous system is designed to react automatically to such stimuli in a way that is probably not good for us if we are not actually in a position to either fight or flee. I don't have a satisfactory answer for this, but I figure it's at least worth being aware of.
• Remember that the people you interact with online are human beings, who work at their jobs, love their families, and want the best for their country, just as you do. Unless they're not, in which case it's even more important not to rise to the bait.

Be aware, be alert, do what is right in your own actions and reactions, and hope for the best. It's healthier for us all.

In the mad scramble to establish whether or not immigrant families are eating people's pets and wild ducks and geese in parks, the obvious answer is being ignored: Of course they are! What world are you living in if you think they can't be?

After the United States retreated ignobly from Southeast Asia, we were flooded with refugees from that part of the world. "Flooded" is a relative word; the numbers I can find vary, but it appears that it was around 125,000 people before we closed our doors except for the purpose of reuniting families. Which, of course, is a trickle compared with the multiple millions of people coming in now, from all over the world.

There were naturally plenty of difficulties settling so many Southeast Asian refugees and integrating them into our communities, but there were some significant differences between then and now that made that process generally successful. 

• Sheer numbers, obviously.
• Comparatively speaking, their entrance into this country was well-regulated.
• As refugees were brought here, they were sponsored by families, churches, and other groups that took responsibility for helping individual refugee families find places to stay, gain employment, learn or improve their English, navigate paperwork, and get their children enrolled in schools. In addition to that, the sponsors provided much-needed friendly relationships, often long-lasting, in an alien and frightening environment.
• Their presence in our country was clearly legal, greatly reducing the refugees' vulnerability to enslavement by gangs, pimps, unscrupulous employers, and crooked cops, lawyers, and judges.
• Again, the numbers. Small numbers of immigrants, relative to the population, can be assimilated and integrated into the host society without causing massive disruption. There is a difference between a summer storm and a category 5 hurricane.

What does this have to do with eating cats? Everything. Even with the relatively small, orderly, and successful assimilation of the "boat people" of Southeast Asia, people are human. They have problems. They lose their jobs, drop out of school, fall victim to unscrupulous predators, are tempted by illegal activities, or can't handle their money well. Especially as time goes on and the social safety net is not so focused and robust. And don't forget that while many of the Southeast Asian refugees were middle class workers who spoke English, many were also "country bumpkins" with no knowledge of Western culture. They weren't stupid people, but they were smart in their own culture; being dropped into an American city made them as vulnerable as I would be if I suddenly found myself in the jungles of Laos.

So some of them were hungry, and they did what hungry people do: they used the skills they had to find food. They fished in the rivers, not knowing and not caring that the rivers were polluted. The hungry belly does not concern itself with mercury levels. They discovered that squirrels abound in city parks, and squirrels make good eating—or so I'm told. Here, we rely on our local hawks to keep the squirrel population under control; back then, refugee families took care of that. I am not making this up.

If you flood an unprepared—and maybe unsuspecting—city with a large population of migrants who do not fit into the culture, who may not even speak the language, and who have no responsible sponsors to welcome them, some of them are going to be hungry. And they are going to do what they have to do to get food.

They're going to help themselves to ducks found conveniently living on city ponds. If they're hungry enough, they're going to eat cats without a second thought for whose pets they might be. Maybe they come from a culture that is too poor to imagine keeping pets and treating them like family members.

Of course they're going to eat pets, and whatever else they can find.

You heard that right. I'm here today to praise the Democratic Party. They may have betrayed my 56 years of loyalty; they may have cut their members off from the democratic process by keeping opponents of President Biden off the primary ballots, or as in the case of Florida, cancelling the primaries altogether so we couldn't even write in an alternative; they may be leading our country to the brink of disaster and beyond—but one thing they have done really well:

As soon as I switched my party affiliation, they stopped harassing me.

True, I would have appreciated a little "we're sorry to see you go" and "what led you to leave us?" rather than feeling as if they were delighted to have me off their membership rolls. It reminds me of my quarrel with Penzey's Spices, which clearly and openly stated that if our political and social views did not align with theirs, they did not care about having our business. Or the church that kicked us out, changed the locks, and cut off communication. It was not a smart response in any of these cases, and certainly not kind—bear in mind that all three of these organizations brag about their supposed compassion—but if they don't want my votes/membership/business, that's their problem.

But I am grateful for this current snub. I did appreciate getting information from all sides in the mail, which I find helpful for making voting decisions. But I resent the intrusive phone calls and text messages, which are now exclusively from the Republicans. When I was a Democrat, they came from both parties. I wish I could say that the volume has been cut in half now, but alas that does not appear to be the case.

It's not going to change how I vote, but I can't deny that this restores in me a tiny bit of gratitude to my former party.

I grew up a conservationist. That's the kind of thing that happens when you live in the shadow of New York's Adirondack Mountains, and your father is a Boy Scout leader who loves camping and hiking, and frequently takes you mountain climbing with his buddies from work. "Forever Wild" gets in your blood.

From before I can remember, I knew how to respect the mountains, the waters, the flora, and the fauna. Dad wouldn't have it any other way.  We subscribed to The Conservationist magazine, and treated the land and animals everywhere else properly as well. It's not surprising, then, that in my teenaged years I was drawn to what became known as the Environmentalist Movement.

That infatuation did not last, as the movement quickly moved beyond saving wild areas and animal habits, cleaning up air and water, and promoting responsible human encounters with nature.  It became political, and extreme; it chose large-scale activism over human scale efforts; and it lost me.

All this flooded back to me when I read "Can American Conservation Survive ‘Green’ Energy?" It reminded me that someone said—it may have been Robert F. Kennedy Jr., for whom conservation is a critical issue, but I'm not certain—"The Democratic Party has focused its concern for the environment on one thing and one thing only:  climate change.  It is now the Republicans who are thinking about habitat destruction, species extinction, the destruction of the land, and our nation's food supply." I'm paraphrasing, of course, but that was the gist of it.

Thanks to our unique history of conservation and a culture of preservation, Americans have, for many decades, taken for granted their access to natural beauty.

Organizations ... founded by concerned citizens serve to champion habitat restoration and protection. Indeed, such was the very foundation of the modern environmental movement spawning nonprofits that advocate for policy, educate, install oyster beds, guard sea turtles, clean woodlands, “save the whales,” remind drone operators about the negative impacts of unmanned vehicles on wildlife, and, of course, constrain or prevent drilling and mining projects to preserve species and habitats.

But now the environmental movement is at odds with itself. The movement’s full-throated embrace of so-called “green energy,” successfully amplified by unprecedented government mandates and subsidies, is leading to habitat-invading and beauty-destroying energy projects at scales that not only rankle onlookers but also those environmentalists still committed to stewardship and conservation—and would shock the founders of the preservation movement.

In California, a 2,300-acre solar project requires destroying thousands of 150–200 year-old Joshua Trees, also the habitat of endangered desert tortoises. Locals object. Officials approve.

Disputes in Maine about where to put massive wind turbine projects pit environmental groups against conservationists intent on protecting wilderness and wildlife. Paradoxically, the state has the nation’s strictest mining laws, precluding any possibility of directly sourcing even a portion of the raw materials necessary to construct the turbines and solar panels slated for deployment to Maine’s electrical grid. [emphasis mine]

Meantime in Vermont a solar panel project that would cover 227 football fields of pristine landscape is being vigorously opposed.

‘Green’ energy policies come at the expense of far greater land and water use. [They] also ignore increased foreign resource dependence and environmental impacts overseas. The production of useful energy, which drives economic productivity, is always about tradeoffs. Americans are unlikely to tolerate increasingly obvious ‘green’ tradeoffs. [emphasis mine]

In addition to affordable cars, air conditioners, and smart phones, virtually all Americans want clean air and abundant, biodiverse seas and wide-open spaces our 19th-century forebearers helped to realize.  You can bet future generations will too. It’s in our nature. And our energy policies and choices should reflect that.